Ten Reasons why Bush will surely lose – unless Diebold steals it for him.

Kerry should win easy. Figure 54% of the vote minimum. Here's why:

1. Gore got 540,000 more votes last time, and would have won Florida by more than 100,000, were it not for double-punched ballots, hanging chads, butterfly ballots and illegal late Republican absentee ballots, etc.

2. The economy is a disaster. At least 12 million unemployed. Enough said.

3. A significantly higher percentage of the military will vote for Kerry than did for Gore, due to the Iraq fiasco.

4. A significantly higher percentage of VFW will vote for Kerry than did for Gore, due to the Bush reduction of benefits.

5. A significantly higher percentage of Muslims will vote for Kerry than did for Gore, due to the Bush Patriot Act fiasco.

6. A significantly higher percentage of Republicans will vote for Kerry than did for Gore, due to Iraq WMD lies, deficit, outsourcing, job losses, the Patriot Act, etc.

7. A significantly higher percentage of energized Democrats will go to the polls and vote for Kerry because 1) they refuse to “get over it”, 2) they hate Bush, and 3) are concerned about their children's lives in an era of Bush-induced Peak Oil and Global Warming.

8. At least 1.5 million former Greens (of 2.8 million who voted for Nader) will now vote for Kerry.

9. Demographic trends favor the Democrats who received a total of 127 million (52.7%) votes compared to 114 million for the Republicans in the last three presidential elections.

10. For obvious reasons, a significantly higher percentage of Gays and Women will vote for Kerry than did for Gore.

then theres the paperless balot box. We can only hope for rolling blackouts in California when people vote for *Bush. But im sure he owns stock in the machines!

:)

I don't hear kerry spreading the word to the masses. Oh, I hear it because I listen for it but he is not taking it to the people and it's people who vote.... *bush uses every conceivable moment to show his smirking face and tell them he is a leader. kerry needs more exposure.

positive for Kerry.

When we have to see b*sh multiple times a day plus have to listen to his ads or hear soundbites, it has to remind people how much they dislike him.

That makes sense...he has the Big Mo...and the lesbian and women vote and folks that voted for Gore because Gore rode on Clinton's coattails...

In the bag...

viewer. They think all is fine and go ahead and eat dinner.....The basic American wants a quick foot note and thats it......too self absorbed to truly pay attention....These little commercials by *bush have impact.

We need to keep in the loop! We need grassroots activity, articles in the local newspaper by citizens and so on.....we don't have any of that.

Other nominees started much later and had less time to campaign. Since it's all starting so early, Bush's lies about Kerry will get old and tiresome...and when people get totally bored with it Kerry can step in and introduce himself. I think the Bush people are trying to put Kerry on the defensive so that he's spending all his time defending himself (as Gore did) instead of talking about the issues. I love that he's not falling for it. Let them go on and on with their lies. When the time is right Kerry can calmly explain to the American people, who are way smarter than Bush, that voting in the senate on issues isn't black and white. To the simpleton it may seem as though he's flip-flopping when he is actually being detailed and conscientious!

We need to command the general public and keep theit attention daily!!!!

The man is on vacation after all. We have eight long months of campaigning ahead, and it's not a good idea to wear the public out with it too early (the way Bushco seems to be intent on doing already).

Kerry has shown, so far, that he won't take the Rove campaign machine lying down. I'm not worried.

just checking..... Opi

Come we go think.

Come, we go google Bush corruption...

and of course we could all add more reasons.. being a considerate person, you wanted to keep it at ten.

With that said, like similar threads, more reasons will be added as a matter of course...from me, and hopefully others.

If we keep pounding with small stuffs... we will lose. We need to focus on the big picture. SOMETHING the Pubs cannot do. They are so far into fantasy they cannot even see it. Or, they will denigrate, distract, cheat, etc. Do all in their power to tear down and destroy. Denial should be their middle name. BS their last name.

Bush is guilty of not doing enough for the HOMELESS, the Poor, and the working class. and thats because they hardly vote. Not a good reason to ignore the unfortunate.

He has no Plans for the future.....if so, how does he plan to pay off our debts, even if he pays off the debt under his watch, I would be happy.

There is no ALL of US in his evidence record. He can talk all he wants but where is the beef...? Too much of US are hurting but he has shown no compassion towards the average Joe.

Das all for now, sorry for the length.

/www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1251910

bumbling idiot as ther president. It took them a while to come to that realization but every time he utters something like "nucular" he reaffirms his position.

...stupid". We need to crank that up again.

Above all we need people to get out and FREAKIN VOTE. The U.S. voters got way too complacent during the Clinton years, thinking that Gore was a shoe in with the booming economy and all, and that handed the election to Cheney. Hopefully everyone is sufficiently outraged enough to hit the polls this year.

Hi all,

This is my first post, and trust me, I'm not a Bush fan. I'm not trying to upset the apple cart - I'm just interested to see how you guys respond to this.

Thanks

DB

This was written by Larry Elder and was posted at www.townhall.com.

March 18, 2004


"A moderate friend -- aka "swing voter" -- recently sent me a letter, in which he raised his objections about President Bush.

Moderate Friend: Bush has made no major move to address environmental issues at all. The No. 1 thing a president could do environmentally is lead the charge to get us off fossil fuels.

Larry Elder: You must remember to compare benefits versus costs. For the foreseeable future, the only affordable alternatives are coal, natural gas, oil or nuclear. Renewable sources -- solar, wind, etc. -- so favored by the left remain prohibitively expensive. A nation becomes weaker, not stronger, by artificially overspending on costly, inefficient alternatives to fossil fuels. Moreover, our principal supplier of oil is Canada, followed closely by Mexico. In fact, of the top 10 suppliers of oil to the United States, only three are in the Middle East.

M.F.: Alternative fuels have to be developed, and Bush won't lead that charge.

Elder: The private sector should invest its own money for "alternative fuels." When the government gets into this business, it does poorly. A Los Angeles Times article three years ago pointed out that, in the last 50 years, government has spent more than $110 billion on energy research. The Times estimated that tax breaks and other subsidies to encourage development of various sources of energy easily doubles that figure. And what do we have to show for it? The article quotes a UC Berkeley physicist: "We make the wrong bet. We use R&D money to try to pick winners by pouring tons of money into big projects, rather than funding lots of different research and letting the marketplace pick the winners."

M.F.: As for oil, Bush wants to put his friends at Halliburton in charge of it, and import and drill and suck it out of every pit he can find.

Elder: Halliburton has worked with the Department of Defense for 12 years, and did a substantial amount of work under the Clinton administration. Investor's Business Daily recently wrote, " . . . Halliburton won its services contract from the Pentagon back in 1992 -- three years before Cheney became CEO. Then-Defense Secretary Cheney wasn't the one who awarded the contract; career Pentagon officials did. . . . By the way, Halliburton worked under the same basic deal in the Balkans under President Clinton."

M.F.: Don't you feel that the Democrats make a far better show of being "for the people"?

Elder: Increasing minimum wages, as Kerry wants to do, makes it more difficult for an unskilled, uneducated worker to find a job. Price controls on pharmaceuticals discourage drug companies from spending money on research and development to come up with new drugs. Economics 101.

M.F.: I feel that Bush blurs the lines of church and state, in regard to his proposed "marriage amendment." Do we really need this?

Elder: President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows the federal government or any state to reject same-sex marriage. Did you accuse Clinton, too, of "playing politics"? None of the major Democratic presidential candidates supports same-sex marriage.

M.F.: I really don't want to live by Bush's born-again standards of what is and isn't decent for me.

Elder: Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., suggested that the TV show "Friends" -- given its raciness -- should only be shown in movie theaters. And remember the concern about kids and drugs? Former President Bill Clinton actually compensated Hollywood for inserting -- without telling the viewer -- anti-drug messages into the content of television programs.

M.F.: While many of Bush's economic policies have helped this recession, he has built a gargantuan deficit.

Elder: "Gargantuan"? Look at the deficit as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product. With the 2004 deficit at less than 3 percent of GDP, the "Bush deficit" ranks lower than deficits under Truman, Ford, Reagan and the first President Bush. In fact, it's ranked 21st highest since 1940 -- with the top five occurring under Democratic presidents. Why do we have a deficit? Bush inherited a recession, which reduced tax revenue. Add in the cost of the war in Afghanistan, war in Iraq, war on terror and increased expense for homeland security. Yes, the Bush budget increased non-defense discretionary spending, but the president spent money on social programs favored by the Democrats. In fact, Democrats complain that programs like Bush's "No Child Left Behind" need more funding. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry wants to nationalize health care, raise minimum wages, "invest" in education and provide more money for retraining workers. Such a program leads to smaller deficits?

Most economists believe Bush's tax cuts stimulated the economy, making the recession short and shallow. Even if Congress repealed the tax cuts, the "lost revenue" would not close the deficit. John F. Kennedy understood this: "The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budgetary deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous expanding economy which will bring a budgetary surplus."

Hope this helps."

ignorant moron?

"You must remember to compare benefits versus costs. For the foreseeable future, the only affordable alternatives are coal, natural gas, oil or nuclear. Renewable sources -- solar, wind, etc. -- so favored by the left remain prohibitively expensive. A nation becomes weaker, not stronger, by artificially overspending on costly, inefficient alternatives to fossil fuels. Moreover, our principal supplier of oil is Canada, followed closely by Mexico. In fact, of the top 10 suppliers of oil to the United States, only three are in the Middle East."

When the cost/benefit analysis is done and you weigh the future of the planet, then it makes sense to start investing and leading the charge NOW away from fossil fuels. "For the forseeable future" is a bullshit term. It's certainly possible that in the "forseeable future", with enough investment and incentives, the renewable energy industry can lead the way in trasforming the US economy and ultimately be extremely profitable for EVERYONE, creating high-tech jobs in manufacturing these new products and leading the world in the industry. This country is all about leading the way in new and better technologies and these renewable energy products are the future.

"The private sector should invest its own money for "alternative fuels." When the government gets into this business, it does poorly. A Los Angeles Times article three years ago pointed out that, in the last 50 years, government has spent more than $110 billion on energy research. The Times estimated that tax breaks and other subsidies to encourage development of various sources of energy easily doubles that figure. And what do we have to show for it? The article quotes a UC Berkeley physicist: "We make the wrong bet. We use R&D money to try to pick winners by pouring tons of money into big projects, rather than funding lots of different research and letting the marketplace pick the winners.""

This is the biggest load of crap I ever heard. There's hardly an industry that recieves more government welfare than oil, gas and coal. If it's ok for them, then there's no reason the gov't can't get behind alternative energy products that would literally transform the economy of this country and make us the world leaders in this cutting edge technology of the future. Build the factories and they will come.

"Halliburton has worked with the Department of Defense for 12 years, and did a substantial amount of work under the Clinton administration. Investor's Business Daily recently wrote, " . . . Halliburton won its services contract from the Pentagon back in 1992 -- three years before Cheney became CEO. Then-Defense Secretary Cheney wasn't the one who awarded the contract; career Pentagon officials did. . . . By the way, Halliburton worked under the same basic deal in the Balkans under President Clinton.""

Cheney's is STILL getting money from and holds stock options in Halliburton. Clinton didn't. End of story. It stinks to high heaven and anyone who says otherwise is full of shit.

"Increasing minimum wages, as Kerry wants to do, makes it more difficult for an unskilled, uneducated worker to find a job. Price controls on pharmaceuticals discourage drug companies from spending money on research and development to come up with new drugs. Economics 101."

This guy better go back and take economics 101 again. Collusion by drug companies blows this bullshit out of the water. Free markets only apply when your campaign contributors want them to, otherwise cheaper Canadian drug imports should be no problem in a free, competitive market place. Increasing minimum wage is a common sense idea to get more money in the hands of people who are going to spend it and grease the economy. How the hell does he think it keeps unskilled workers from getting jobs? He says that as though it's a given, it's not and there's no evidence for it. That unskilled worker will make a better living and spend more money if his wage is increased. This guy gets more full of shit as he goes along.

"President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows the federal government or any state to reject same-sex marriage. Did you accuse Clinton, too, of "playing politics"? None of the major Democratic presidential candidates supports same-sex marriage."

Clinton didn't want to change the constitution and neither does any Dem. End of story.

"Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., suggested that the TV show "Friends" -- given its raciness -- should only be shown in movie theaters. And remember the concern about kids and drugs? Former President Bill Clinton actually compensated Hollywood for inserting -- without telling the viewer -- anti-drug messages into the content of television programs."

Notice how he changes the subject? This isn't about sex and drugs, it's about church and state. No Democrat says they personally talk to god who tells them to do things. No Dem wants to codify their relgious views into the constitution. Most Dems don't where their religion on their sleeves or feel it's appropriate to give taxpayer money to religious institutions. Religion is a personal thing and should be kept that way.

I won't even get into his ludicrous bullshit about the deficit. Let's just say that I'm sure he was singing a different tune when there were huge deficits and a Dem was in office. However, it's a huge lie that most economists believe what he says they do. Most economists including some in Bush's own admin. say just the opposite. Kennedy was talking about MIDDLE CLASS tax cuts. There's a difference between wise tax cuts and tax cuts for a wealthy few while the middle class gets walloped with tax increases, which under this admin. they have. Local and state taxes have gone up and so have costs for just about everything else. The middle class come out with less money.

I'm sure you won't be responding because honestly, I don't believe you were sincere in posting this tripe.

Sequoia is as well.

Which now does background check software.

http://www.choicepoint.com/

Great flash on the Florida 2000 theft
http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

who will be running the election and manipulating the vote, no doubt have many more options at their disposal than simply trying to steal the votes. It's a long, long time from now until November 2, and I wouldn't put anything past these guys.

In a fair, free, and honest election, just about any of those originally running for the nomination would be a winner come November. But it's not going to be a fair, free, and honest election.

If the final vote simply depended on the ten reasons outlined by TruthIsAll then Kerry (or any other Democratic nominee for that matter) would win in a landslide. But we need to be prepared for a long and dirty campaign. Kerry is vulnerable on many fronts. But any nominee would have been, it's just that Kerry's vulnerabilities are specific to him. I just hope that Kerry starts pounding away on Bush and HIS vulnerabilities, especially all the issues surrounding Sept 11th, the economy & loss of jobs, the rolling back of safety and environmental regulations, and everything else where the facts are on our side.

There are so many ways the election can be stolen that it's almost sad. We cannot simply put our faith in the ballot box.

and he will bring the troops home - junior will be finished for sure!

As much as I wish that would happen, he would catch hell if he pulled out as soon as he got in office.

The CEO of Diebold has already PROMISED to deliver Ohio to Bush. These pukes don't make idle promises to the "master" unless they're looking to go the way of that ENRON exec who "suicided" in his car.

The "selection" is done, the fix is in, and IMHO if the fix doesn't work, the next plane might get crashed into the Capitol building, or if Kerry wins, he and is veep better travel on separate planes.

staunch Republican, thought Ronald Reagan was Jesus comin' back for Round Two, always said Dems make him sick, etc.

He is much taller than Bush, and I would say has better hair. According to Scott Adams, therefore, he's a lock.

Excellent post TIA!

Think about it, folks...Gore won the majority of votes last time. There is no reason for previous Gore (or Nader) voters to vote for Bush this time. I have not met a single Gore voter who now says, "I think I like Bush this time." I'm sure there are a handful out there, but that number is insignificant.

TIA points out a number of groups of voters who have been screwed by this administration and who will definitely not vote Bush this time. Hell, even if they vote third party or not at all it helps us.

We will win this election (unless it is stolen), count on it!

and anyone directly affected by his environmental policies/edicts who voted for him before.

My understanding of the Muslim vote is that a significant percentage will go to Nader, because the Islamic community feels betrayed by both sides.

is going to go for Nader this time knowing that it is a vote for bush?? Seriously. Anyone who REALLY doesn't want 4 more years of bush couldn't vote for Nader. I think one thing we should be saying loud and long is "can you imagine how much damage bush will do if he has 4 more years and no need to hold back?" That thought keeps me awake at night.

Pacifica did a piece on the disillusionment of Muslim voters a couple of weeks ago. Truth to tell, is anybody looking out for the interests of Muslim Americans?

Please let me state for the record that I am not a Muslim, so I could never presume to speak for their community, nor am I a supporter of Nader or his candidacy. The idea of another Nader spoiler makes me sick, which is why I'm bringing it up here.

I just report the news; I try not to make it too often.

Excellent post, truth! Electronic voting is REALLY the only major obstacle we face! Corporate media can sing Chimp's praises til they're blue in the face - but most people hate the Evil/Clueless War Chimp at this point - and nothing - not Bin Laden or WMD plants are gonna change that!