Very scary stuff if a Democrat is elected.........

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,530
Tokens
Campaign Manager Ken Mehlman
Remarks to the Winter Meeting of the Republican National Committee
January 30, 2004

(Remarks as prepared for delivery.)

Over the past three years, our nation has faced many challenges and in 276 days we will face a critical choice.

America suffered the worst attack in our nation’s history and we are engaged in a global war on terror. We will either go forward with confidence and resolve, or we will turn back to a false sense of security while America’s enemies plot further attacks.

Our economy was heading into recession even as the president was sworn into office. And then corporate scandals from the 1990s came to light, undermining public confidence in our markets. While yesterday’s recession is today’s recovery and public confidence is being restored, America must decide whether we keep the recovery moving forward or turn back the momentum of growing prosperity.

When the president came into office, studies showed that one out of three white, two out of three African-American and 58 percent of Latino fourth graders couldn’t read at a fourth grade level. The president responded with the No Child Left Behind Act ushering in high standards and accountability. Will America maintain these high standards and accountability so that every child is learning, or will we turn back?

And this past year, we heard the pleas of America’s seniors for prescription drug coverage and the need to modernize Medicare. The president made history by signing into law a Medicare reform that provides prescription drugs. This election will decide whether America will continue this reform, or turn back.

President George W. Bush and the American people have answered history’s calling. Through forward looking policies, America confronted difficult tests. And with four more years of President Bush’s leadership, the American people will transform today’s tests into tomorrow’s opportunities.

The terrorist attacks of September 11 were not the first time terrorists struck our nation. More than 200 Marines were killed in Beirut 20 years ago. The World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. Our embassies in east Africa were attacked. And the USS Cole was struck off the coast of Yemen.

Back then, many viewed these attacks as unique criminal incidents and left them for law enforcement to investigate.

George W. Bush understood that these attacks were not individual incidents. As he returned to the White House that awful evening of September 11 and flew over the still-burning Pentagon, the president turned to those aboard Marine One and said, “you are looking at the face of war in the 21st century.”

America will be safer and more secure tomorrow because of this administration’s policies today.

As long as George W. Bush is president, the front lines in the war on terror will be Baghdad and Kandahar, not Boston and Kansas City. Soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines will help keep policemen, firemen, EMTs and nurses out of harm’s way. President Bush is taking the war on terror to where the terrorists gather.

We are treating terrorists and those who support, harbor, finance and assist terrorists the same. All are being brought to justice. The butcher of Baghdad is now a prisoner of war, the Taliban hide in caves, and Al Queda’s top commanders are either dead or in custody.

America is leading global efforts to break the links between dangerous regimes, weapons of mass destruction and terrorist organizations. We will work with other nations to accomplish this mutually important goal. But we will not ask for a permission slip before defending our nation from harm.

And, finally, we are confronting terror with hope, fear with freedom.

At home, the president proposed and Congress passed the Patriot Act to provide law enforcement with the same tools against terrorists that for years have been used to bring drug dealers to justice.

And the president transformed the federal government, creating a Department of Homeland Security committed to protecting our borders, securing our airports and coordinating federal, state and local efforts.

In addition to leading a global campaign against terror and strengthening the American homeland, the president is working for a more prosperous America.

By insisting on passing a tax cut every year, including two of the three largest in history, a recession is now a recovery. We must go forward and make these tax cuts permanent.

Next week, the president will send Congress a budget that limits non-defense, non-homeland security spending to less than one percent growth.

Frivolous lawsuits cost jobs, make health care unaffordable and doctors unavailable. President Bush is committed to discouraging frivolous lawsuits.

The American Dream has always rested on the twin pillars of ownership and opportunity. Our president has an agenda to accomplish both: closing the gap between minorities and non-minorities in home ownership, promoting small business development, allowing younger workers to own a portion of their retirement if they choose, allowing seniors to own their own healthcare.

The Wall Street Journal wrote that the president “…has confounded Washington and his media-Democratic critics…He means to accomplish big things, he is risking his capital to persuade the country to support him…” Columnist Mona Charen has described the president as “a profound and great leader who will reshape the world for the better…”

President Bush’s agenda to move America forward is not the only alternative. Americans have a choice on November 2, 2004.

While Senator Kerry leads the Democrat field today, he faces stiff competition from Governor Howard Dean, General Wesley Clark, and Senators John Edwards and Joe Lieberman.

Democratic Views
We’re not yet sure the name of our opponent on Election Day, but already we know that Americans will have a clear choice.

That’s because our opponents agree on an agenda that can best be summarized by one of the two front runners for the nomination, Governor Howard Dean: they want to take America back—backward!

As our economy finally recovers from a recession, war, scandal and attack, every one of our opponents would take us backward 20 years to the economic plan of Walter Mondale. Each of them has pledged to raise your taxes.

As we work to bring democracy and stability to Iraq, our opponents would deny our troops the support they need to finish the job.

Howard Dean has said that America’s military will not always be the world’s strongest. Senator Kerry’s voting record would make Governor Dean’s vision a reality.

We salute Senator Kerry’s honorable and heroic service in Vietnam. But we question his judgment in consistently voting to cut defense and intelligence funding critical to our national security.

Even after the first World Trade Center bombing, Senator Kerry voted to gut intelligence spending by $1.5 billion for the five years prior to 2001. In 1996, he voted to slash defense spending by $6.5 billion. Both bills were so reckless that neither had any co-sponsors willing to endorse his plans.

When Kerry first entered the Senate, he sought to cancel the very weapons systems that are winning the war on terror and maintaining our military strength. He opposed Ronald Reagan’s efforts to fight communism in our hemisphere and opposed the first Gulf War.

Some of our opponents believe that the American commander in chief must receive a signed permission slip before committing troops to defend our national security.

By ignoring real threats abroad and weakening America’s defenses, they’d take America backward to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us.

Kerry, Dean, Edwards and Clark also agree on the need to weaken The Patriot Act, which simply seeks to give our law enforcement officers the same tools to fight terrorists that they have to fight organized crime.

Our opponents, including Senators Kerry and Edwards who supported the No Child Left Behind law, now oppose its high standards and accountability to parents and kids. Our opponents unanimously opposed the bipartisan Medicare reform law and the ban on partial birth abortion, also passed with bipartisan support.

Our opponents are not just united in their plans to take America backward to failed policies and false illusions. Without a positive agenda or vision for tomorrow, each of the Democrats has waged a negative campaign of vicious and unprecedented personal attacks on the president.

They’re not running for president to safeguard America’s homeland and bring peace throughout the world. They’re not running to grow jobs and improve the economy. They’re not running to reform education or to provide health care for America’s seniors. They’re not running to take America forward. The singular rationale for each of their candidacies is to beat our president.

Folks paid a lot of attention to the holler that was heard from the Hawkeye state the night of the Iowa caucuses. But while Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards may not raise their voices as loudly, their rhetoric is every bit as hostile. While our troops were at risk in Iraq, Senator John Kerry compared the commander in chief to Saddam Hussein, calling for regime change in the United States.

Senator Edwards called the president a “phony” and just last night said the president couldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time.

Both Edwards and Kerry regularly divide our country, with yesterday’s class warfare rhetoric of two Americas. And these are the Democrats who claim to be running positive campaigns.

That’s not all: Wealthy liberals, led by billionaire currency trader George Soros, have plotted ways around the campaign finance law to spend more than $400 million in negative ads attacking the president and for a massive get out the vote effort.

Press reports say they’re already half way there. And, ten months before the election, one of the leading groups, moveon.org, publicized two web ads comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler.

But, we must take on their anger, their money, and their challenge. Just as we stood together four years ago to ensure that George W. Bush would lead this nation, we must work to move America forward.

This will not be easy.

We enter this election from a stronger position than we did in 2000. In addition to transforming our nation and world, President Bush’s leadership has transformed American politics.

Since Election Day 2000, the red states have turned redder while the blue states have turned purple.

We made historic gains in 2002: the first time a president’s party gained seats in the Senate and the second time a president’s party gained seats in the House in our first midterm.

For the first time since 1952, the 4 largest states have Republican governors. And for the first time since 1954, there are more Republican than Democrat state legislators.

According to Gallup and Pew, more Americans identify themselves as Republicans than Democrats for the first time in years.

We mobilized our base, brought new voices and faces into the party, cut the gender gap in half and we achieved historic support among Latinos. We also strengthened our grassroots, expanded our 72-hour effort, and we returned to person-to-person campaigning.

But despite this progress, the country remains closely divided. We must expect an election where we will be behind at certain points, particularly after the Democrats settle on their nominee and hold their convention. Our opponents understand the president’s transformational leadership in moving America forward and they want to hold us back.

When we consider the leadership that President Bush has shown over the past three years, the words of Robert Frost come to mind:

"They would not find me changed from him they once knew. Only more certain of the things I thought were true."

We’ve faced incredible challenges and changes over the past three years. But these challenges and changes haven't changed our president. He is just as optimistic today as he was in 2000 of the principles that can keep America moving forward. . . and make the world safe: freedom, opportunity, security.

He's doing his part. Now we get to do ours. It's up to all of us to ensure that this good man remains in office to pursue these great principles.

Nine months from now, we will make a choice.

Between victory in Iraq or insecurity in America.

Between more money in the pockets of families or more power in the halls of government.

Between a nation that respects innocent life and reaffirms the sanctity of marriage or activist judges who legislate from the bench.

And nine months from now, we will choose between a leader of principle who will take America forward or a politician of protest, pandering and pessimism who will take America backward.

After all we’ve been through these past three years, the choice will be ours. Will we keep going forward or will we turn backward? Have we come this far to leave our work unfinished?

While the choice will be ours, the legacy will belong to our children. What kind of world will we leave them? What kind of America will they inherit? Under President Bush's leadership, they will find the world a much better place and America a much stronger nation.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
14,280
Tokens
What's scary? That this Mehlman guy will be out of a job? KMAN, You really are brainwashed, aren't you?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,530
Tokens
What's scary is higher taxes, a weaker military, a weaker intelligence, a weaker national defense department, lowering standards in school so lazy kids can pass their classes, and not holding parents accountable for their children.

KMAN
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
God forbid that our military spending drop from 40% of the world's military costs.

God forbid that is plumit from it's current mark of 26X's the cost of ANY OTHER military on the planet.

I, for one, would be happy to see it slashed to a tenth it's current absurd size. But, then again, I'm not in favor of depending on war-based economy.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
26 times more than anyone else...

Expenditure like that must create a helluvalotta jobs.
The US military is a welfare system that has the approval of right-wing neocons.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,530
Tokens
I just don't understand how you guys are willing to lower your defenses and let things like 9/11 happen over and over again.

icon_confused.gif


KMAN
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
Kman,
Maybe if we didn't have millions of troops scattered ac**** the world provoking every country that won't hand over it's resources then maybe

1. we wouldn't have random people attacking us
2. even if we did, then we'd have our troops here to defend us instead of fumbling around to get a F17 in the air after it's too late
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
8,781
Tokens
No amount of money on national defense can completely protect us from terrorist attacks. Intelligence isn't all its cracked up to be either, I think we have had plenty of examples of that in the last year or two. Our intelligence is good, but it can't do everything and spending more money on it won't make the situation any better. We couldn't get good intelligence into Iraq before, we can't get anyone into North Korea, many countries of the world simply won't let our people in...these are things that throwing money at won't make them appreciably better. As for the national "defense" come on now, who is going to attack us in a way that hundreds of thousands of troops and a myriad of military bases will be needed for??? What is there some secret plan by China or France to invade us soon that I haven't heard about? These are the people that are going to get more money in the budget and I beg to differ that we will be safer if we spend more on them and make their arsenal bigger.

As for taxes, I will continue to say this. Maybe I am biased, but I suspect you should be too KMan. From what I gather you are close to my age (I am 31) and so my prime earning years will be coming up in the next 10 to 20 years. These years are absolute black holes for the American economy. We will have a demographic switch to a huge retirement base and people of our generation will have vast shortages of quality labor because quite simply as an age demographic we are severely lacking. The only way to ameliorate this problem is to allow in more immigrants, but we have a party in power that will do whatever it takes to limit and/or eliminate that possibility. These aren't just idle threats, they are serious issues that every rational person sees...except Bush and his team. They want to saddle you and I and everyone else with a massive deficit that will have to be paid through taxation. No government in our history has shown itself capable of cutting its size or scope significantly, what makes anyone think they can suddenly turn around that awful record? Think about that one, unless you plan on retiring at 35, you will be earning the most money in your career precisely at the time taxation will HAVE to be a far larger burden on the economy than it is now. I am not thrilled at all with this prospect and it just keeps getting worse when the President adds his so called prescription drug cure and energy bills that promises nothing but even bigger unfunded burdens.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,530
Tokens
wildbill - You are right. I am 31 also. Don't you agree that any President in power these last 4 years would have had a deficit?

I think it is very unrealistic to think that we could fight the war against Al Queda, recover from a recession, get past all of the corporate scandals, and make the UN still mean something without having a deficit.

KMAN
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
8,781
Tokens
I agree completely and I didn't argue against the deficit during what clearly was a recession. The problem is that he and his party are using just part of an economic theory as their defense, then completely ignoring the other part. It says quite simply to spend and cut taxes into deficits when times are bad, help move the economy along. Greenspan even backed it and few argued against it. Hence, they were temporary tax cuts. That was the point of it all, pass something temporary with the idea that when things improved we would go back to being fiscally sound. Now he and his party are telling us they lied, they never intended to live up to their deal and then they go further by saying if you are against them, you are for tax increases. What happened there? If you didn't go with them at first you were for recession and now if you don't go with them you are for jacking up taxes. This is pure madness and no way to run a country. When times are bad you can spend to deficit, but you must make up for it when times are good. This administration has no intention of ever living up to that second half of the deal. Promising to cut the deficit in half in five years just sounds like a sorry and empty promise, much like the "temporary" tax cut. They will claim something changed on them and so they had no real responsibility to live up to their promises. Its called credibility and good leaders have it. This President went to Harvard Business School, I think they teach it there. How come he seems to overlook this???
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,530
Tokens
wildbill - So regardless of what the President says, in your opinion, he will not be able to reduce the deficit once the economy is back on it's feet. Yes?

Personally, I am willing to give him a chance. If he hasn't reduced the deficit in the next 4 years, then I think he can be ridiculed.

I think we ought to at least give him a chance.


KMAN
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
8,781
Tokens
Well KMAN, that is what he and Rove hope you think. They got into this with a simple goal, stay 8 years. Its scary to think what exactly he has in mind should he be re-elected. I mean really in a lame duck spot where Rove wouldn't feel obligated to pander for votes with every move, what exactly would Bush pursue? Not to mention, "give him a chance" is extremely lame. I mean we don't elect him and then kick him out if he doesn't do what we expected of him.

I think you need to look at facts and the apparent intent of a candidate. Numerous promise stuff about budget this or that, but rarely do they come through. To a degree as you pointed out the level of deficit often is beyond the control of a President. However, this administration clearly will err to the side of tax cuts and irresponsible fiscal moves just to try to further solidify party strength. That is above all the thing that annoys me most.

You see I am not what anyone would call a liberal. I have voted for far more Republicans than Democrats. I don't particularly like some of what is coming out of the Democrats right now, but I am appalled at what the Republicans are doing. Do good deeds and get rewarded, that is what a democracy is all about. Republicans led by Bush and his team are all about changing the rules and forcing your way in. That is dangerous, it flaunts our history and our tradition to do that.

At the end of the day, no matter who gets elected I don't think the country will change much in the short-term. That is how it is supposed to be, the people get a chance to re-evaluate every few years. However, if the Republicans and Bush continue on their path of trying to rig the system for themselves and their special interests, the country will be affected for a long while trying to extricate itself from the mess.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,530
Tokens
wildbill - I don't know about you but I didn't really follow politics until about 5 years ago. Once I got into the work place and experienced what the world had to offer I started to pay attention. At that point I wasn't a Democrat or a Republican. In fact I voted for Perot in 92/96 (whenever that was) because I thought he was telling the most truth of all of the candidates. As you can see I have turned toward the republican side mostly because of the attacks on Bush by the left. When Clinton was president sure I made fun of him for the whole intern thing but I never wished bodily harm on the guy. Now I get the feeling that most of the Democrats in this country care more about getting Bush out then getting the correct candidate in. I can't understand the hatred for Bush that these liberals have. It's as if Bush has killed their family and they want him to die for it....WTF?

I don't think the liberals understand that I am not the only person they are doing this to. There hatred is turning people away from their party. I wish they would go back to focusing on the issues instead of focusing on making Bush look bad.

Personally, I am thankful for the tax cuts, and it looks like it has helped turn the economy around, yes? Also, I don't understand what you mean by "Bush changing the rules and forcing his way in". What rules? Forcing his way in where? What special interest is Bush trying to rig the system for?

KMAN
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
8,781
Tokens
Oh please stop making me laugh. This happens every time, the party out of power wishes harm on the guy in power. They did it to Clinton, they did it to Carter. The Dems did it to both Bush I and II. You can't be serious that is your reasoning? Well then again you are new.

If you don't know, just go do a little search and find out what Tom Delay got shoved through in Texas and see how he attempted to get 3 other states to do it. In this country we have a long-held tradition, you redo the districting after the census is held. Tom Delay will try to do it every time there is an election and Republicans gain enough seats to shove it down the throats of voters. That is what you call forcing your way into a majority.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,180
Messages
13,565,061
Members
100,759
Latest member
68gamebaiartt
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com