Friday, December 31, 2004

Year End Thoughts

Hello everyone. I know I have not been posting much since the election, but, as I said, I will be posting new info now and then about the politics here in the Commonwealth.

As 2004 draws to a close, I sit here reflecting on what has taken place over the past 12 months and it has been quite a year. We have seen the Democrats go from a pack of primary candidates to their challenger for the White House. As I remember, at this time last year, Howard Dean appeared to be well on his way to a Presidential Run. He had the money and the apparent momentum to carry through to the convention. Well, how things changed for him, and quickly. John Kerry at this time was borrowing money against his home to continue his run and appeared to be in last place. By the end of January 2004, this all "flip-flopped" and a new course was set.

We watched a bitter campaign season over several months. Living here in Massachusetts, what I heard from people was how the bitterness came from the Bush camp. What I saw was very different, right down to Dan Rather reporting a story based upon false documents, in spite of the fact he was told that they could be. We heard how the Swift Boat Veterans were really just an extension of the Bush campaign and that the whole matter should be investigated as a potentially illegal campaign contribution. What we weren't hearing was how MoveOn.org and other, similar organizations were in the same boat. Of course, the Swift Boat Veterans did not endorse a specific candidate, MoveOn.org did. Oh well, better luck next time.

I knew the election was going to be close. I knew it would be a late night. I planned to take November 3, as a vacation day. I was surprised, however, that the winner was not declared until the 3rd. I will grant John Kerry this, I applaud his not making the country go through what Al Gore did in 2000 by dragging this on in court for weeks.

This past year, we laid to rest a former President. A man who was villianized during the 1990's by the media and the Clinton administration. In death, he was praised by both. Of course, there were those who felt betrayed by the media and many Democrats for their kind words of Reagan in his death. These are people who, apparently, do not believe in saying only nice things about the dead or saying nothing at all.

Reagan was remembered for the many wonderful deeds he accomplished during his 8 years, as well he should be. Yes, there were some negative things during those years. Did the good outweigh the bad? I think so. The world is a better and safer place for Regan's Presidency. I felt a tremendous loss in his passing and I know I was not alone.

As we enter into the new year, we have much to look forward to; George W. Bush's 2nd inauguration, elections in Iraq, work toward correcting the long term problems of Social Security, and perhaps even changes to our tax code.

I wish everyone who reads this a happy and healthy New Year!


Thursday, November 04, 2004

Four More Years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The results are in and George W. Bush has been re-elected! I was very glad that I had planned ahead and took a vacation day on November 3, not only because it was another late election night, but I was able to watch as events took place yesterday. Yes, I was doing a happy dance at 11:30 yesterday morning when it was reported that Sen. Kerry had called President Bush to concede the race and about 10 minutes later, Nevada was declared for the President, pushing his electoral total over the 270 mark.

Although frustrating, I do understand why John Kerry held off in conceding the race. Although the number of provisional ballots in Ohio was much lower than his campaign expected, they worked off the information they had. He decided it was time to end the race when he realized that his ability to win the state was impossible.

Although the race was filled with mudslinging from both sides, the concession and victory speeches were congenial. Both men were right to say that it is time to unite America, to move forward, and do what is right for the country as a whole.

With the election over, this portion of Neilsview will come to an end, but I plan to continue to update this site with my views on politics around the country and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Keep checking back.

Thank you,

Neil

Monday, November 01, 2004

Election Day

Election Day is upon us! This looks to be one of the closest races in American history, but I still firmly believe the George W. Bush will be our President for another 4 years. It is important that every Bush supporter get out and vote. Remember that in 2000, the media had called Florida for Gore one hour before the polls closed in the panhandle, which was heavily for Bush. How many did not cast a ballot based on information that their vote would not matter?

There have already been instances of attempted voter fraud and who knows how many people and organizations have been successful that we have heard nothing about? What should be surprising but isn't, is that the fraud was performed by agents (people who support and are working toward, not special secret agents) who are working for a Kerry win. No, I do not believe the Kerry campaign had a direct hand in this. What I still find amazing, although this seems to come up in some form every four years, is that Kerry and Edwards, along with Terry McAuliff, continue to tell people that the Bush campaign is trying to keep various groups from voting. Of course, they have no evidence or even any reason to make these statements, but the willing participants in the press give this a great deal of coverage, as though there was some shred of evidence that this was taking place.

America still needs a leader in the White House. Now is not the time to change to an administration who will change policy based on public opinion on a day to day basis. Yes, the President and Congress are elected to represent the people, but they are elected to lead the nation, not to follow every public opinion poll. President Bush has shown over the past four years that he is willing to make unpopular decisions, and will see his decisions through to conclusion. John Kerry has changed position based on public opinion and political expediency. If John Kerry had started the war in Iraq, he would have pulled out as soon as things stopped looking positive. He would have left a vacuum in Iraq so as to remain popular at home and with nations who haven't the guts to take on even those directly threatening them.

The Presidential Election is not about who is the nicer candidate. It is about who can lead, who is willing to make decisions and bear the consequences. If John Kerry wins (so help us, God!) how long before he pulls a Clinton and tells the American people that he needs to raise everyone's' taxes because things are worse than he thought, even though his own information told him otherwise and he continued to make promises he knew he could never keep. How would John Kerry ask someone to be the last to die for what he believes was a mistake?

George Bush has been a leader a several points in his life. He suffered failure in business before enjoying any success. He dealt with the failure and was able to move on, to learn from mistakes and not repeat them later. He beat Ann Richards for the Governor's office in Texas and was a successful Governor. He won (yes, he really, really did beat Al Gore in 2000. Several times in fact.) the Presidency in 2000 and has managed what was already turning into a bad situation and became worse on 9/11/2001. He has cut taxes to all taxpaying Americans. He prevented our economy from falling into depression. He has fought two wars, has won freedom for people in two countries, and eliminated two comfort zones for terrorists (not militants or any other description which shows support) in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our economy is improving, jobs are returning and the world is a safer place thanks to the Bush administration.

John Kerry has been a part time Senator for 20 years. He was supposed to be full time, but apparently could not work it into his schedule. Even before his run for President, he missed 25 - 40% of his votes and committee meetings. He has been able to pass 5 items through the Senate, one bill and four resolutions. He has demonstrated that he is a follower in the Senate, and a follower as a candidate for President. He can't seem to determine what his core values are. He was raised a Roman Catholic, but when it comes to following the faith he proclaims to be a member of, he likes to pick and choose what applies to him. He was never very religious while he was a Senator, even in an election year, but he like to make a show of his "Catholicity" while stumping for the Presidency. I cannot judge his faith, that is between him and God, but he is, in my opinion, a poor example of a Catholic.

John Kerry and John Edwards like to tell people how they are concerned for the middle class and the poor. I love hearing this from two men who have wealth beyond the comprehension of most Americans. I love hearing them talk about how the tax cut only benefited the wealthy even though every tax paying American pays less to the Government. They would certainly know about benefits for the wealthy. Neither one appears to complain about tax deductions when filing as they take advantage of everything they can. Let's face it, in protest to deductions, they could have paid every dime possible, perhaps even a little more. But, they did not.

When you go to vote on November 2, 2004, remember two things:

1) Do not let a Kerry-Edwards lawyer go into the booth with you to make sure the ballot is "fair" and completed correctly.

2) This country needs the leadership of George W. Bush for another 4 years.


Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Final Week to the White House

Here we are, down to the final week of the campaign. Polls indicate that the race is still incredibly close. At least here in Massachusetts, much of people's focus has been turned to the World Series of Baseball rather than the "World Series of American Politics." I remember reading recently that people in Massachusetts were polled about if they had to choose a World Series win for the Sox or John Kerry for President, the majority went for the Sox. So much for devoted followers of John Kerry.

As I follow the candidates campaigns during these last few days, I see tremendous distinction between the President and the Senator. While the President is staying on message, talking about what his administration has done in the past four years and what they can do in the next four, the Kerry campaign is trying to scare voters around the country, trying to make them believe in things that do not exist. I read about how the Bush campaign is going to do everything possible to stop groups of people from going to the polls. Of course, like Kerry's plan for Iraq, there is no substance behind this statement. Who was the first to mobilize lawyers to the battleground states? Yes folks, it was the Kerry campaign. In response, the Bush campaign had to mobilize their own lawyers to prepare for a recount which may never be. It seems that one chapter of the NAACP, a devotee of Kerry, has decided not to leave the election to chance and paid a man to register to vote under several names. What did they pay him with? Crack cocaine. Marvelous!

Nope, no voter fraud going on there!

Kerry and Edwards continue to lie, blatantly, that, if reelected, George Bush will push for the draft. How conveniently do they forget to mention that it was a member of their own party who proposed the reinstatement of the draft and the Republican congress who opposed the bill. Of course, Kerry and Edwards would never let facts get in the way of a good scary story. Remember, Kerry keeps telling our seniors that Bush wants to rob them of their Social Security, even though there is no evidence to support this. Scary stuff.

Now, John Kerry has been a member of the Senate for 20 years. He has shown no leadership during this time. His most recent and most touted leadership experience is 4 1/2 months as a Swift Boat commander in Viet Nam. This 4 1/2 months has trained him to be Commander-in-Chief, has apparently made John Kerry an expert in modern warfare. He believes that he can unite the world to help the US fight in Iraq, to join him in this "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." What scares me the most is that people believe he can pull this off.

During the local morning news, candidates for Congress and our State Senate have recently started buying commercial time. One commercial in particular is very amusing. It begins by asking Massachusetts voters who is fighting George Bush for them. The add then goes on to list the "accomplishments" of this congressman, including his voting for a middle class tax cut. Excuse me, but I am confused. Is this the same tax cut that John Kerry and John Edwards continue to tell us only benefited the wealthiest Americans? Because we have no Republican representation from Massachusetts, this Congressman is one of Kerry and Edwards fellow Democrats. Oh, the irony! I guess you can have things both ways if it suits you.

George Bush will continue to lead this country back from recession and terrorism. He may not be the best spoken man, but he tells it like it is. Of course, if he says anything other than positive things about the reality of the War on Terror, Kerry jumps on him. If he should lie and tell you that this a conventional war and victory is in sight, Kerry would jump on that. Look to the man who truly follows his values, who does not pander to the poll of the week. If you seek strong leadership, vote George W. Bush on November 2.

Thank you.

Friday, October 15, 2004

Debate #3

Well, the debates are now behind us. I believe that the third debate showed to be the most heated, although I don't believe had the best questions or format. George Bush showed that he can defend his administration's policies and actions and has a good grasp of the facts. Of course, here in Boston, the Democrats cannot see this. I was reading some opinions on-line here and for some reason I kept seeing the same statements over and over, George Bush avoided questions and is unable to produce facts.

Unfortunately, the notes I took on the debate were lost when I upgraded a software package on my PDA which later turned out not to be compatible with my operating system.

I will say this, what I heard from John Kerry is the same rhetoric we have been hearing all along. "We can do better," "I have a plan," "I hope we can talk more about this later,""George Bush has lost jobs,""George Bush gave a tax break to the wealthiest Americans."

George Bush continued to hammer the absentee Senator on his 20 year record in Congress and again pointed out that many of the issues raised by Kerry have not concerned him during his Senatorial Career. Yes, it is true that Senator Kerry has only passed 5 pieces of legislation since 1984. The Senator has cowritten, cosponsered, written or contributed to 56 pieces of legislation, but only managed to get passed 1 bill and 4 resolutions. Well, if that record of failure doesn't show true leadership, I apparently don't know what does. Let us remember, that many of these pieces of legistlation were proposed during times when the Democrats were the MAJORITY in the house. He couldn't even get his own party on board.

Does anyone else remember in August of 2000, when the internet bubble started to burst and the economy began to suffer, that the Democrats blamed the faltering economy on George Bush's nomination for President. They told us that people were scared that he may win. They completely disregarded the fact the many internet companies were not producing anything and had not shown any profit, inspite of plentiful funds from investors. I don't know if people just believed that this would continue indefinately or what.

Now, John Kerry wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest of Americans. Sounds good, doesn't it? It does if you believe that John Kerry, John Edwards, the Hollywood elite and the wealthy members of the Democratic party will just sit back and accept the fact that their tax bills will go up. As Dick Cheney pointed out, John Edwards made sure to take every deduction he could on his taxes, even one which allowed him not to pay $600,000.00! What was Edwards' defense? That was completely legal. I don't think that was the point the Vice President was trying to make. Edwards did not just have his taxes prepared to show he made so much income and therefore should pay 42% of that away to government. He took deductions to keep the money he earned (regardless of how he made it). But, Edwards and Kerry say that raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans will solve all of America's economic woes.

Well, what do you think these two will do when they do not take in the tax revenue they say they will? You guessed it, raise taxes on the middle class (in spite of Kerry's promise during the second debate). Perhaps he will pull a Bill Clinton and simply say that things were worse than they thought. Of course, Bush 41 told people during the election that Bill Clinton couldn't spend as he said and not raise taxes on everyone.

George Bush and his administration provided a tax cut to everyone and in several different ways. When you cut taxes by a percentage and you have a progressive tax, of course the people who pay more money in taxes will receive the largest tax cut. Do Kerry and Edwards truly believe that they and other wealthy people should just plan to pay nearly half of their income away in taxes because "they can afford it?"

Putting money back into the wallets of the people puts money in the economy. I don't think I know anyone who took their tax cut money and stuffed it in their mattress or buried it in their back yard. They spent it. They bought goods and services, transferring the money to other people in this manner, kept the economy going, and in most cases, paid sales tax for the privledge. Others invested money in banks or stocks. This money is returned to the economy to be invested again, keeping the stock market going.

We need to keep the fight going for the President. John Kerry will go back on his pledge, he will tax everyone. You can't add nearly a trillion dollars to the budget for national health care and pay for it with $89,000,000,000.00 in tax increases to the "rich." By the way, if you own a business as a sole proprietor, whereby the business income is your income, $250,000.00 does not make you wealthy. Not anymore.

Help the President get out the vote. Talk to people and explain why John Kerry is not the right choice. The President has demonstrated strong leadership over the past 4 years and will continue to do so going forward, but we must make sure that George W. Bush has that opportunity.

Monday, October 11, 2004

Debate #2

Friday night was the second of the three debates and the President faired much better than in the first. He did not allow himself to be on the defensive for the night and the answers to the questions were clear and concise. I applaud the President for calling the Senator on his 20 years in the Congress. The fact that John Kerry says he wants to address several issues that he has taken no action to correct while in the Senate shows that he was not able to lead in his current job and this fact indicates that he could do no better if he were in the White House.

While the President was able to address the questions posed by the audience, John Kerry chose to begin most answers by reverting to previous questions, adding to answers he apparently was not able to address during the allotted time and so needed to qualify his statements later on.

I found the questions from the audience to be excellent, at times cutting right to the heart of several matters. The fact that the President could answer the questions without prepared statements shows his ablility to think on his feet while I found John Kerry continued to use the same statements he has used throughout the campaign.

The winner, George W. Bush.

Last night, I was listening to a rebroadcast of a Sean Hannity show on the radio. This particular show was Sean's interview with then primary candidate, John Kerry. One question I found particularly interesting was when Sean Hannity asked the Senator about North Korea and the possible nuclear threat they pose. John Kerry, of course, was talking about how inspections have been removed from the North Korean nuclear plants and that the nuclear rods from the reactor are no longer there. That the North Koreans now say that they have produced several nucear weapons, 5 -7. I wonder, if US intelligence showed that North Korea planned to sell or in any way use these weapons to help terrorists, would he invade? And if, after the fact we found that the weapons were only in production stage or even just a planning stage, would John Kerry apologize to the American people the way he says George Bush should?

The facts are these. US and British intelligence indicated the Saddam had WMD and biological weapons. Because Saddam refused to allow UN inspectors to do their job and because of Saddam's history of supporting terrorists, George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq. He requested that the UN aid the US in this effort. The resolution lost due to the votes of France, Germany and Russia. The US, because we had already threatened to attack, needed to take action or be viewed by our enemies as a paper tiger who can't act without the UN. We decided to invade with the aid of a few countries and showed the world that we do in fact mean what we say.

Now, after the fact, we have found that no WMD exist in Iraq. John Kerry takes this to mean we should have known and therefore should have left Iraq alone. Of course, hindsight is 20/20 and knowing what we know now, there would have been no real reason to invade. The problem with this is that we didn't know and Saddam refused to let the world know. He wanted the world to believe he had WMD. He believed this to be a deterrent to Iran. I understand this, but the plan backfired, the US took this to be a threat, not Iran, and we took the action we felt was necessary to protect our interests.

Can we as Americans place our trust in someone who believes that we must make our case to the world before we take action? John Kerry believes that we need to make our case pass the Global Test before we move to protect the US. He seems to believe that we need the UN's approval first. Our President believes that we need to act on the interest of the US first and worry about the world fallout later. Remember, Osama Bin Laden had no concern for how the UN and the world would view him and his actions. The same applies to Saddam. If intelligence had been correct and one WMD was given over to a terrorist network by Saddam, and then used in a US city, how concerned would we be with the Global Test that failed to protect us?

Thursday, October 07, 2004

Random Thoughts

The media enjoys the recent testimony of inspectors who are stating that they have been unable to locate any evidence of WMD in Iraq. They love to play the Monday morning quarterback on this. The question they should be looking at is wether or not there was credible evidence BEFORE the invasion. Did we act properly based on the information in our possession.

Inspectors are quick to point out, the media less so, that even Iraqui intellegence believed that Saddam had WMD, that Saddam wanted the world to believe that he had them. His apparent reasoning was that this would deter a threat from his old enemy, Iran. This plan backfired in this new post 9/11 era and the threat came from across the world, not next door.

The intellegence stating that Saddam had WMD was supported by the fact that he refused to allow UN weapons inspectors do their job, time and time again. The world had seen him have possession of such weapons and had seen that he was willing to use them on his own people. (These are the same people Michael Moore would have you believe were living in some suburban paradise where the children played outside freely and people were treated fairly and humanely.) Because Saddam would not produce records to show his destruction of such weapons and because he toyed with the UN inspection teams over the course of 12 years, the world had no reason to believe anything but his having such weapons.

Does anyone else remember watching Hans Bilx testify before the UN nearly two years ago that the UN inspections teams could neither confirm nor deny the existence or destruction of such weapons? I remember it vividly.

The fact of the matter is that after 9/11, the President stood before a joint session of Congress and the American people and swore that he would root out terrorists where they live. He stated that you were either with us or against us, that we would go after terrorists and those who supported them. Saddam certainly did support terrorists. He was offering money, $25,000.00 to the families of suicide bombers if they would attack Israel. He himself was a terrorist by the fact that he would not allow the world to know about his weapons programs.

The war in Iraq is right. We removed a brutal dictator who most certainly would support terrorists in any way he was able. Can anyone tell me that if he had in his possession, nuclear weapons, that we could be assured that he would not sell them to someone else for terrorism? Can anyone tell me how much longer we would have to wait before the sanctions completely crumbled and he began his weapons programs again? We already know about the corruption and black market dealings that France and Germany were involved in, trading with Iraq when UN resolutions forbid it. Perhaps John Kerry could magically enforce a new resolution in the same manner he can magically produce a UN coalition.