Watch Out for Democrat Election Year Scare Campaign in Your Area
The Democrat election year scare campaign has officially begun. Democrats are using gimmicks in states across the country to make inaccurate statements about the Republican's prescription drug plan and work to save Social Security.
Democrats are arranging press conferences and bus trips to Canada with senior citizens and using empty pill bottles as props for their attacks. It is ironic that they have chosen empty pill bottles when they have only offered empty promises and baseless attacks on this important issue.
In fact, the Washington Times recently exposed the Democrat attacks. In an email conversation among Capitol Hill Democrats, a staff member admitted that their claims against Republicans on Social Security were not "entirely factually accurate." As the discussion continued, it was admitted that their strategy is to scare seniors and to simply "bash Republicans."
The Democrat's baseless scare campaign will be coming to your community - if it hasn't already. As a leader in your community we need you to watch for these false, partisan attacks and let us know by filling out this form at GOP.com.
Don't be fooled by the partisan attacks its just part of the Democrat's election year plan to scare seniors rather than offer real solutions.
By Anonymous on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 09:00 pm:
Democratic Lawmaker Faults Bush for Weak Nuclear Security
By Aaron Bingham
Tuesday, August 20, 2002
WASHINGTON — A Democratic lawmaker said that security forces at nuclear weapons labs around the country have been so depleted that terrorists could get a hold of nuclear materials and use them against the United States.
"Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda have made it very clear that nuclear facilities are at the very top of the list of terrorist targets in our country," Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., told reporters hearing about the results of a 250-page report produced by the Department of Justice. "Terrorists work successfully by using the assets of the United States against the United States. They did it on Sept. 11. They would do so again if we did not protect those most valuable and vulnerable assets against successful terrorist attack."
Markey said that security at the Department of Energy-operated sites have been cut nearly 40 percent over the past 10 years from 7,091 to 4,262. He listed 10 sites located near urban areas, including Denver, Colo., and California's Bay area, that contain enough weapons grade plutonium and enriched uranium to build crude nuclear devices.
Markey said that security at the Department of Energy-operated sites have been cut nearly 40 percent over the past 10 years from 7,091 to 4,262.
... and ofcourse, he blamed BUSH for it..
By Anonymous on Friday, August 23, 2002 - 02:31 pm:
Divorced from Reality
On March 28, 2002, Representative Cynthia McKinney released a statement questioning the President's leadership in the war on terror saying: "Whose war is this really? In November 2000, Republicans stole from America our most precious right of all: the right to free and fair elections ... Consequently, an Administration of questionable legitimacy has been given unprecedented power to fight America's new war against terrorism."
We're not sure who Rep. McKinney was talking to but it wasn't anyone we know. As the editors of the Wall Street Journal pointed out at the time - the American people are firmly behind President Bush's leadership, "Mr. Bush has been able to lead the world so forcefully in part because he has such solid support at home. Even after six months, and the worst fortnight of casualties yet, 88% of Americans approve of Mr. Bush's war management. And they do so even though 80% fear the most difficult stage of the war is yet to come, according to the latest ABC/Washington Post poll. "
(Wall Street Journal, March 13, 2002)
Well, the votes are out !! LOL
On Tuesday, Democrat primary voters in Georgia's 4th Congressional district repudiated Democrat Rep. Cynthia McKinney's baseless attacks on President Bush's war leadership and voted her out of office. The fact that rank-and-file Democrat primary voters rejected McKinney's attacks on President Bush speaks volumes. The Democrat strategy of attacking President Bush will not work in this election.
By lbre on Tuesday, September 3, 2002 - 03:55 pm:
"Why has Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe suddenly become so touchy about his Midas touch in the financial markets? Does he have a 'Martha Stewart problem'? If there are no skeletons in his closet, like the insider-trading insinuations rattling in Mrs. Stewart's, then why doesn't Mr. McAuliffe follow the recommendation of Democratic strategist James Carville? 'What Terry ought to do, and I'm sure he will,' Mr. Carville predicted in February, 'is release his trading records.' Those would be the trading records relating not only to the $18 million profit he made from his initial $100,000 investment in now-bankrupt Global Crossing. The records would also explain how he made millions more trading its stock and options, as he claimed to the New York Times in late 1999. How about some disclosure from the DNC chairman?"
-- The Washington Times, August 27, 2002
By lbre on Tuesday, September 3, 2002 - 06:01 pm:
EDITORIAL • August 27, 2002
Why has Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe suddenly become so touchy about his Midas touch in the financial markets? Does he have a "Martha Stewart problem"? If there are no skeletons in his closet, like the insider-trading insinuations rattling in Mrs. Stewart's, then why doesn't Mr. McAuliffe follow the recommendation of Democratic strategist James Carville? "What Terry ought to do, and I'm sure he will," Mr. Carville predicted in February, "is release his trading records." Those would be the trading records relating not only to the $18 million profit he made from his initial $100,000 investment in now-bankrupt Global Crossing. The records would also explain how he made millions more trading its stock and options, as he claimed to the New York Times in late 1999.
How about some disclosure from the DNC chairman?
•Precisely how many millions of dollars did Mr. McAuliffe earn trading Global Crossing's stock and options? $2 million? $5 million? $25 million?
mDid Mr. McAuliffe buy significant blocks of Global Crossing stock in the months preceding the May 17, 1999, merger announcement with US West, when the stock was priced significantly below US West's tender offer of $62.50 for 39 million shares of Global Crossing? If he did, did he buy the stock on margin?
mWhat sort of call-option activity did Mr. McAuliffe pursue during the months before the merger announcement? (A call option is the right to buy a stock at a predetermined price before a preset deadline. Fantastic profits can be made if the stock price soars, as Global Crossing's did before the merger announcement.) Specifically, was there a spike in Mr. McAuliffe's call-option activity between April 22 (when Global Crossing Co-Chairman Winnick met with US West's chairman to discuss merger possibilities) and May 17 (when the merger was announced)?
•In the weeks before the merger with US West was canceled, did Mr. McAuliffe sell Global Crossing stock "short," in effect making a potentially exorbitantly profitable bet that its price would plummet — as, in fact, the share price did following the merger's termination?
•What sort of put-option activity did Mr. McAuliffe pursue in the weeks before the merger was canceled? (A put option is a contract that grants the right to sell at a specified price a specific number of shares by a certain date. A put-option buyer hopes the stock will drop in price, offering the opportunity to earn huge profits.) Did Mr. McAuliffe purchase put options shortly before the merger was terminated?
•Given that Global Crossing shareholders tendered 240.4 million shares in response to US West's tender offer, did Mr. McAuliffe receive special treatment by being put at the head of the line of those wishing to sell out?
The day after Global Crossing went bankrupt in January, Mr. McAuliffe told CNN that the firm's share price "continued to go way up after I sold my stock." This begs a few more questions: What share price did Mr. McAuliffe pay in 1997 (before the March 1999 2-for-1 split) when he made his original investment of $100,000? If he sold at Global's split-adjusted peak share price of $128.50 — which he claims he did not — he would have paid a price of 71 cents per share in 1997 in order to generate his 180-fold return. If he sold his shares at substantially less than the split-adjusted peak price of $128.50 — as he claims — then he had to have purchased his shares in 1997 at substantially less than 71 cents each. And, by the way, does he have evidence to confirm that the initial $100,000 investment was actually made?
By paealos on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 - 12:06 pm: