Would Bush or Kerry be better for technology?

253 Comments

“Back in May, tech leaders such as John Chambers, chief executive officer of Cisco Systems Inc., and Michael Dell, chairman of Dell Inc., threw their support behind George W. Bush. John Kerry has industry backing of his own, including that of Apple Computer Inc.

253 Comments

  2. matis: real original. how long did it take for you to come up with that variation of my name? The Republican party is using 9/11 as its backdrop. While the events of that day took its toll on nearly everyone in the world, let alone this country, you cannot argue that the biggest grief comes from the families of those that lost loved ones that day and the born and bred natives of NYC such as myself. Guess who most NY’ers are most likely going to vote for?

    As Giuliani whispered to Bush when he went to Ground Zero and he addressed the firefighters “You know none of these people voted for you, Mr. President.”

    Go back to your simpleton way of life “matis”.

    Reply

  4. wake up please, you are so full of shit. it’s so easy to blame Clinton for the recession but recessions aren’t new. Plenty of presidents have been able to manage them and still end up with net gains over their administrations. GW has net losses in almost every economic index there is.

    Everything in his 2004 nomination acceptance speech regarding domestic policy was right out of his 2000 nomination acceptance speech. So basically he wants to be re-elected to do the stuff he didn’t do in his first term.

    Reply

  5. I already voted for the only obvious choice via absentee ballot). We need to have America be respected and lead the free world in the war on terror, work on alternate technology to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, work on balancing the budget while creating new jobs at home, and be good to the environment.

    OK now you tell me. Who did I vote for? If you got a million dollars for guessing correctly (sorry but this is hypothetical of course ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” /> who would you guess that I voted for? Your answer should tell you a lot.

    Reply

  8. Jack A…

    My guess is… you didnt vote for for the idiot currently occupying the white house !!

    but, on the other hand…. I guess I’d vote for him, too…

    IF I was also an oil man making money on the prices at the pump !!

    Reply

  11. I live in brazil but I really want to make a green card and go to us to vote BUSH as the new american president …

    Vote GEORGE BUSH 2004 in 2004!!!

    Don`t make the same mistake that we do in brazil voting in LULA …..

    Reply

  12. Mainstream media bias against Republican presidental candi dates is a fact of American po litical life.

    Rarely, though, has this been so evident as this year; the establishment media seems to have become a wing of John Kerry’s campaign.

    One unusually candid member of the liberal media mafia admitted as much during the Democratic convention.

    Evan Thomas, assistant managing editor of Newsweek, offered this confession on media bias on the PBS program “Inside Washington.”

    “The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards � I’m talking about the establishment media, not Fox � as being young and dynamic and optimistic, and there’s going to be this glow about them, collective glow.”

    Whereupon his magazine published a � how best to put this � glowing cover story dubbing the Democratic duo “The Sunshine Boys.”

    This was hardly an isolated incident � though we’ll get to Dan Rather and his hatchet work in a bit.

    First, consider the latest smoking gun to emerge in the media war on George Bush: The internal memo written by ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin that popped up right before Friday night’s Bush-Kerry debate.

    Halperin, described by the network as “responsible for the planning and editorial content of all political news on the network,” issued new orders.

    Both sides distort the truth, he said, adding in effect that Kerry’s lies don’t matter � but that George W. Bush’s most certainly do.

    “Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.” In contrast, he wrote, “the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done” � a point he said was echoed by reporters from such paragons of objectivity as the above-mentioned Newsweek and The New York Times.

    Then came the instructions:

    “We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn’t mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides ‘equally’ accountable when the facts don’t warrant that.

    Reply

  13. “It’s up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public in- terest, now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right.”
    That is, voters need skillful, strong “help” evaluating information because they are too stupid, too ignorant or too benighted to figure out the “right” way to vote all by themselves.
    They need Mark Halperin and his crew of correct-thinkers to explain things to them.

    Such arrogance borders on the incomprehensible � and it is unforgivable at this stage of one of the most important presidential elections in American history.

    An ABC News flack said Friday night that “we’re not interested in taking sides” � which hardly addresses the issues raised by the Halperin memo.

    So here’s hoping that network handles its crisis with more honesty, more honor, than CBS mustered in the Dan Rather Memogate fiasco last month.

    Rather and an activist CBS producer harboring a five-year obsession with George W. Bush’s military record decided to prove that the president had lied about his service � and to do it as close to Election Day as possible.

    There was one big problem with this project: An utter lack of evidence.

    So they swallowed whole “incriminating” documents that were convincingly discredited by by any number of neutral observers within three hours!

    And still it took two weeks for Rather to admit that he � top dog at the once-upon-a-time Tiffany network � had been duped. Almost to the end, he snarlingly insisted that anyone who questioned CBS News was motivated right-wing politics.

    Meanwhile, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne and Time magazine were fretting that the Memogate controversy was “shifting the debate away from Bush’s questionable record” � and mainstream media mavens were derisively dismissing credible questions about John Kerry’s own military record as political “smears.”

    Again, this phenomenom is not new � though rarely has it be practiced so openly, so arrogantly.

    What to do about it?

    The fact that Rather still presides over the “CBS Evening News” is an amazement; it speaks, in fact, to the cowardice and moral rot that informs the mainstream media.

    Will Halperin be put on the shelf?

    For what? For putting in writing the instructions that usually are transmitted in winks and nods?

    Don’t bet on it.

    But don’t believe a word any of them say, either.

    Reply

  15. Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee Sen. John Edwards now says the Bush administration should have known better than to liberate Iraq � but here’s what Edwards was saying back when the possibility of war was still being debated. Reprinted from the Sept. 19, 2002, Washington Post.

    Congress Must Be Clear
    Quick action will ensure that politics plays no part in the debate about Iraq

    THE debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national secu rity. It should be clear that our na tional security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.

    Fast congressional action to reinforce our resolve is more imperative, not less, in light of Saddam Hussein’s recent overture to allow U.N. inspectors back into Iraq. That is a gambit we have seen before. Congress needs to act now to make clear to our U.N. allies and to Iraq that the United States will not stand for the usual half-measures or delaying tactics.

    Drafting an appropriate resolution that a large majority of Congress could support should not be difficult. The outlines of such a resolution are already clear. In fact, the biggest debate right now is over the politics of “timing.”

    There’s no better way to remove politics from the process than to go straight to a debate over substance. Quick, bipartisan congressional action will ensure that politics plays no part in this debate. It will also strengthen America’s hand as we pursue support from the Security Council and seek to enlist the cooperation of our allies.

    The resolution should be strong and unambiguous. It should not be a blank check for the administration, but neither should it try to micromanage a war from Capitol Hill. It should spell out the broad elements of a process that will preserve the legitimacy of American actions, enhance international consensus and strengthen our global leadership.

    Here’s what I believe the resolution should say. First and foremost, it should clearly endorse the use of all necessary means to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.

    Reply

  16. Second, the resolution should call for an effort to rally the international community under a U.N. Security Council mandate. The president’s speech last week was an important first step, and his belated diplomatic efforts have already borne fruit. At the same time, we must not tie our own hands by requiring Security Council action. Congress should authorize the United States to act with whatever allies will join us if the Security Council is prevented from supporting action to enforce the more than 16 resolutions against Iraq.

    Third, Congress should demand that the administration take real steps to win the peace. The only chance for Iraq to become a democratic, tolerant state � and a model for the Arab world � will be through sustained American involvement. We will need to help provide security inside Iraq after Hussein is gone, work with the various Iraqi opposition groups, reassure Iraq’s neighbors about its future stability and support the Iraqi people as they rebuild their lives. Congress also should consider authorizing funds now to support such efforts, rather than waiting for events to force us to act with emergency spending.

    Congressional pressure to secure our victory is especially necessary because of the administration’s performance in Afghanistan, where we have been dangerously slow to help provide security and support democracy. This is wrong today in Afghanistan, and it will be wrong tomorrow in Iraq. In fact, the president’s silence about any U.S. commitment to a post-Hussein Iraq was a conspicuous flaw in his speech last week before the United Nations.

    Reply

  17. Congress must also make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East. We must do more to support existing nonproliferation and disarmament programs that can help prevent access to the weapons-grade materials that tyrants such as Hussein want. We must demand America’s active and continuous involvement in addressing the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and in promoting democracy throughout the Arab world. We must commit to developing a national strategy for energy security, one that would reduce our reliance on the Middle East for such critical resources.

    Iraq is a grave and growing threat. Hussein has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people.

    Iraq’s destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and it poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam Hussein’s arsenal and would stop at nothing to use it against us. America must act, and Congress must make clear to Hussein that he faces a united nation.

    John Edwards is a Democratic senator from North Carolina and a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

    Reply

  18. And, besides…

    The Viet Nam issue …. is none of your business… unless you WERE THERE !!

    If you weren’t born… or weren’t old enough to know what was going on during that time… you have NO RIGHT to voice an opinion on the issue…. let alone to “parrot” those who also werent around back then…

    The Viet Nam War tore this country apart !! … Even back then, feelings were extremely strong … on both sides of the issue !!

    Those who fought in “The Nam” were spat upon when they came back home… and called “baby killers” …and other things not suitable for a family web forum…

    Truth was… in fact … some of the guys really DID have to shoot children …. but only to protect themselves and their buddies…

    And… no matter what side of the issue you were on… atrocities WERE committed !! …. No matter how many times you hear ..

    “Well, I never saw that !” …

    They happened !! …

    And as a result…. many many veterans who came back from that war…. joined and supported the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War…

    Yes…. just the very existance of that movement.. pissed off a lot of other Viet Nam Veterans… and even back then, claimed that the VNVAW “aided and abetted the enemy” by testifying to things they saw “in country”…

    But, I tell you as one who knows …. if you werent there… dont offend those who were by repeating crap said by others who also werent there…

    Its taken more than 30 years for some Vets to heal the scars from that war…. and Im not talking about the scars you can readilly see.. For some… those scars will never heal !!

    What John Kerry did after he came home was to try to bring an end to the war… if it meant testifying to things he saw… so be it…

    Other vets chose another route …

    Neither were wrong…at the time…

    I urge you to talk to someone who was there…. and find out what those times … and thatwar …. did… to the vets…and our country !!

    Or talk to Senator John McCain…

    Even he asks people to allow the wounds of Viet Nam to heal !!

    Reply

  19. TO hear Iraq war critics claim Saddam Hussein lacked ter ror ties is to stand on a beach and listen to people deny the existence of sand. Now John Kerry strolls by in his flip-flops, chanting the no-such-thing-as-sand mantra.

    “Iraq is now what it was not before the war: a haven for terrorists,” Kerry told Philadelphia voters Sept. 24.

    Kerry stated at the Sept. 30 presidential debate: “Iraq was not even close to the center of the War on Terror before the president invaded it.”

    Kerry’s current position contradicts at least 15 key Democrats, Democratic-led federal agencies and Establishment-Left media organizations that � at least until this election year � believed the inescapable truth: Saddam did have ties to terrorists, including al Qaeda.

    Kerry ought to study the words of a Massachusetts senator named . . . John Forbes Kerry.

    * Kerry discussed “terrorist organizations” at an Aug. 1, 1996, Senate Intelligence Committee hearing. He said, “These entities survive with country support, the support of the country of Syria, or country of Libya, or country of Iran, Iraq and so forth.”

    * “[Saddam] is and has acted like a terrorist, and he has engaged in activities that are unacceptable,” Kerry said Dec. 11, 2001, on Fox News’ “O’Reilly Factor.

    Reply

  20. * Just before authorizing the Iraq war on Oct. 9, 2002, Kerry referred to Saddam on the Senate floor: “He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.”

    If the new John Kerry finds the old John Kerry unpersuasive, he should consult Stephen Hayes’ indispensable best seller, “The Connection.” This guided tour of Baathism’s terrorism factory teems with Democratic and liberal voices that tie Saddam to militant Islam. Several appear below.

    * In spring 1998, the Clinton Justice Department indicted Osama bin Laden. As his indictment read, “Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.”

    * New York Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton declared on the Senate floor Oct. 10, 2002, that Saddam gave “aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.”

    * The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee and the 9/11 Commission concluded that Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda were, in fact, in communication. However, both documents deny a formal, Saddam-bin Laden treaty-type alliance.

    Kerry has run from all this and much more, including his own words.

    Once again, he reveals himself as an opportunist who tailors his views, even on Saddam’s philanthropy of terror, to fit his political ends.

    Reply

  21. * Just before authorizing the Iraq war on Oct. 9, 2002, Kerry referred to Saddam on the Senate floor: “He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.”

    If the new John Kerry finds the old John Kerry unpersuasive, he should consult Stephen Hayes’ indispensable best seller, “The Connection.” This guided tour of Baathism’s terrorism factory teems with Democratic and liberal voices that tie Saddam to militant Islam. Several appear below.

    * In spring 1998, the Clinton Justice Department indicted Osama bin Laden. As his indictment read, “Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.”

    * New York Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton declared on the Senate floor Oct. 10, 2002, that Saddam gave “aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.”

    * The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee and the 9/11 Commission concluded that Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda were, in fact, in communication. However, both documents deny a formal, Saddam-bin Laden treaty-type alliance.

    Kerry has run from all this and much more, including his own words.

    Once again, he reveals himself as an opportunist who tailors his views, even on Saddam’s philanthropy of terror, to fit his political ends.

    Reply

  22. I was a POW in Vietnam and John Kerry did nothing but inflame our beetings. I”m not going to get into it here but I can tell you Vietnam Vets hate John Kerry!

    George Bush in 2004!

    Reply

  23. THE ISSUE: Corruption in the Oil-for-Food program and the vote for war.

    Now we know what countries truly constituted the coalition of the bribed (“John Kerry’s ‘Allies’ � Bought and Paid For,” Editorial, Oct. 8).

    Russia, France and Germany are the three countries with the most illicit transactions in the Oil-for-Food program.

    These traditional allies, which demonstrated their willingness to be bribed and coerced into covering for Saddam Hussein, are whom John Kerry wants to replace us in Iraq.

    These countries’ leaders have proved themselves to be nothing more than freelancers whose power and authority can be purchased by the highest bidder.

    The misuse of the Oil-for-Food program is the single biggest scandal in the world today.

    Billions of dollars were siphoned off to dignitaries and their close friends to buy the appeasement of the United Nations.

    Kerry feels that we need to pass a “global test” with these three countries grading our proposals before we can defend ourselves?

    Kerry is the wrong candidate at the wrong time.

    Reply

  24. The United Nations, under the leadership of Kofi Annan, is a totally corrupt organization.

    Saddam Hussein was able to buy off France, China and Russia with oil and cash.

    President Bush deserves credit for his decision to invade Iraq despite disapproval from many in the international community.

    What we should be considering now are sanctions on our French “friends.”

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.