Who cares what the losers in Crawford, Texas think
The Lone Star ICONOCLAST – Editorial, Opinion of the Publishers
Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would:
-Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.
– Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans’ benefits and military pay.
– Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent.
– Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure.
– Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids.
– Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and
– Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay.
Hmm, I guess that sums things up. In exchange we got rid of that evil-doer Sadaam (although he’s not dead yet!)
Related link:
But Crawford’s local newspaper is not alone in turning against Bush. Crawford Mayor Robert Campbell has also endorsed Kerry. And there are others.
It might be too much to say that “to know George Bush is to love John Kerry.”
But it is certainly fair to say that, when the newspaper and mayor of a community both say their hometown candidate is inferior, voters who live farther afield, even, perhaps, in a state such as Wisconsin, ought to recognize that the bloom is off the yellow rose of Texas.
And Gore lost Tennessee, which was a bad sign.
Some Democrat mayor in Texas out of thousands of mayors in the state endorses Kerry and criticizes Bush and you feel this should be regarded as something special?
Perhaps for your next blog entry, you should shock us with something like that the Republican governor of Massachusetts endorses Bush (no way!) or that — omg — the AFL-CIO in Texas endorses Kerry and criticizes Bush.
And people wonder why John posts this stuff ?
Marty’s post is one example of a possible reason. 🙂
Just to give people an idea of the number of cards in the deck Marty is playing with, when he cites Chuck Schumer’s attemptes to “lower these payments”, Schumer was attempting to reduce the premiums people pay the government for medicare by increasing government reimbrusements.
The editor of that paper was talking about a reduction in benefits from from the government to the people and the increase in premiums for Medicare under Bush of 17% because of cuts in government reimbursements.
Ugh.
Marty, take your own advice and read.
If Bush were to lose Texas, that would be news. One politician in Texas preferring Kerry isn’t on par with Gore losing Tennessee.
Bush *cut* Veteren’s benefits? Really? Then what do you suppose the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003 would be? Let”s see, among other things it authorizes $1 billion over the next ten years for new and expanded benefits.
Bush *cut* military pay? Golly Batman, then what would the National Defense Authorization Act for 2003 be? Combined with the National Defense Appropriations Act it provides for a 4.1% pay raise. Some NCO’s and officers will receive a pay raise of 5.5 – 6.5%. In addition, it calls for an increase in the basic allowance for housing which will reduce personnel’s out-of-pocket expenses to 7.5%.