Why did Kerry loose the election?

[Fantasea]

>>It is said that George W. Bush won the 2004 presidential election because of religious voters, especially evangelical Protestants. What is not said is that John F. Kerry lost the election because he failed not only to win religious voters generally but Catholics specifically. Because he lost Catholics -- an amazing fact when one considers that Kerry himself is Catholic -- he lost the race. <<Paul Kengor

Kerry may consider himself a Catholic, however, practicing Catholics are hard pressed to identify with someone claiming Catholicity who has openly supported abortion and who treats his marital obligations with Hollywood abandon.

They smell hypocracy.

 

[ShamMol]

Kerry may consider himself a Catholic, however, practicing Catholics are hard pressed to identify with someone claiming Catholicity who has openly supported abortion and who treats his marital obligations with Hollywood abandon.

They smell hypocracy.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but as a former catholic, I can tell you that the majority of my congregation, and at the least a large percentage of Catholics do not believe in all of the things the Church says.

Yeah, people get divorced now, its not a big deal anymore, and a lot of catholics don't agree on birth control and abortion, big woop. Kerry still got something damn close to 50% if not that, i don't remember, of the Catholic vote.

I smell hypocrisy in George Bush, a christian who believes that abortion is bad but that the death penalty, something visciously opposed by any christian church, is a-ok. Does that mean that I would vote against him for that specific reason? No, I have a myriad (I kid, I kid, lol).

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Kerry may consider himself a Catholic, however, practicing Catholics are hard pressed to identify with someone claiming Catholicity who has openly supported abortion and who treats his marital obligations with Hollywood abandon.

They smell hypocracy.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but as a former catholic

This is no revelation. It was apparent to anyone who read a few of your posts.

I can tell you that the majority of my congregation, and at the least a large percentage of Catholics do not believe in all of the things the Church says.

Yeah, people get divorced now, its not a big deal anymore, and a lot of catholics don't agree on birth control and abortion, big woop. Kerry still got something damn close to 50% if not that, i don't remember, of the Catholic vote.

Those who are baptized at birth and grow up to believe that they are better at the "art of theology" than the folks at the Vatican somehow never consider that they might be somewhat arrogant.

But, since we have been endowed by Our Creator with free will, one may faithfully practice one's Catholicity or permit it to lapse. No one ever said that the road is pleasant, or even easy. However the way is known.

The mission of the Church is to teach. As with public education, some accept teaching, some don't. And, as with public schools, the Church is powerless to do more than that. The difference is that the door to the Church is always open to welcome those who wish to return and follow its teachings. The operative words being, "follow its teachings".

I smell hypocrisy in George Bush, a christian who believes that abortion is bad but that the death penalty, something visciously opposed by any christian church, is a-ok. Does that mean that I would vote against him for that specific reason? No, I have a myriad (I kid, I kid, lol).

I am always amazed when a seemingly intelligent person attempts to equate these two disparate situations.

1. An adult who, after being apprehended for the commission of a heinous crime, is tried, found guilty by a jury, sentenced to death by a judge, and after many years of appeals, is finally executed.

2. A child in the womb, innocently growing toward the day of its eventual birth, is summarily sentenced to capital punishment for merely showing up at an inopportune time and is simply aborted.

I do not favor capital punishment of criminals because even with the safeguards built into the system, mistakes have occurred and innocent persons have been executed. Life without parole is my preference.

In any event, can one compare the aborting of about six thousand children every business day with executions when the "Number of people executed by civil authorities from 1930 to 2000: 4,608"?*

* http://www.westernprisonproject.org/PrisonIndex/Section_1/DeathPenalty.html

 

[Hoot]

Kerry may consider himself a Catholic, however, practicing Catholics are hard pressed to identify with someone claiming Catholicity who has openly supported abortion and who treats his marital obligations with Hollywood abandon.

They smell hypocracy.

Well...Bush may consider himself a Methodist, but he's already broken two tenets, at least, of the Methodist faith....

(1 Methodists believe abortion should be allowed in cases where the mother's life is at risk.

2) War should only be waged as an extreme last resort.

Some might say this smells of hypocrisy in Bush?

Please note how I did not correct your spelling, as you did once for me.
I'm calling it even now.

 

[Fantasea]

Thanks for the tip.

Drat. The spell checker must be on the blink again. I guess I'll have to call the plumber and have it reamed out. Do you know how much those guys charge for house calls? Unbelievable.

 

[Jack Dawson]

Simple answer

The American voters DID understand his message and they rejected it.

This is NOT rocket science we are dealing with here. :2wave:

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Well...Bush may consider himself a Methodist, but he's already broken two tenets, at least, of the Methodist faith....

(1 Methodists believe abortion should be allowed in cases where the mother's life is at risk.

2) War should only be waged as an extreme last resort.

Some might say this smells of hypocrisy in Bush?

Please note how I did not correct your spelling, as you did once for me.
I'm calling it even now.

From what I'm beginning to understand, I think I can make a distiguishing call on this one... Catholics believe that their tenets are word of God through Pope, therefore they are not to be questioned or acted against, for they are questioning and/or acting against the direct word of God. Fom what I understand of Methodists, they take these as standings, but regard them as interpretations, not as Divine Command, and therefore they can be taken at face value, but reasoned against at through Divine Direction as one might call it.
(note: I am neither against abortion in the case of a woman's life or in belief that this was a necesarry war, just couldn't resist the loophole :shock: )

 

[Fantasea]

Well...Bush may consider himself a Methodist, but he's already broken two tenets, at least, of the Methodist faith....

(1 Methodists believe abortion should be allowed in cases where the mother's life is at risk.

Perhaps the Methodists are considering what they believe to be the greater good.

However, with all of the modern pre and post natal care available to all expectant mothers, plus the state of the art obstetrics, the incidence of death of a mother in childbirth rounds to a statistical zero because the number is far less than one half of one per cent.

This being the case, how does one justify, except on emotional grounds, the fact that the number of aborted children is rapidly approaching 50,000,000. That's fifty million.

"I just don't want the damned kid.", is the chief reason for aborting children.

 

[Fantasea]

From what I'm beginning to understand, I think I can make a distiguishing call on this one... Catholics believe that their tenets are word of God through Pope, therefore they are not to be questioned or acted against, for they are questioning and/or acting against the direct word of God. Fom what I understand of Methodists, they take these as standings, but regard them as interpretations, not as Divine Command, and therefore they can be taken at face value, but reasoned against at through Divine Direction as one might call it.
(note: I am neither against abortion in the case of a woman's life or in belief that this was a necesarry war, just couldn't resist the loophole :shock: )

Perhaps this will help you further understand Methodists and from whence they came.

Methodists
Dictionary of American History, Volume 4, ©1976. Published by, and used with the permission of, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1633 Broadway, NewYork, New York 10019

Glenn T. Miller


The Methodist church was founded as a separate entity by John Wesley in 1744 in England. He had initially hoped to reawaken the Church of England to the demands of vital piety. Wesley's theology was a warm-hearted evangelicalism that stressed the experience of Christ within the heart, man's capacity to accept Christ's offer of redemption, and the need for a disciplined life. In his later years Wesley came to believe in the possibility of entire sanctification or holiness (a state of perfection) and taught that it should be the goal of every Christian. This latter doctrine has contributed to many of the divisions within Methodism.

From this we see that John Wesley, a follower of the Church of England, which resulted when Henry VIII, a Catholic who, in a snit with the Vatican, raised marital discord to the level of a whole new religion, became disenchanted with the status quo and went off to start his own new religion about 260 years ago, which, according to Glenn T. Miller, has undergone many subsequent divisions as members, a la its founder, decided to go their own way.

Is this any different from the present day, when persons baptized into Catholicism at birth decide in adulthood that they want an easier path than the teachings of the Vatican provide?

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Perhaps this will help you further understand Methodists and from whence they came.

Methodists
Dictionary of American History, Volume 4, ©1976. Published by, and used with the permission of, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1633 Broadway, NewYork, New York 10019

Glenn T. Miller


The Methodist church was founded as a separate entity by John Wesley in 1744 in England. He had initially hoped to reawaken the Church of England to the demands of vital piety. Wesley's theology was a warm-hearted evangelicalism that stressed the experience of Christ within the heart, man's capacity to accept Christ's offer of redemption, and the need for a disciplined life. In his later years Wesley came to believe in the possibility of entire sanctification or holiness (a state of perfection) and taught that it should be the goal of every Christian. This latter doctrine has contributed to many of the divisions within Methodism.

From this we see that John Wesley, a follower of the Church of England, which resulted when Henry VIII, a Catholic who, in a snit with the Vatican, raised marital discord to the level of a whole new religion, became disenchanted with the status quo and went off to start his own new religion about 260 years ago, which, according to Glenn T. Miller, has undergone many subsequent divisions as members, a la its founder, decided to go their own way.

Is this any different from the present day, when persons baptized into Catholicism at birth decide in adulthood that they want an easier path than the teachings of the Vatican provide?

Now wait. Are you suggesting that the only reason for leaving the Catholic Church is because of the difficulty of following its laws? Because frankly, I think that it is perfectly fine to dissagree with the Vatican on something and be completely right in the eyes of God. For example, you don't really believe that pardoners could actually let souls into heaven for a small dollar amount do you? But that was an open practice of the Catholic Church for a very long time. It is the corruption of the Church that led many of its memebers to seperate faiths, not it's hard to follow guidlines.

 

[Hoot]

Thanks for the tip.

Drat. The spell checker must be on the blink again. I guess I'll have to call the plumber and have it reamed out. Do you know how much those guys charge for house calls? Unbelievable.

Hey, Fantasea...thanks for the humor and not showing me any animocity from my last post.

To make up, I misspelled a word above. LOL

 

[Fantasea]

Now wait. Are you suggesting that the only reason for leaving the Catholic Church is because of the difficulty of following its laws? Because frankly, I think that it is perfectly fine to dissagree with the Vatican on something and be completely right in the eyes of God. For example, you don't really believe that pardoners could actually let souls into heaven for a small dollar amount do you? But that was an open practice of the Catholic Church for a very long time. It is the corruption of the Church that led many of its memebers to seperate faiths, not it's hard to follow guidlines.

I have no way of knowing why all of those who left the Church did so. However, in the case of some of the historical figures the reasons are clear.

My guess would be that, currently, the most popular reasons for 'jumping ship' are the inability to extricate one's self from a marriage which is ecclesiastically valid, problems relating to pregnancy, and heterosexuals and homosexuals who don't wish to remain celibate.

Those who 'jump ship' are always able to find shelter in any of a number of 'ports' whose doctrinal docks have been constructed so as to provide a 'snug harbor' in which one may 'tie up'. If the first chosen berth is not a sufficiently comfortable fit, there are always plenty of other locations to sample.

 

[ShamMol]

I have no way of knowing why all of those who left the Church did so. However, in the case of some of the historical figures the reasons are clear.

My guess would be that, currently, the most popular reasons for 'jumping ship' are the inability to extricate one's self from a marriage which is ecclesiastically valid, problems relating to pregnancy, and heterosexuals and homosexuals who don't wish to remain celibate.

Those who 'jump ship' are always able to find shelter in any of a number of 'ports' whose doctrinal docks have been constructed so as to provide a 'snug harbor' in which one may 'tie up'. If the first chosen berth is not a sufficiently comfortable fit, there are always plenty of other locations to sample.

Did you just speak for me? Personally I left the Church for a combination of reasons, least of which is the Church's treatment of homosexuals-the hatred and animosity is something i don't like to see from anyone. My number one reason was that I just lost my faith in God. I had a lot happen in a short amount of time, I began to realize that my religion wasn't providing me with ****, I began to realize that its a "bunch of crackpot teachings" that come from a book written 300 years after the fact, etc, etc, etc. I am sure I will be back someday, but I just have to work out some issues first.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Thanks for the tip.

Drat. The spell checker must be on the blink again. I guess I'll have to call the plumber and have it reamed out. Do you know how much those guys charge for house calls? Unbelievable.

Hey, Fantasea...thanks for the humor and not showing me any animocity from my last post.

To make up, I misspelled a word above. LOL

I ocne raed taht if teh frist and lsat letetrs aer crocret the wrods can be raed.

Is this true?

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
I have no way of knowing why all of those who left the Church did so. However, in the case of some of the historical figures the reasons are clear.

My guess would be that, currently, the most popular reasons for 'jumping ship' are the inability to extricate one's self from a marriage which is ecclesiastically valid, problems relating to pregnancy, and heterosexuals and homosexuals who don't wish to remain celibate.

Those who 'jump ship' are always able to find shelter in any of a number of 'ports' whose doctrinal docks have been constructed so as to provide a 'snug harbor' in which one may 'tie up'. If the first chosen berth is not a sufficiently comfortable fit, there are always plenty of other locations to sample.

Did you just speak for me?

If this is how it seems, I can only seek refuge behind the word 'coincidence'.

Personally I left the Church for a combination of reasons, least of which is the Church's treatment of homosexuals-the hatred and animosity is something i don't like to see from anyone. My number one reason was that I just lost my faith in God. I had a lot happen in a short amount of time, I began to realize that my religion wasn't providing me with ****,

It's difficult to make a comment on such a statement. It's even more difficult to do so without seeming to be preaching a sermon. However, I'll try.

The Church teaches the love of the person, regardless of sexual orientation, but not the acceptance of behavior which is in conflict with its teachings. It is unfortunate that there are those Catholics who do not hew sufficiently close to the line and behave inordinately toward homosexuals. The teachings of the one should not be confused with the actions of the others.

To blame God for misfortunes which may befall one is not ususual. There is a school of thought which urges, in times of difficulty, to prayerfully seek the release of the strength which is in all of us to overcome, to prevail, to endure, or whatever fortitudinal characteristic is required to wend our way through the bramble thickets of life.

As an example, many miracles have occured at Lourdes. However, the thousands upon thousands of pilgrims to the Shrine at Lourdes do not seek miraculous cures. What they do seek and receive is the serenity to accept their disability and to continue their lives to the fullest within the limitations of their handicap. Some of the handicaps are physical, some of the handicaps are spiritual.

Most of the spiritual handicaps are self-inflicted psycholigical wounds. Given the age of the world and the number of humans who have inhabited it since Adam and Eve, there is nothing that can befall any of us that hasn't happened to millions of others. Who among us has not suffered misfortune or great sadness? The key is not what has happened, but the way we react to what has happened. Will we permit trouble to weaken us or use it as an opportunity it to make us stronger?

No matter what, life goes on. The individual decides how to live it.

With attribution to Abraham Lincoln, "I reckon everybody is just about as happy as he makes up his mind to be."

I began to realize that its a "bunch of crackpot teachings" that come from a book written 300 years after the fact, etc, etc, etc. I am sure I will be back someday, but I just have to work out some issues first.

It's easier than you think. Just step into the confessional and say, Father, I've been away and I want to come home. He'll take it from there.

The relief will be instantaneous and you'll feel as if you never left.

Somehow, I think this may have turned into a sermon. For that, I apologize.

 

[aquapub]

Kerry lost because people saw through his phony, nuance-ridden posturing. He was alien to the average Joe. His positions on national security (the ones you could make out between all the position changes) were reminiscent of Bill Clinton's visionless, "take it up the rear from Al Queda while kissing France's ass" approach. He was a run-of-the-mill, elitist, left-wing, North Eastern snob who would say anything to get more power, and who stood for everything mainstream Americans find revolting or immoral. He had a more radical voting record than Ted Kennedy. He sided with frivolous lawsuits, corrupt labor unions, obscenely expensive socialized medicine programs, and the outrageous middle class tax hikes required to halfway pay for them. Pick a reason.

 

[Fantasea]

Kerry lost because people saw through his phony, nuance-ridden posturing. He was alien to the average Joe. His positions on national security (the ones you could make out between all the position changes) were reminiscent of Bill Clinton's visionless, "take it up the rear from Al Queda while kissing France's ass" approach. He was a run-of-the-mill, elitist, left-wing, North Eastern snob who would say anything to get more power, and who stood for everything mainstream Americans find revolting or immoral. He had a more radical voting record than Ted Kennedy. He sided with frivolous lawsuits, corrupt labor unions, obscenely expensive socialized medicine programs, and the outrageous middle class tax hikes required to halfway pay for them. Pick a reason.

I take it you didn't care for this guy.

 

[ShamMol]

If this is how it seems, I can only seek refuge behind the word 'coincidence'. It's difficult to make a comment on such a statement. It's even more difficult to do so without seeming to be preaching a sermon. However, I'll try.

The Church teaches the love of the person, regardless of sexual orientation, but not the acceptance of behavior which is in conflict with its teachings. It is unfortunate that there are those Catholics who do not hew sufficiently close to the line and behave inordinately toward homosexuals. The teachings of the one should not be confused with the actions of the others.

To blame God for misfortunes which may befall one is not ususual. There is a school of thought which urges, in times of difficulty, to prayerfully seek the release of the strength which is in all of us to overcome, to prevail, to endure, or whatever fortitudinal characteristic is required to wend our way through the bramble thickets of life.

As an example, many miracles have occured at Lourdes. However, the thousands upon thousands of pilgrims to the Shrine at Lourdes do not seek miraculous cures. What they do seek and receive is the serenity to accept their disability and to continue their lives to the fullest within the limitations of their handicap. Some of the handicaps are physical, some of the handicaps are spiritual.

Most of the spiritual handicaps are self-inflicted psycholigical wounds. Given the age of the world and the number of humans who have inhabited it since Adam and Eve, there is nothing that can befall any of us that hasn't happened to millions of others. Who among us has not suffered misfortune or great sadness? The key is not what has happened, but the way we react to what has happened. Will we permit trouble to weaken us or use it as an opportunity it to make us stronger?

No matter what, life goes on. The individual decides how to live it.

With attribution to Abraham Lincoln, "I reckon everybody is just about as happy as he makes up his mind to be."It's easier than you think. Just step into the confessional and say, Father, I've been away and I want to come home. He'll take it from there.

The relief will be instantaneous and you'll feel as if you never left.

Somehow, I think this may have turned into a sermon. For that, I apologize.

Apology accepted because you couldn't change what has been made up in my mind. I never blamed god for what happened to me, but religion as I stated "wasn't providing me with sh*t." I didn't get anything from it, I was wasting an hour a week on nothing, listening to things that were not even written quickly after the death of Jesus. There are so many different contradictions, there are things that don't make sense, and I guess organized religion was not for me. I still believe in a higher power, but I guess I am more of a Deist than anything. He came, he created, he put bacteria in the sea, and then he left us to our own devices...how "Enlightenment" I am, lol.

You brought up Adam and Eve, which doesn't make since there would be no way to continue the population without bending the laws of science, there are so many things wrong with the bible, you just can't trust it. Then you have people mis-quoting the bible-for example sodom where the moral of the story was that god was pissed because they didn't open up their arms and instead murdered.

I doubt I will be back until either I get married and have to for it to be a marriage in the Church, if that is important to my life, or until I have an experience where a god touches me or has any effect on my life. Hasn't happened left and believing in a god didn't make me stronger or give me anything but a waste of time.

Don't preach to me Fant, it is a waste of your time, but hey, your time might be worthless, so...

 

[Fantasea]

Apology accepted because you couldn't change what has been made up in my mind.

I don't believe that one can change another's mind. One can only change one's own mind. The question is, should one close one's mind on a subject of such major import?

I never blamed god for what happened to me, but religion as I stated "wasn't providing me with sh*t." I didn't get anything from it,

What was it that you were expecting religion to provide?

I was wasting an hour a week

Not to put too fine a point on it, do you really believe that one hour, out of the one hundred sixty-eight hours in every week, is enough of an investment of your time to learn very much about things of which you are uncertain?

listening to things that were not even written quickly after the death of Jesus.

Do you believe that the scriveners were laboring under Divine Guidance? If so, what difference would it make when the scriptures were transcribed?

There are so many different contradictions, there are things that don't make sense,

I'm not being critical, but when one considers that scholars and theologians spend a lifetime interpreting the bible, do you think it might be a bit presumptuous for so many lay people to criticize what may be beyond their ability to understand?

and I guess organized religion was not for me. I still believe in a higher power, but I guess I am more of a Deist than anything. He came, he created, he put bacteria in the sea, and then he left us to our own devices...how "Enlightenment" I am

You brought up Adam and Eve, which doesn't make since there would be no way to continue the population without bending the laws of science,

If one believes that God is the Supreme Creator, then who is it that created 'science' in the first place?

there are so many things wrong with the bible, you just can't trust it. Then you have people mis-quoting the bible-for example sodom where the moral of the story was that god was pissed because they didn't open up their arms and instead murdered.

People read, people quote, people mis-quote, etc., etc. So what? See the remarks about folks who interpret the bible.

I doubt I will be back until either I get married and have to for it to be a marriage in the Church, if that is important to my life, or until I have an experience where a god touches me or has any effect on my life. Hasn't happened left and believing in a god didn't make me stronger or give me anything but a waste of time.

It's easy to get sore at God. One doesn't receive an immediate response. However, the many who left the house this morning and unexpedtedly ended up in the local mortuary, have experienced Revelation 3:3, "Remember therefore what you have received and heard; and keep it, and repent. If therefore you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you."

I like to think of it as, "Who knows how much thread is left on his individual 'spool of life"?

Don't preach to me Fant, it is a waste of your time, but hey, your time might be worthless, so...

What makes you think I consider chatting with you a waste of time?

 

[Mixed View]

:applaud :applaud

Kerry lost because people saw through his phony, nuance-ridden posturing. He was alien to the average Joe. His positions on national security (the ones you could make out between all the position changes) were reminiscent of Bill Clinton's visionless, "take it up the rear from Al Queda while kissing France's ass" approach. He was a run-of-the-mill, elitist, left-wing, North Eastern snob who would say anything to get more power, and who stood for everything mainstream Americans find revolting or immoral. He had a more radical voting record than Ted Kennedy. He sided with frivolous lawsuits, corrupt labor unions, obscenely expensive socialized medicine programs, and the outrageous middle class tax hikes required to halfway pay for them. Pick a reason.

That's what I'm talking about!

 

[GarzaUK]

...and still he give Bush a run for his money lol. In fact he had the White House shivering in their cowboy boots.

Be Thankful for Kerry, if their was a decent politican standing against Bush in Election 2004, the Bush family would have been a one term family.

 

[Fantasea]

Be Thankful for Kerry, if their was a decent politican standing against Bush in Election 2004, the Bush family would have been a one term family.

That's quite an indictment you're making against the Democratic Party. They evidently believed they were pitting their best candidate against Bush.

Where did they go wrong?

I maintain it was not the candidate, but the ultra liberal platform on which he ran. Since 1994, the Democratic policies, practices, and platform have resonated with fewer and fewer voters. Else why, in a span of only ten years, in six consecutive elections, have the Democrats managed to lose control of everything they once held, including the White house twice?

 

[anomaly]

That's quite an indictment you're making against the Democratic Party. They evidently believed they were pitting their best candidate against Bush.

Where did they go wrong?

I maintain it was not the candidate, but the ultra liberal platform on which he ran. Since 1994, the Democratic policies, practices, and platform have resonated with fewer and fewer voters. Else why, in a span of only ten years, in six consecutive elections, have the Democrats managed to lose control of everything they once held, including the White house twice?

I'll tell you why the Democratic Party is an utter failure, and is dire need of a replacement. During the pro-business, the gap between rich and poor was higher than it had been in 20 years, since the roaring twenties. This was undoubtedly costly for the working man, as he saw his power diminish (union busting), his pay decrease (blue collar salaries were mostly down), and his bosses pay greatly increase. I beleive the average change in salary for blue collar workers throughout the '90s was somewhere around -5%. On the other side, CEOs and other management saw salaries raise by as much as 70%. Pro-busienss is, as I have said countless times, anti-labor. And yet this all happened with the Dem's hero, Bill Clinton in office. Clinton was pretty liberal on social issues, while being very conservative economically, basically the definition of moderate. The permanent war economy continued, while welfare had time limits put on it. These actions have alienated the left wing of America, and many now simply do not vote. The religious right feels Dem policy is 'immoral', and yet it continues. Blue collar workers aren't seeing much improvement, while their bosses prosper. Dems no longer side with the working man, and all just to gain campaign funding from large corporations. The Dems have left out the workers, which they historically have defended. When the Dems are as bad as the Republicans in worker-friendly economics, and do not appeal too strongly to the powerful religious right, how do they expect to win? I for one feel the time is right for the Democratic party to be replaced.

 

[Fantasea]

This was undoubtedly costly for the working man, as he saw his power diminish (union busting), his pay decrease (blue collar salaries were mostly down

I am not aware of union busting activities during the Clinton Administration. Why not enlighten me?

 

[akyron]

...and still he give Bush a run for his money lol. In fact he had the White House shivering in their cowboy boots.

Be Thankful for Kerry, if their was a decent politican standing against Bush in Election 2004, the Bush family would have been a one term family.

Sour grapes are bitter indeed.