...simply repeat daily on NB for the next couple years : ) !

I thought brain damage was a requirement for the democratic party.

You may disagree with what he's doing, but he has every right to do it as the Prez.

You're joking right?

Surely the constitution says a President has to change policy based on the latest Reuters' poll?

Proud member of the all-powerful and vast militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex

BOSTON (AP) - The New York Times Co. will cut about 125 positions through buyouts and other steps at The Boston Globe and the Telegram & Gazette of Worcester, and outsourcing some finance and advertising work, a Globe spokesman said Thursday.

About 70 of the positions will be eliminated through buyouts that will be offered to employees of the two newspapers starting late this month, Globe spokesman Al Larkin said. The buyouts will be offered to exempt and Newspaper Guild-covered employees with at least 10 years of service.

Seventeen positions in the newsroom and two opinion page positions are expected to be eliminated through buyouts at the Globe. No buyouts are planned at the T&G's editorial operations, Larkin said.

About 51 additional buyouts will be spread across non-editorial departments at the two newspapers, which are part of the Times Co.'s New England Media Group.

Also, some currently open positions will be left vacant, Larkin said.

In addition to the 70 cuts expected from buyouts, about 55 other positions will be eliminated by transferring support jobs for advertising and finance operations to outside companies, Larkin said. Those moves affect staff at the Boston and Worcester newspapers as well as the publications' online editions.

Employees affected by the outsourcing initiative will receive severance packages similar those offered through the buyouts, Globe Publisher P. Steven Ainsley said in a statement distributed to staff.

"There will be additional steps we need to take as we continually look for ways to succeed in our new environment," Ainsley said.

Larkin said the cuts announced Thursday were "a response to continuing difficult advertising and circulation markets that most newspapers are experiencing."

Last month, the Globe's largest union, the Boston Newspaper Guild, approved a new four-year contract that ties wage increases to revenue gains at the newspaper and its Web site.

And what's this historical revisionism about Vietnam? Democrats Kennedy and Johnson got us into Vietnam. Nixon had to clean up their mess. The dumbass lefties know nothing about history so they interpret it through their own ignorance. The press is finished. We might as well have the news broadcast on The View.  Let all the "journalists" be guests who do a dog and pony act like old vaudeville and then leave the stage. It now amounts to the same thing.

NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal

Plain and simple, it's a lose-lose for the President. Just last month they were slamming Bush for not listening to military folks who said we needed more troops; now, they are slamming him for not listening to military folks who say we need less troops. They were slamming him for his refusal to change course and try something new; now they are slamming him for changing course and trying something new.

It's old, but that's not what really bothers me. What bothers me is I'm not sure most Americans see that that's happening. It also bothers me that the Dems aren't being called on it by the Republicans.

"This, after all, is the same president who lost the popular vote in 2000, was installed in the White House by a 5-to-4 vote of the Supreme Court and then governed as if he had won by a landslide"

How is he supposed to govern? Is it in the constitution somewhere that a President who wins by 1 vote has less power that one who wins in a landslide? I mean, is there a graph or something that I haven't seen that displays each extra Presidential power you get that depends on how many votes you won by?

Actually, the Supreme Court vote that "installed" Bush was 7-2. The 5-4 vote, which was the second opinion that day, was the remedy.

1. The pro-Gore people in 2000 (which includes the objective mainstream media) glossed over the fact that the (Democratic) Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court bitterly dissented when his (Democratic) colleagues tried to re-write law from the bench after the election to give the election to Gore. He correctly predicted that SCOTUS would overturn their charade. He was right.

2. The scariest thing is that Jon Carry (D-Massachusetts) ended up in 2004 with almost as many popular votes as the incumbent, which can directly be attributed to the media being in the tank for him. If the "objective" mainstream media had accurately reported his Senate record (among other things such as his meeting with the Vietnamese and Vietcong reps in Paris in 1971), the easily brainwashed American public would have seen that he was an empty suit and possibly a traitor to his own country, and Shrub would have won by 20 or more points, not 2 points.

Disclaimer: I lived in Massachusetts during the era when Kerry was first elected, and can assure you that he's done next to nothing in over 30 years as a "Senator". If you don't believe me, check the Congressional Record to see what bills he's actually sponsored. Ain't much there!

3. The "objective" mainstream media also totally ignored the information laid out by Kerry's former colleagues in the military (in other words, the Swift Boat folks). I've seen lots of bluster and accusations in print since 2004 accusing these people of "fabricating", "lying", et al, but have never seen any credible evidence that the Swift Boat vets were in fact "lying" about their recollections of Kerry's "military service". If any pro-Kerry people who served with him there can prove me wrong, I'll be happy to listen to what you say.

Kerry managed to get (or bribe?) a handful of his former military buds (13?) to stick up for him, but many more times that many (over 250) chose to oppose him. Kerry stood up and said "reporting for duty" at the convention, but the "we support the troops" mainstream media had no problem with either totally ignoring, or attempting to smear, his fellow military officers and enlisted men in order to try and get him elected. Too funny!

In addition, in the infamous picture of Kerry posing with 19 of his fellow Swift Boat Commanders, the mainstream media ignored the fact that only 3 of them were in support of him.

Disclaimer: I have known one of the more vocal Swift Boat people for almost 50 years (but will not reveal his name out of respect for his privacy, except to tell you that it's not O'Neill LOL) and have no doubt that he was telling the truth. Lying is simply not in his character.

The fact that there were only 13 or so Swift Boat people siding with Kerry, and almost 250 of them opposing him, proves that his "version" of events doesn't pass the smell test.

.