The Threshold

Proud to be Liberal

2008-11-09T19:12:00.001-05:00

A Liberal Definition by John F. Kennedy:
Acceptance Speech of the New York
Liberal Party Nomination

September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city not only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of that spirit, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights for all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961.

Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders of the American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops, who struggled to create a union, and who were driven by longing for education for their children and for the children's development. They went to night schools; they built their own future, their union's future, and their country's future, brick by brick, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood, and now in their children's time, suburb by suburb.

Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day. But in 1960 the cause of liberalism cannot content itself with carrying on the fight for human justice and economic liberalism here at home. For here and around the world the fear of war hangs over us every morning and every night. It lies, expressed or silent, in the minds of every American. We cannot banish it by repeating that we are economically first or that we are militarily first, for saying so doesn't make it so. More will be needed than goodwill missions or talking back to Soviet politicians or increasing the tempo of the arms race. More will be needed than good intentions, for we know where that paving leads.

In Winston Churchill's words, "We cannot escape our dangers by recoiling from them. We dare not pretend such dangers do not exist."

And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. Our opponents would like the people to believe that in a time of danger it would be hazardous to change the administration that has brought us to this time of danger. I think it would be hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous to continue four more years of stagnation and indifference here at home and abroad, of starving the underpinnings of our national power, including not only our defense but our image abroad as a friend.

This is an important election -- in many ways as important as any this century -- and I think that the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party here in New York, and those who believe in progress all over the United States, should be associated with us in this great effort. The reason that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had influence abroad, and the United States in their time had it, was because they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something here in the United States, for expanding the benefits of our society to our own people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope.

I think it is our task to re-create the same atmosphere in our own time. Our national elections have often proved to be the turning point in the course of our country. I am proposing that 1960 be another turning point in the history of the great Republic.

Some pundits are saying it's 1928 all over again. I say it's 1932 all over again. I say this is the great opportunity that we will have in our time to move our people and this country and the people of the free world beyond the new frontiers of the 1960s.

2005-10-30T14:02:00.000-05:00

Does anyone really trust . . .

the present administration?

Is so much criticism against a sitting President of the US, A Vice President of the US and A Secretary of Defense in that administration just "sour grapes"? Is it just political rhetoric from the opposing party? Is it just political rhetoric from there own party? Is it paid mud-slinging against them? If one analyzes the many stories and sources of such criticism, as well as the many stories that appear to be neutral and without bias, the weight is heavy in favor of at least perplexity of how such an administration could have been born. Be born? Well, we know that the election process in our great democracy put the President and Vice President in office, right? That is how this administration was born. The appointments that followed and those that continue to be appointed, or nominated, are part of the on-going process and part of the continuing criticism.

I grew up believing in America, like so many others. It really didn’t matter which party was elected to office even though it may not have been your choice. Somehow you got over it because America was still America and with all its faults you felt that your government had your best interests in mind, even if it seemed like they were many times absent-minded. The United States of America stood for something: Equality, Justice, Prosperity, The Pursuit of Happiness and much more. And yes, we have always had criticism and many times many people fell victim to a "blind eye", but eventually some progress was made in making America a better place for all.

I have not only read and heard a lot of criticism of the "Axis of Evil" mentioned above, but I am guilty of making some of that criticism. It seems that, for the sake of a better phrase, the by-word I hear so much is, "I feel disenfranchised from my government!" Oh, over the years I have heard many times, "That the rich get richer while the poor get poorer", but it seems this administration has made that cliche more meaningful, certainly truer.

A October 29th 2005 news article led off with a headline, "No. 2 oil company’s profit up 12% . . . ". The story continued, "Chevron Corp. joined in its industry’s third-quarter earnings boom . . . " It could have made another $600 million had it not been for the hurricanes this year, it went on to say. Revenue for the period totaled 54.5 billion - a 34% rise from last year. They were not alone. Now, those record breaking gains were not from conservation, or super management decisions. They were from increased fuel prices that the consumer paid and are continuing to pay.

Another news story on the same day, "Bristol-Myers reports profits rose 27% in quarter". Now net sales were essentially flat and other "bad" news flourished. Hmmm! Could higher prices help their bottom line? Perhaps the government could help the fledgling pharmaceuticals by putting forth a drug plan in medicare that would be under-written by the recipient. This might help the poor drug industry a little. What? Someone has been trying that and there are few takers? Must be all those Canadian sales to Americans. Damn ingrates! Somebody should stop those Canadian sales to US citizens. What? They did! Hmmmm!

Well, what next in this newspaper? Ah! The CEO of Delphi is confident that management and the unions can reach an accord. The CEO stated that their proposal to the Union was not intended to provoke a strike. They are the largest auto supplier. He went on to say he sees no evidence of "slow-downs at American plants since the company’s filings for bankruptcy protection. The proposal to the 34,000 hourly workers reduces wages to $9 to $10.50 an hour from the $27 an hour they are used to. The proposal would also freeze pension plans and except no new persons into the plan and if that is accepted Delphi could then terminate pensions after January 1st or reduce benefits and they would be asked to pay their own health care deductibles.

Now, you could argue that the auto workers were "richly over-paid" for years. But by the same token you could also see that the trend is pervasive and many big companies are getting federal help to make even the "rich" poorer. Jobs and benefits being lost across the nation. Many companies receiving tax help from our government to have those companies ship US jobs overseas. And, of course this helps the poor get richer, right?

We see the lack of medical plans for our middle-class and others sorely lacking, while the high cost of medicine and healthcare cause bankruptcy in the US worker everywhere. And with such a high rate of such protection for the public mounting what can the government do to help. Of course, change the law so the rich among us, such as banks, credit card companies, hospitals, etc. will be able to get "blood out of a turnip" by still making your personal bankruptcy basically worthless, while corporations still use it to get leverage in negotiations over the rank and file.. Now, who ever said the playing field had to be level? I mean the "Captains of Industry" earned their high places through honest, hard work, right? Hmmmm! And companies like Haliburton, who are given contracts without competitive bidding and then get caught cheating this country is a disgrace. Of course the link between Vice President Cheney who was their CEO before getting elevated to his present position by the Supreme Court - not the public is not a conflict of interest or has any smell of impropriety, right?

Now, any President has the right to nominate who ever he wants to be a Supreme Court Justice, but shouldn’t they at least be qualified in addition to being your close friend? The insults being heaped on the citizen’s of this country, as well as other countries just adds salt to our wounds and embarrassment to his own party. The old adagee, "Would you buy a car from this man?" poses another question. "Does anyone really trust this adinistration?" One of the Senators during Harriet Meirs nomination battle made a remark with reference to President Bush’s nomination by indicating that the opposition would be to "Anyone that the President nominated, not just her." I hope that is true because he has proven not to be trust-worthy and I hope more are learning that important fact.

We should not just be concerned about his approval rating dropping to all time lows. We should be concerned with just who the enemy of America is. The enemy from without, i.e., The Terrorist, is perhaps not as dangerous as the enemy within. This administration does not appear to stand up for helping the people.

The other side of the isle is no better. Impeachment for lying about sexual misconduct seems to be a much more serious offence than all the lies these boys tell about war and other minor crimes. Republican/Democrat politics seems to be just two sides of the same coin.

Maybe we should stop thinking impeachment and start moving toward criminal conspiracy to defraud the American public. When is enough, enough?

If this were only possible . . . .

2004-11-11T11:12:00.000-05:00

Thought you might appreciate this...I think it helps the recovery process.

THE REAL JOHN KERRY CONCESSION SPEECH Or at least, what should have been...

"My fellow Americans, the people of this nation have spoken, and spoken with a clear voice. So I am here to offer my concession.

I concede that I overestimated the intelligence of the American people. Though the people disagree with the President on almost every issue, you saw fit to vote for him. I never saw that coming. That's really special. And I mean "special" in the sense that we use it to describe those kids who ride the short school bus and find ways to injure themselves while eating pudding with rubber spoons. That kind of special.

I concede that I misjudged the power of hate. That's pretty powerful stuff, and I didn't see it. So let me take a moment to congratulate the President's strategists: Putting the gay marriage amendments on the ballot in various swing states like Ohio... well, that was just genius. Genius. It got people, a certain kind of people, to the polls. The unprecedented number of folks who showed up and cited "moral values" as their biggest issue, those people changed history. The folks who consider same sex marriage a more important issue than war, or terrorism, or the economy... Who'd have thought the election would belong to them? Well, Karl Rove did.

Gotta give it up to him for that. [Boos.] Now, now. Credit where it's due.
I concede that I put too much faith in America's youth. With 8 out of 10 of you opposing the President, with your friends and classmates dying daily in a war you disapprove of, with your future being mortgaged to pay for rich old peoples' tax breaks, you somehow managed to sit on your asses and watch the Cartoon Network while aging homophobic hillbillies carried the day. You voted with the exact same anemic percentage that you did in 2000. You suck. Seriously, y'do.
[Cheers, applause] Thank you. Thank you very much.

There are some who would say that I sound bitter, that now is the timefor healing, to bring the nation together. Let me tell you a little story. Last night, I watched the returns come in with some friends here in Los Angeles. As the night progressed, people began to talk half-seriously about secession, a red state / blue state split. The reasoning was this: We in blue states produce the vast majority of the wealth in this country and pay the most taxes, and you in the red states receive the majority of the money from those taxes while complaining about 'em. We in the blue states are the only ones who've been attacked by foreign terrorists, yet you in the red states are gung ho to fight a war in our name. We in the blue states produce the entertainment that you consume so greedily each day, while you in the red states show open disdain for us and our values. Blue state civilians are the actual victims and targets of the war on terror, while red state civilians are the ones standing behind us and yelling "Oh, yeah!? Bring it on!"

More than 40% of you Bush voters still believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. I'm impressed by that, truly I am. Your sons and daughters who might die in this war know it's not true, the people in the urban centers where al Qaeda wants to attack know it's not true, but those of you who are at practically no risk believe this easy lie because you can. As part of my concession speech, let me say that I really envy that luxury. I concede that.
Healing? We, the people at risk from terrorists, the people who subsidize you, the people who speak in glowing and respectful terms about the heartland of America while that heartland insults and excoriates us... we wanted some healing. We spoke loud and clear.

And you refused to give it to us, largely because of your "high moral values". You knew better: America doesn't need its allies, doesn't need to share the burden, doesn't need to unite the world, doesn't need to provide for its future.

Hell no. Not when it's got a human shield of pointy-headed, atheistic, unconfrontational breadwinners who are willing to pay the bills and play nice in the vain hope of winning a vote that we can never have. Because we're "morally inferior," I suppose, we are supposed to respect your values while you insult ours. And the big joke here is that for 20 years, we've done just that.
It's not a "ha-ha" funny joke, I realize, but it's a joke all the same.

Today, I am also announcing my candidacy for President in 2008. And I make this pledge to you today: THIS time, next time, there will be no pandering. This time I will run with all the open and joking contempt for my opponents that our President demonstrated towards the cradle of liberty, the Ivy League intellectuals, the "media elite," and the "white-wine sippers."

This time I will not pretend that the simple folk of America know just as much as the people who devote their lives to serving and studying the nation and the world. They don't. So that's why I'm asking for your vote in 2008, America. I'm talking to you, you ignorant, slack-jawed yokels, you bible-thumping, inbred drones, you redneck, racist, chest-thumping, perennially duped grade-school grads. Vote for me, because I know better, and I truly believe that I can help your smug, sorry asses."

I most certainly endorse this sentiment,
George Walmsley - Thresholdman

PS: All Blues that found themselves drowning in Red are so noted as the real patriots and no forgiveness is necessary.

A Nation Divided . . Once Again!

2004-10-29T10:50:00.000-04:00

A nation divided, once again! In 1861 we were a divided nation and the issues were slavery and State's Rights. You could say that those issues are still around today. Oh, perhaps slavery has taken another form - "more white", you could say. But, when a freedom loving people who have enjoyed many freedoms that were fought and won in two wars of revolution, (War of 1812, too), feel some of these freedoms slipping away then it is time once again to take a hard look at our politics.

The last four years under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have been an eye opener for some of us - about half of the electorate, while the other half supports this dynamic duo in their continuing assault on America. Or, will it soon be Amerika. Yes, this duo are masters of deception. Hell, you can't even tell which one is the REAL President - Georgie or Dicky. Four more years - God help us!

We have invaded a sovereign nation without provocation, albeit was run by a despicable tyrant - Sadaam Hussein, and then we proclaimed, "That the world is a safer place." Some might say such things about one of our leaders, someday. Someday, hmmmm? Actually the jury is still out as to whether we even made Iraq a safer place. Who the hell appointed us cop of the world? If this was such a good idea now, then why was it not a good idea under daddy Bush in 1992 when we were at war with Iraq? Was the price of oil not high enough, then?

We are witnessing an erosion of rights for the general population and a continuing threat to our young men and women for loss of life and limb, and for what? Oil, kick-backs, power, corruption and deception that is even more glaring than usual in our political smoke and mirrors machine? What ever this administration stands for, please save me from the smoke and mirrors of their cry that they are saving us from terrorism. The war that we are facing with terrorists will be faught here, in the US - like it or not! If we believe that by engaging such people in foreign lands it will stop terrorism directed against America at the grass-roots levil, then we haven't learned a thing from 9/11.

The longer we stay in Iraq the more it will cost America in destroyed lives and money. Both of these comodities could be useful in the real war. Especilly in an economy that has been all but bankrupted by George W's failed policies. And what happens when we finally do leave Iraq? Do we return to save them from an invasion of their arch enemy, Iran? We had a target against world terrorism in Afganistan and rightly invaded that country for the attack on 9/11. What ever became of that war? No oil?

Wake up America! Remember that in 1861 we re-united America thru Civil War. A war that lasted 4 years and cost us over 500,000 American lives. Nobody loves a tyrant, Mr. Bush, so why practice tyrany? For a man who champions the glories of democracy in other lands, why does he seem to really embrace the tenents of dictatorship in his own country?

Open your eyes, America. Read the independant sources of information and watch it on independant sources. Ignore both Kerrey and Bush and the campaign rhetoric and take your responsibility as a voter and citizen seriously. Get off your ass and vote your conscience or be known for supporting tyrants.

Four more years? A fair comparison of candidates . . .

2004-10-24T08:03:00.000-04:00

Crawford Texas Newspaper editorial: Kerry Will Restore American Dignity--

Kerry Will Restore 2004 Iconoclast Presidential Endorsement

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.

These were elements of a hidden agenda that surfaced only after he took office.The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda.Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry, based not only on the things that Bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to normality that Kerry says our country needs.

Four items trouble us the most about the Bush administration: his initiatives to disable the Social Security system, the deteriorating state of the American economy, a dangerous shift away from the basic freedoms established by our founding fathers, and his continuous mistakes regarding terrorism and Iraq.

President Bush has announced plans to change the Social Security system as we know it by privatizing it, which when considering all the tangents related to such a change, would put the entire economy in a dramatic tailspin.The Social Security Trust Fund actually lends money to the rest of the government in exchange for government bonds, which is how the system must work by law, but how do you later repay Social Security while you are running a huge deficit? It’s impossible, without raising taxes sometime in the future or becoming fiscally responsible now. Social Security money is being used to escalate our deficit and, at the same time, mask a much larger government deficit, instead of paying down the national debt, which would be a proper use, to guarantee a future gain.Privatization is problematic in that it would subject Social Security to the ups, downs, and outright crashes of the Stock Market. It would take millions in brokerage fees and commissions out of the system, and, unless we have assurance that the Ivan Boeskys and Ken Lays of the world will be caught and punished as a deterrent, subject both the Market and the Social Security Fund to fraud and market manipulation, not to mention devastate and ruin multitudes of American families that would find their lives lost to starvation, shame, and isolation.Kerry wants to keep Social Security, which each of us already owns. He says that the program is manageable, since it is projected to be solvent through 2042, with use of its trust funds. This would give ample time to strengthen the economy, reduce the budget deficit the Bush administration has created, and, therefore, bolster the program as needed to fit ever-changing demographics.Our senior citizens depend upon Social Security.

Bush’s answer is radical and uncalled for, and would result in chaos as Americans have never experienced. Do we really want to risk the future of Social Security on Bush by spinning the wheel of uncertainty?

In those dark hours after the World Trade Center attacks, Americans rallied together with a new sense of patriotism. We were ready to follow Bush’s lead through any travail.He let us down.When he finally emerged from his hide-outs on remote military bases well after the first crucial hours following the attack, he gave sound-bytes instead of solutions. He did not trust us to be ready to sacrifice, build up our public and private security infrastructure, or cut down on our energy use to put economic pressure on the enemy in all the nations where he hides. He merely told us to shop, spend, and pretend nothing was wrong.Rather than using the billions of dollars expended on the invasion of Iraq to shore up our boundaries and go after Osama bin Laden and the Saudi Arabian terrorists, the funds were used to initiate a war with what Bush called a more immediate menace, Saddam Hussein, in oil-rich Iraq. After all, Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction trained on America. We believed him, just as we believed it when he reported that Iraq was the heart of terrorism.

We trusted him.The Iconoclast, the President’s hometown newspaper, took Bush on his word and editorialized in favor of the invasion. The newspaper’s publisher promoted Bush and the invasion of Iraq to Londoners in a BBC interview during the time that the administration was wooing the support of Prime Minister Tony Blair.Again, he let us down.We presumed the President had solid proof of the existence of these weapons, what and where they were, even as the search continued. Otherwise, our troops would be in much greater danger and the premise for a hurried-up invasion would be moot, allowing more time to solicit assistance from our allies.Instead we were duped into following yet another privileged agenda.Now he argues unconvincingly that Iraq was providing safe harbor to terrorists, his new key justification for the invasion. It is like arguing that America provided safe harbor to terrorists leading to 9/11.Once and for all, George Bush was President of the United States on that day. No one else. He had been President nine months, he had been officially warned of just such an attack a full month before it happened. As President, ultimately he and only he was responsible for our failure to avert those attacks.We should expect that a sitting President would vacation less, if at all, and instead tend to the business of running the country, especially if he is, as he likes to boast, a “wartime president.”

America is in service 365 days a year. We don’t need a part-time President who does not show up for duty as Commander-In-Chief until he is forced to, and who is in a constant state of blameless denial when things don’t get done.What has evolved from the virtual go-it-alone conquest of Iraq is more gruesome than a stain on a White House intern’s dress. America’s reputation and influence in the world has diminished, leaving us with brute force as our most persuasive voice.Iraq is now a quagmire: no WMDs, no substantive link between Saddam and Osama, and no workable plan for the withdrawal of our troops. We are asked to go along on faith. But remember, blind patriotism can be a dangerous thing and “spin” will not bring back to life a dead soldier; certainly not a thousand of them.Kerry has remained true to his vote granting the President the authority to use the threat of war to intimidate Saddam Hussein into allowing weapons inspections. He believes President Bush rushed into war before the inspectors finished their jobs. Kerry also voted against President Bush’s $87 billion for troop funding because the bill promoted poor policy in Iraq, privileged Halliburton and other corporate friends of the Bush administration to profiteer from the war, and forced debt upon future generations of Americans.Kerry’s four-point plan for Iraq is realistic, wise, strong, and correct. With the help from our European and Middle Eastern allies, his plan is to train Iraqi security forces, involve Iraqis in their rebuilding and constitution-writing processes, forgive Iraq’s multi-billion dollar debts, and convene a regional conference with Iraq’s neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq’s borders and non-interference in Iraq’s internal affairs.

The publishers of the Iconoclast differ with Bush on other issues, including the denial of stem cell research, shortchanging veterans’ entitlements, cutting school programs and grants, dictating what our children learn through a thought-controlling “test” from Washington rather than allowing local school boards and parents to decide how young people should be taught, ignoring the environment, and creating extraneous language in the Patriot Act that removes some of the very freedoms that our founding fathers and generations of soldiers fought so hard to preserve.

We are concerned about the vast exportation of jobs to other countries, due in large part to policies carried out by Bush appointees. Funds previously geared at retention of small companies are being given to larger concerns, such as Halliburton — companies with strong ties to oil and gas. Job training has been cut every year that Bush has resided at the White House.Then there is his resolve to inadequately finance Homeland Security and to cut the Community Oriented Policing Program (COPS) by 94 percent, to reduce money for rural development, to slash appropriations for the Small Business Administration, and to under-fund veterans’ programs.Likewise troubling is that President Bush fought against the creation of the 9/11 Commission and is yet to embrace its recommendations. Vice President Cheney’s Halliburton has been awarded multi-billion-dollar contracts without undergoing any meaningful bid process — an enormous conflict of interest — plus the company has been significantly raiding the funds of Export-Import Bank of America, reducing investment that could have gone toward small business trade.When examined based on all the facts, Kerry’s voting record is enviable and echoes that of many Bush allies who are aghast at how the Bush administration has destroyed the American economy. Compared to Bush on economic issues, Kerry would be an arch-conservative, providing for Americans first. He has what it takes to right our wronged economy.The re-election of George W. Bush would be a mandate to continue on our present course of chaos. We cannot afford to double the debt that we already have. We need to be moving in the opposite direction.John Kerry has 30 years of experience looking out for the American people and can navigate our country back to prosperity and re-instill in America the dignity she so craves and deserves. He has served us well as a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and has had a successful career as a district attorney, lieutenant governor, and senator.Kerry has a positive vision for America, plus the proven intelligence, good sense, and guts to make it happen.

That’s why The Iconoclast urges Texans not to rate the candidate by his hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to take the country. The Iconoclast wholeheartedly endorses John Kerry.

Previous Editorials Let's Use Delta Brands To Draw Line In SandLet's Rethink June 30 Deadline Quest To Delay Elections Un-American
Home© Copyright 2004 The Lone Star Iconoclast. Contact Webmaster
[article at: http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm I have taken the liberty of including you on my mailing list as part of my internet lobbying for progressive causes. If you want OFF this list, please hit the reply button and tell me. If you feel being on this list is worthwhile, please tell others. I am trying to do my small part to slow down, and halt, the march towards fascism and permanent war.
Signed,
Gerald Nelson

2004-09-28T07:45:00.000-04:00

Here's Looking at You . . .

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help me . . .

2004-09-26T13:26:00.000-04:00

I want to know two things, well . . . perhaps a little more than two things. Why is lying about adultery a cause to call for impeachment of one President, but all the lies told by President Bush and Vice President Cheney are NOT?

Next, I would like to know why the democrats and the media are not making more inquiries into the Halliburton/Cheney connection and why is Halliburton still in Iraq ripping the American Taxpayer off? If we need to swear politicians under oath when they campaign in order to indict them for false swearing, then let's do it!

President Bush has a lot of questions to answer: Why did Bush say "I did my duty", when he missed months of duty in 1972, 73 and 74? How did Bush avoid getting called into active service for missing months of duty in 1972, 73, and 74? Why did Bush disobey a direct order to take his physical? Why did Bush say he received "no special treatment" when Ben Barnes says he pulled strings to secure a Guard slot for him? When will Bush produce any credible witness who can attest to his service in the Alabama Air National Guard?"

After a person serves honorably on active duty, and is presented not only medals for heroism, but for shedding his blood, I would think he has earned the right upon his discharge to exercises those American rights to protest that war. Now without getting into all the slander that denies what the official government records say concerning Senator Kerry's service, I simply want to point out that in both the President's service and Kerry's - both are supported by official records. While the records concerning Bush are not something for him to be proud of, they are, once again, the official record. Why can't Bush and the "dirty trick" boys just accept that?

Now, I know that the answer to these questions will not make any difference to the voters because it would seem we have all made up our minds as to who the candidate of our choice will be. This world has had a very difficult year of listening to campaign rhetoric. Some of it is probably even true, if the truth can be recognized through the political slander that taints our elections.

You know, we wouldn't have to go through all of this if we just send the nominations to the Supreme Court and skip the election process. I think we could even find a precedent for this!! And, polls wouldn't be needed to tell us the winner before an election day for the most powerful job on earth.

I am just another American that feels disenfranchised these days.