Daily News
Michael J. Fox has made a new ad supporting John Kerry, citing his support for stem-cell research. In the video, available on Kerry’s site, Fox states, “I say lives are at stake and it’s time for leadership. That’s why I support John Kerry for president.” Right to the point–though those saved by stem cell research will only be a few whose lives would be saved by a Kerry presidency.
The economic figures are coming out very soon, and it’s anybody’s guess as to what they’ll say. But there’s little chance that they’ll be anywhere near good enough to wipe out the past four years of mismanagement by Bush and the GOP, whose massive overspending has disgusted many even in the Republican party. In case you’re not aware of it–and you should be before the next debate–you can find Kerry’s plan for the economy here. The bullet points:
- Strengthen the Middle Class
- Stand Up for Workers Rights
- Create Good-Paying Jobs
- Restoring Fiscal Responsibility
- Opportunity for Small Business
- Free & Fair Trade
- Balance Work & Family
Kerry would keep tax cuts for the middle class and add targeted cuts (like those Gore proposed four years ago), while getting rid of tax cuts for those earning over $200,000; he would work to stop the overspending, and if he gets even one house of Congress controlled by Democrats, he’ll have a far easier time of accomplishing that. He’ll focus on creating jobs that pay well through direct incentives, not just throwing cash at rich people and hoping that it somehow makes its way into middle-class pockets; and he’ll really invest in energy-independency, an effort which will lead to many good jobs in and of itself. That and a lot more, including detailed plans; read the page on his site.
And going in to the debate, Kerry has scored a 4-point lead in an AP/Ipsos poll, leading Bush 50-46.
Meanwhile, Bush is beginning to sound desperate–and that’s not my headline, it’s Howard FIneman’s, not exactly a flaming liberal. FIneman describes how Iraq could be Bush’s undoing. Some have opined, however, that Fineman is just trying to lower expectations for Bush for the debate Friday night.
He’s certainly looking desperate to many: he suddenly announced a “significant speech” that he planned to make, stirring up all kinds of expectations, and it turns out that he had nothing new, he just wanted to trick the networks into carrying his stump speech live on TV. That is desperate, when you risk pissing off the networks so close to an election.
Other things not going well for Bush: oil prices hit $53 a barrel, an unprecedented high. Watch the gas prices continue to soar, while the man who said he’d be able to control those prices sits by and does nothing.
And to top it off, a new report came out from Charles Duelfer. Duelfer was hired by Bush when David Kay came out with a report that said Saddam had no WMD and was not a threat to us. This is rather typical Bush fashion: you don’t like the facts, try to find someone who will give you different ones. Well, now Duelfer’s report is due out, and the results are: Saddam had no WMD and was not a threat to us. In fact, Duelfer’s report said that Hussein was a diminishing threat, not a “grave and gathering” one.
Cheney’s reaction: the report justifies the administration’s case to go to war. I kid you not. He’s in full reality-denial mode now, folks. He’s now resorted to using Iraqi abuses of the fuel-for-food program as justification for going to war.
That doesn’t sound desperate, does it?
You are really fast. I was home all day and you beat me to the punch.
Did you hear about the Bush Mystery Bulge, where he may have been wearing a wire at the last debate, “channeling Karl Rove” according to the description at http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/08/bulge/index.html
or http://tinyurl.com/686au
Yeah, I saw that one–but decided not to run with it. When I first saw the debate, I heard the “Let me finish” and even noted it in the blog, but my live blogging was keeping my eyes off the screen (hunt-and-peck), and so I didn’t see it.
When I reviewed it, I saw that he seemed to be saying it to Lehrer, who might have presumed Bush was finishing and might have started to do something to indicate it was Kerry’s turn.
About the actual bump, there’s too little evidence of that at the moment. I would not in the least doubt that he has a radio receiver in his ear–but would he need some device on his back to make it work? And why would they put it there, and not someplace like his jacket pocket or near his beltline, where it would not be spotted?
It just didn’t jibe well enough, so I let it be. Again, not that I doubt he gets fed lines or is cheating in any variety of other ways, but…
Maybe not a big deal, but I see the Fineman article went from being titled “Bush is beginning to sound desperate.” to “Bush vs. the news — President can’t control coverage from Iraq” hmmm…
First off, that isn’t a plan, it is a laundry list of goals. A plan says how you will get there.Visit Kerry’s site like I suggested. You’ll see the details there. If you really want to claim that you’re seriously considering the candidates, then you’ll take a look. But I doubt you’ll really read his plans, you seem to have made up your mind without knowing anything.Are you saying that Bush’s plan:
Is to weaken the middle class?
Is to deny worker’s rights?
Is to create poor paying jobs?
etc. etc.Actually, yes; even if not explicitly stated as such, that is exactly where his policies are going. Weakening the middle class: he shifted the tax burden from the upper class to the middle class. Denying worker’s rights: he has consistently sided with corporations and against the average worker. Create poor paying jobs: under his watch, salaries have decreased, with well-paying jobs being exported willy-nilly overseas where people will do them for lower wages, and Bush giving tax breaks to companies that do so. Furthermore, Bush opposes any increase in the minimum wage, at a time when inflation is about to make the minimum wage weaker in buying power than it has been in the past thirty years or more; minimum wage means poverty at this juncture.
As for the “etc. etc.”, we have: Restoring fiscal responsibility: Bush has massively overspent, allowing unlimited Republican pork, a record deficit, a staggering debt, and all of that after being given a miracle surplus. For Bush, “opportunities for small businesses” is a code word for “big breaks for big businesses,” just like “middle class tax cut” is a code word for “massive tax cut for the wealthy.” He throws a bread crust to the small guy to justify throwing loaves at the big guy, and calls it “fair.” The list goes on, but I think you get my point. Bush may say he’s for all these things, but his actions show that he is not–or else he is incompetent in accomplishing them.Can you explain how the most liberal senator with a history of spend, tax, spend, tax, and is anti-business can actually do any of this? Well, if you can, contact Kerry because he would need the help.Oh, please, spare me the Bush campaign rhetoric. “Most liberal senator”? Ha! Even by the true standards of the magazine that publishes that list, Kerry is #11; the “#1” is based only on partial votes. According to conservatives, any Democratic candidate who steps forward is always “the most liberal” Democrat.
A history of tax, spend, tax? Does that mean that you actually believe the fiction the GOP spouts out about Kerry’s tax record is true? Like the way that one single vote by Kerry got translated into a few hundred votes? That they count multiple votes on the same bill, they count votes for lower tax cuts as votes for a tax hike, and some of which they simply made up? And how about spending? Republicans in Congress have massively outspent what the Democrats spent when they were in control, and they accuse Democrats of being the big spenders? Please.
You’re just regurgitating the GOP party line. Tell me whose taxes did Kerry raise and by how much, and then be honest about the tax cuts he’s voted for. Tell me what massive spending programs he’s asked for, and balance that with what what cuts he’s put his name behind. Fact is, I don’t think you’ll be able to mention detail one.
If you’re going to spout like that, at least do a little research and back up what you say.
Wow, Michael J. Fox supports Kerry?!?!
Wasn’t he a strong supporter of Reagan in his television show?? A staunch republican raised by liberal parents.
Now this is news.
Typical media bias that supports bush is NOT covering this incredible endorsement. It is almost as if he were channeling Reagan himself.
Wow!!!! Lets get the word out that an actor with a disease is supporting Kerry.
Comeon Moveon.org!! Wake up. This is big news.
If Kerry is good enough for Mr. Fox, he is good enough for me!!
We should choose all our elected officials this way!!
Isn’t Bush the only one who funded any stem cell research (didn’t Clinton pass)?
Isn’t Bush just saying that he is not supporting federal funding of stem cell research but that any commercial or private group can still conduct (note that there is a $3B proposal in California to do exactly that that does not conflict with anything that Bush did).
If Kerry and Fox and Christopher Reeve were honest they would point that out. Fox just wants just another government handout.
Ooooh. Sarcasm. You have felled me with your rapier wit.
*Sigh.* If conservatives would only address the 100 serious points instead of the one fluff point, I would be impressed. As it is, I hold lower and lower regard for those who support Bush every day. Countless egregious, well-documented examples of corruption, ignorance, extreme partisanship, incompetence and not a few cases of criminal behavior, and Republicans are okay with that so long as their party stays in power, fueling a hypocrisy or self-blindness which is staggering. You don’t address the serious points because you can’t. It’s rather pitiful, you know.
Debby–excuse me, “Juan” (same IP address, you nitwit–think I can’t see that?):Isn’t Bush the only one who funded any stem cell research (didn’t Clinton pass)?Research before you post, will ya? Stem cell research is very new, only came around in the late 90’s. It was the Republican Congress that banned federally-funded stem-cell research, not Clinton. Clinton favored an NIH proposal for federal funding, but his term expired before it could be enacted. When Bush came into office, he took a more restrictive stance than Clinton, though not as extreme as what he had said he would take during his campaign. (source)
Do get your facts straight. And choose one name if you’re going to use a fake one.