Conservatives Run Ad Parody Against Kerry

[Kghadial]

I know what you mean StevenNick  . I don't want a "regular guy" to in charge of the world's greatest military and enough nuclear weapons to kill everything on earth (except the cockroaches) 10 times, with enough left over to eliminate any evidence that mankind has ever existed.  

I want someone who has spent time in foreign countries.
I want someone who had an excellent education.
I want someone who has held important positions before.
I want someone who takes care of himself (or herself) to a far greater degree than a regular guy, enough that he won't keel over a year into the term.

Although, they should know what it is to be a regular guy, since they'll be leading a nation full of regular guys.

[MarkDel]

Wakie,

That was really pathetic of you to play the "age card" on NCJake. How old are you? Before you took this strategy with NCJake I would have bet serious money based on your posts that you were no more than college age yourself. As for your comments about unemployment in Texas, much of the increase in unemployment there has been caused by a heavy influx of legal, and illegal, immigration that has DIRECTLY caused the unemployment problem. If Bush or any other Republican actually tried to do something substantive about illegal immigration, you and every other liberal would be screaming about racism, blah, blah...so there are reasons behind every statistic, and generally they do not prove the cause/effect you imply in your statement about Texas unemployment being Bush's fault.

[12th Doctor]

I agree that the president should have complete focus on their job. You must note however that Bush likes to portray himself as a man of the people, and he grew up in one of the most powerful, well connected families of the time. Kerry's connections frighten me as well.

I don't deny this at all.  All I am saying is that Bush has a much easier time relating to the average Joe than Kerry.  Bush may not know what it is like to have to penny pinch, but his over-all attitude is much closer to that of the average person than Kerry's.  Think about it.  What was the sterotype of Bush in the media in 2000.  'Bush is dumb'.  'Bush is a hick'.  'Bush is TOO average'.

That is VERY different from Kerry.

[MarkDel]

Wakie,

Also, you insult NCJake by telling him to "do the research" but you obviously didn't do your own. Why don't you check out what the unemployment rate was when Ann Richards was Governor of Texas and how it dropped nearly in half during the George Bush years as Governor. The link is below...

http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LASST48000003&data_tool="EaG"

It's very clear to me that not only was unemployment FAR higher under Richards, but the massive recent increase in Texas unemployment came about only after the national recession took place in late 2000, early 2001, with the problem getting far worse after 9/11. I guess maybe YOU should do your research.

[zachman]

Bush does talk ordinarily which is a talent in election politics. Kerry's patronizing language recently worries me, but I think he can communicate to the average American just as well as Bush.

[Wakie]

MarkDel, I admit that my usage of age on Jake was a bit unfair.  But honestly, the debate was going nowhere.  Even when presented with #'s which clearly demonstrate that in terms of employment TX is lagging behind the rest of the nation he stuck to repeating the mantra "Bush good, all others bad."

Now, to respond to your statement that unemployment was higher under Richards than under W Bush.  This is true.  However, you are neglecting to take into account that W Bush's time as Gov of Texas also coincided with the Clinton Presidency, the tech boom, and the fabulous economy of the 2nd half of the 90's.

Instead of just looking at raw numbers (which would imply that every Gov during the great depression was terrible and everyone in the early 50s was great) you must put them into context.  How did TX perform relative to the rest of the country during each administration?

Anne Richards was Gov when HW Bush was President.  The entire economy was down during the HW Bush years, but TX was higher (relative to the rest of the nation).

W Bush was Gov when Clinton was President.  The entire economy was booming during the Clinton years, but TX fell back relative to the rest of the nation.

Lastly, we deal with your argument that immigration is the cause of TX's woes.  Why aren't AZ, NM, and NV experiencing these problems?  They have managed to hold their positions ... heck, NV is flourishing.

So, at the end of the day George W Bush was bad for TX and he's been bad for America.

[MarkDel]

Wakie,

So using your logic, if we are to remain consistent...the Governor of a state is only responsible for the economy of that state when he's a Republican...and the economy is bad!!!

You said Texas is lagging behind other states because of Bush's tenure as Governor, but then you say it's not Richards' fault when the Texas economy was bad because there was a Republican (Bush Sr.) in the White House. Then you say Bush Jr.'s economic success in Texas was only because of the Clinton presidency.

These are pretty convenient theories...LOL....to express your belief in one party over the other.

Of course, you overlook several key factors that prove you wrong, mainly:

1. Unemployment in Texas (when Richards was still Governor) was higher in 1993 and 1994 when CLINTON was in the White House, not Bush Sr.

2. The unemployment rate in Texas in the second half of the 1990's (under Bush Jr.) was BETTER than the national average for most, but not all, of Bush Jr.'s reign as Governor.

3. The unemployment rate in Texas was HIGHER than the national average for most of Ann Richards' term as Governor.

And that doesn't even address the logical inconsistency in your basic premise, which seems to be as follows:

WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT IS HIGH IN A STATE:

1. Republican President plus Democratic Governor=Blame goes to Republican PRESIDENT
2. Democratic President plus Republican Governor=Blame goes to Republican GOVERNOR

[Wakie]

MarkDel, you completely missed my point.  First, the President has an influence over the National Economy.  Therefore, the policies of the President (along with certain other factors) set a basic range for unemployment.  Then the Gov's and their policies determine where in that range the state lands.

So, it doesn't help us to compare the raw #'s on Gov A and Gov B because they were Gov at 2 different times.  There were seperate conditions with which each had to deal.  So the real way to compare them is to say "how did the state do compared to the 49 other states in the Union".  Fair enough?

So let's compare the #'s.  The first is year, 2nd is state unemployment, 3rd is national.

Ann Richards
1991 - 6.7% - 6.8%
1992 - 7.7% - 7.5%
1993 - 7.0% - 6.9%
1994 - 6.3% - 6.1%

George W Bush
1995 - 6.1% - 5.6%
1996 - 5.6% - 5.4%
1997 - 5.4% - 4.9%
1998 - 4.9% - 4.5%
1999 - 4.6% - 4.2%
2000 - 4.3% - 4.0%

Rick Perry
2001 - 5.1% - 4.7%
2002 - 6.3% - 5.8%
2003 - 6.9% - 6.0%

So ... under Richards TX avg'd 0.1% above the National Avg in unemployment.  Under Bush TX Avg'd just under 0.4% above the National Avg in unemployment.  And under Perry they are 0.6% above the National Avg.

So, in terms of employment ... it looks to me like Richards did a better job than Bush.

[Ben.]

MarkDel, you completely missed my point.  First, the President has an influence over the National Economy.  Therefore, the policies of the President (along with certain other factors) set a basic range for unemployment.  Then the Gov's and their policies determine where in that range the state lands.

So, it doesn't help us to compare the raw #'s on Gov A and Gov B because they were Gov at 2 different times.  There were seperate conditions with which each had to deal.  So the real way to compare them is to say "how did the state do compared to the 49 other states in the Union".  Fair enough?

So let's compare the #'s.  The first is year, 2nd is state unemployment, 3rd is national.

Ann Richards
1991 - 6.7% - 6.8%
1992 - 7.7% - 7.5%
1993 - 7.0% - 6.9%
1994 - 6.3% - 6.1%

George W Bush
1995 - 6.1% - 5.6%
1996 - 5.6% - 5.4%
1997 - 5.4% - 4.9%
1998 - 4.9% - 4.5%
1999 - 4.6% - 4.2%
2000 - 4.3% - 4.0%

Rick Perry
2001 - 5.1% - 4.7%
2002 - 6.3% - 5.8%
2003 - 6.9% - 6.0%

So ... under Richards TX avg'd 0.1% above the National Avg in unemployment.  Under Bush TX Avg'd just under 0.4% above the National Avg in unemployment.  And under Perry they are 0.6% above the National Avg.

So, in terms of employment ... it looks to me like Richards did a better job than Bush.

Your right but try telling people that.... remember... Bush had an exemplary record as Governor of Texas.... its interesting some Dems and Reps whill willingly conceed to faults in their candidates and party's for others whatever the DNC or GOP say is gospel...

[Sibboleth]

I was going to post a couple of paragraphs defending Huey Long... but Ben got here first

[Gustaf]

On the issue of being folksy, you want both from a politician. Someone who's too much of an elitist won't really care or know much about the lower classes and will be a part of the system too much. But of course experience etc is good. ou basically want someone who's self-made...like Edwards...

[Ben.]

Sorry Al.... you a Huey fan?... disagree with the guy on alot of things but really like him... one of my all time hero's of US politics...
 

[Sibboleth]

Sorry Al.... you a Huey fan?... disagree with the guy on alot of things but really like him... one of my all time hero's of US politics...

Yeah... I like Huey Long. One of the best Governers of the C20th... only Bob LaFollete and Bill Clinton come close IMO

[Ben.]

Sorry Al.... you a Huey fan?... disagree with the guy on alot of things but really like him... one of my all time hero's of US politics...

Yeah... I like Huey Long. One of the best Governers of the C20th... only Bob LaFollete and Bill Clinton come close IMO

I'd have to agree with ya there i recon Bill Clinton's achievements as Gov in Arkansas go largely ignored and always have done but that’s just my view, Jimmy Carter was also pretty good in his time as Gov of GA... was LaFollete that guy who ran for Prez in 1924 and was from WI?    

[Sibboleth]

Forgot about Carter... How could I forget Carter?

Bob Lafollete was the Progressive/Republican Governer of Wisconsin. He ran for President in 1924 (good article on: www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk)

Odd that 3 out of 4 were Southerners.

[zachman]

T. Roosevelt and LaFollette were the original progressive independents. LaFollette was a strong environmentalist, and work hard for agriculture. The two of them were the first stars to rebel against the two party system.

Read this article from 1924:
http://www.the
atlantic.com/issues/24oct/lafollette.htm

[Ben.]

Yeah TR was great as Gov of NY from what i heard he was tough on crime yet he really hammered big business of issues or corruption which lead to many of his contemporary republicans working to remove him and eventually getting him to be McKinley's (was it McKinley?) VP in an efforts to neutralise him then McKinley died and thank god TR became Prez and the rest as they say is History...

[zachman]

Exactly  Ben. McKinley was the first of the Republican imperialists correct. That era of presidents from him to Hoover, sparring T. Roosevelt and maybe Woodrow Wilson. Its good that the 20's did not continue into the thirties, because the Republicans would have had complete power, and the ruling power could select their ruling power.

[Gustaf]

Yeah TR was great as Gov of NY from what i heard he was tough on crime yet he really hammered big business of issues or corruption which lead to many of his contemporary republicans working to remove him and eventually getting him to be McKinley's (was it McKinley?) VP in an efforts to neutralise him then McKinley died and thank god TR became Prez and the rest as they say is History...

Have you read the Alienist by Caleb Carr? It's a detective novel of sorts that takes place in late 19th century New York and has TR as a fairly important character...

[MarkDel]

Wakie,

Where is the citation for your stats, I provided one for mine...

[angus]

Yeah TR was great as Gov of NY from what i heard he was tough on crime yet he really hammered big business of issues or corruption which lead to many of his contemporary republicans working to remove him and eventually getting him to be McKinley's (was it McKinley?) VP in an efforts to neutralise him then McKinley died and thank god TR became Prez and the rest as they say is History...

Have you read the Alienist by Caleb Carr? It's a detective novel of sorts that takes place in late 19th century New York and has TR as a fairly important character...

Caleb Carr was on CSPAN a few years ago talking about his books.  Pretty creepy fellow.  So I bought The Alienist.  Nasty old New York City.  The city was experimenting in new technologies for crimesolving.  Good stuff.  TR was a serious republican.  Progressive, forthright, stern, not one to suffer fools gladly.  My main complaint about the Novel is that it wasn't racist or sexist enough not to require some suspension of disbelief.

Oh, now I just got it.  Your memorable line from FMJ was about "that jungian thing"  I see the psychological connection.  Weird.

[Wakie]

Wakie,

Where is the citation for your stats, I provided one for mine...

MarkDel, I used the same website you used.

[angus]

Spam!  Just now when I linked to another site two windows popped up that said DEMOCRATS CAN'T DECIDE    The economy is improving, but the democrats are voting against tax cuts.  And there's a picture of Kerry.  He almost has the accusing finger, but not quite.  It's funnier.  He has a microphone and a look of complete frustration.  Two of them all of the sudden.  Cool.

[dunn]

[dunn]

the ad war starts!

Bush starts to spend