Conservatives Run Ad Parody Against Kerry

[Wakie]

I'm amused by this ad ... but not for the reasons the RNC wants me to be amused by it.  They blast Kerry for not "being a man of the people" ... but honestly Kerry is a lot closer than Bush to being a man of the people.

Also, isn't this the exact sort of attack on an individual ad that the RNC was warning broadcasters not to show?  Citizens United is just a conservative version of moveon.org.  If you're gonna ban the ads from one, you gotta ban 'em from both.

[Wakie]

I disagree with you there. Kerry is out of touch. Most Americans have principles, Kerry's principles are whichever ones that help him get more power

I believe I could make that same argument about Bush.

Let's be honest here ... both of these guys came from privileged backgrounds.  But it isn't about where you came from .... it's what you did with it.

Both guys went to Yale.  Afterwards Kerry went to war and Bush jumped the waiting list to get into the National Guard.

Kerry won several medals, came home, and worked to end a war which was clearly a mistake.  Bush worked on some campaigns for his father's friends in FL and AL, and sunk into alcoholism.

Kerry went to law school and became an effective prosecutor.  Bush went to B school (after being turned down by U of TX Law) and ran a few businesses into the ground.

Kerry went on to serve in the Senate.  Bush went on to own a baseball team and, pretty much on the strength of his last name, to be Gov of TX.

While in the Senate Kerry sponsored the Violance Against Women Act, took up numerous environmental causes, was a champion of veteran's rights, w/ John McCain he helped to normalize relations with Vietnam.  While Gov of TX Bush executed dozens and helped to make TX the most polluted state in the nation.

[Wakie]

" While Gov of TX Bush executed dozens and helped to make TX the most polluted state in the nation."

Yeah he also won re-election with 70 % of the vote. The people of Texas still love him. Texas is now one of the best places to live in the country. Its now extremely rich. It has a massive upward moving economy that is thriving. Texas is full of opportunity. They were lucky to have him as governor

Yeah, he won big in his re-election.  But I don't know if I would characterize it as "one of the best places to live".  I spent some time there for work and the smog of Houston is overwhelming.  My GF (whose family is from TX) said it didn't use to be that way.

How can you characterize TX as being "full of opportunity"?  Check out the state by state unemployment #'s ...
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/state_unemployment/

Texas is the 6th WORST state for unemployment!  I have a hard time thinking that Texans were lucky to have Bush.

[Wakie]

ncjake, I'm trying to figure some things out here and they don't add up.  You say your family makes only $12k per year yet you imply you travel frequently to TX.  One would assume that travel is for work, but what traveling job only pays $12k annually?

As for the economic position of TX, how can consider the state w/ the 6th highest unemployment rate in the country as being in good shape?  Due to the oil industry, TX is naturally positioned as an economic power, but clearly Bush didn't leave the state better than he found it.  The positions of Washington, Michigan, Oregon, and Alaska are nothing to write home about.  But none of the Gov's of those states are running for President.

[Wakie]

Jake, do the research.  Check out where TX ranked on a national level BEFORE Bush became Gov and where it is now.  Back up your blind claims with facts and figures.  Hopefully you will go to college because you seem like a smart kid.  If you write a paper and don't back up your statements with facts and figures you will be destroyed by your prof's.

Being almost a full 1% over the national average in unemployment is nothing to be proud of.  Being the "most polluted state" is nothing to be proud of.

You were 8 when Bush became Gov of Texas.  Do you really feel qualified to talk about what the state was like at that time?

[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.

[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.

[Wakie]

Wakie,

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

MarkDel, I used the same website you used.