Surprise, surprise, the mass exodus from the Army that many opponents of the war in Iraq were predicting just isn't happening. In fact, the Army is on track to meet its retention goals for the fiscal year.
Spc. Brian Harris made a cold calculation about his future in fatigues.
Then he signed the papers, raised his right hand and repeated the re-enlistment oath given by his platoon leader. He shook hands with the men from the 588th Engineer Battalion, posed for a picture and went back to work.
An Iraq war veteran, Harris weighed the probability of another long deployment before his initial enlistment would expire. He decided the best option was to re-up with a guarantee that he could move to Fort Lewis, Wash., near his hometown.
"I figured I would deploy again in the next year, so if I'm going to deploy, I wanted to deploy from home, and my wife can be close to home, too," Harris said.
The Army is defying the conventional wisdom that the Iraq war will empty its ranks, and it appears to be on track to meet its retention goals for early, midcareer and career-enlisted soldiers.
As of late July, the Army had re-enlisted 45,256 soldiers of the 56,100 it needs to meet its target this fiscal year, which ends in September. Short of an awful last two months, Army officials say they'll make their goal.
In a year of long deployments to Iraq, the scandal at Abu Ghraib prison and a decidedly bloody spring in which 278 service members died, retaining so many battle-tested corporals and sergeants is no small feat.
"In a way we're plagued by anecdotes where one soldier in a thousand is interviewed and complains that he can't wait to get out of the Army, so that means everybody must want out of the Army," said Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon. "That becomes the truth, but it isn't. We don't have any problem with retention."
"I joined the Army to run around in the woods, blow things up and bite the heads off snakes," said Master Sgt. Jerry Johnson, who leads retention efforts in the 82nd Airborne Division.
"When I'm guarding something on post, when I'm doing book work or practicing map-reading, that's not exciting," he said. "That's not what I joined for. When I'm in a combat situation, I'm doing what I signed up to do."
Hooah!
What does a champion of the working class do when he needs a haircut? Does he stop in at the local barbershop for a quick haircut? Not if that "champion" of the working class is John Kerry. Apparently Kerry took a page out of the Clinton play book and flew his "stylist" across country to give him a last minute haircut before a recent photo-op.
Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry likes to style himself as the candidate of working folks, while scissoring President Bush as the protector of the rich.
"We have to bring back an America that values work and honors working people, day in and day out," Kerry urged in a recent stump speech.
But when every campaign stop is a photo op, even a man of the people needs a high-quality haircut.
I hear that when Kerry was in Portland, Ore., last weekend preparing to windsurf on the Columbia River Gorge, he flew his Washington-based hairstylist, Isabelle Goetz, across the country to give him a camera-ready trim.
A knowledgeable source told me that the French-born Goetz - who tends the Massachusetts senator's mane while also caring for Sen. Hillary Clinton's coiffure - caught up with the candidate in Portland on Friday (after flying commercial, I'm told), trimmed his luxuriant salt-and-pepper locks and then returned to Washington the same night.
But because of light breezes on Saturday, Kerry's windsurfing photo op never came off.
It was unclear yesterday how much the haircut cost, or who paid: the husband of Heinz ketchup heiress Teresa Heinz Kerry or the Kerry campaign. Kerry communications director Stephanie Cutter didn't respond to my detailed E-mail and voice-mail messages.
Goetz - who's a popular and busy woman in the Washington salon of celebrity-stylist Cristophe - told The Washington Post three years ago that she typically charged Kerry $75 for a haircut. But that 2001 fee would not have included a last-minute round-trip plane ticket (today around $1,450 for a coach seat on American Airlines) or a whole day of Goetz's valuable time.
Something tells me that the average "working man" isn't going to relate with John Kerry spending more than a thousand dollars for a single haircut.
The Olympics are meant to bring nations together under a banner of peace through sports. Apparently, the Iranians didn't get the memo. It seems that one of Iran's athlete's hatred of Israelis is a more powerful motivator than is competing in the Olympics.
International judo officials are investigating whether a two-time champion from Iran who reportedly said he wouldn't fight an Israeli opponent deliberately avoided the bout Sunday by showing up overweight.
Arash Miresmaeili, a favorite in the under 146-pound (66kg) class, was declared overweight at the morning weigh-in and disqualified for his first-round bout against Ehud Vaks.
...
After Thursday's draw, the Iranian press agency IRNA quoted Miresmaeili as saying: "I refused to play against an Israeli rival to sympathize with the oppressed Palestinian people."
Iran does not recognize Israel and bans any contact with the Jewish state.
The International Judo Federation met to consider the circumstances around the disqualification and will meet again Monday, said federation spokesman Michel Brousse.
...
After Miresmaeili was disqualified, Iran's ambassador to Greece praised Miresmaeili, IRNA reported. In a message, Mehdi Mohtashami was quoted by IRNA as saying, "On behalf of all institutions and Iran's embassy in Greece, I congratulate you on your courageous move to refuse to compete with a judoka from the Zionist regime."
"Certainly, the Iranian nation considers Miresmaeili as the real champion of the 2004 Olympic Games," the message added.
...
Iranian athletes have refused to compete against Israelis in the past. At the 2001 judo world championships, Mahed Malekmohammadi of Iran did not compete again Yoel Razvozov.
Earlier Sunday, Brousse disclosed it had received a statement from the president of the Iranian judo federation saying "that the rumors were not true" concerning Miresmaeili's refusal to compete.
...
Brousse noted that judo's ideals are the same as those which IOC President Jacques Rogge mentioned at the opening ceremony. Rogge had mentioned that athletes "give us reasons to believe in sport that is increasingly credible and pure by refusing doping and respecting fair play."
The IOC said the issue had not been brought to its attention.
"This issue has never come to the table at the IOC level," IOC spokeswoman Giselle Davies said. "He was overweight. It's not appropriate to make any comment. For us it's an issue for the federation."
The IOC should make this their issue, they should step up and disqualify Miresmaeili from participating in any Olympic activity, though this is unlikely to happen. Unfortunately, as the above quote illustrates, the IOC is more likely to bury their collective heads in the sand. And shame on them for doing so.
It's never a good sign when a presidential candidate and his wife start arguing with each other on the campaign trail, especially when it's within earshot of others.
Democrat presidential hopeful John Kerry and his wife got into a heated argument after a campaign rally in Arizona Sunday night -- a heated argument so hot they spent the night in different rooms!
A well-placed law enforcement source tells DRUDGE how Kerry and Teresa Heinz moved to separate suites at Flagstaff's Little America Hotel.
"It was a cooling off, nothing more," says a top source.
The stress of the campaign and the nonstop tour of battleground states is taking a toll on the Kerrys.
Teresa Heinz Kerry has been confiding in staffers how the tour is just "nonstop movement" and how there "is no time just to 'be.'"
I guess this time Teresa told the wrong person to "shove it." Or maybe she made some flippant remark about "four more years of hell" with him.
What is it called when a candidate blasts his opponent for not acting faster on a given issue, when they themselves failed to act on that very issue when they had the chance? It's called playing politics.
Despite the allegation by Democrat presidential nominee John Kerry that President Bush was slow to establish the position of "intelligence czar" in the aftermath of the 9/11 commission's report, Kerry passed up an opportunity to co-sponsor Senate legislation last year that would have done just that.
There were six co-sponsors of the Intelligence Community Leadership Act, introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in January 2003. But neither Kerry nor his vice presidential running mate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, who was a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at the time, added their names to the bill.
The legislation called for the establishment of a director of national intelligence.
A Republican Senate aide who did not want to be identified told CNSNews.com that it was "a little disingenuous" for Kerry not to join "members of the Senate to address this very issue," and then to later criticize the Bush administration's actions following the release of the 9/11 commission's report.
"If he thinks it is so important now, why wouldn't he have stepped up before and drafted legislation?" the GOP staffer asked. "Senator Kerry is not on that legislation, nor is Senator Edwards, so it begs the question of who is politicizing what, where, when, and why."
...
But in a press release in April, Kerry's campaign stated that "if the President were truly interested in fixing the intelligence system, he would have long ago listened to what experts and leaders on both sides of the aisle have said is the key reform needed to ensure better intelligence gathering: the consolidation of the competing security agencies under one Director of National Intelligence."
Early last week, when President Bush announced he was creating the position of director of national intelligence, a primary recommendation from the 9/11 commission's report, Kerry charged that Bush had not acted fast enough.
The question asked by the staffer was a good one indeed. If this was such an important issue to Kerry why would he not have co-sponsered this piece of legislation? My guess is that he was against it, before he was for it.
As interesting as this election year has been, it became even more interesting last week when one member of Congress switched parties.
Rep. Rodney Alexander made a surprise switch of party affiliation on Friday and registered to run for re-election as a Republican.
Alexander, who ran as a Democrat to win his first congressional term but voted along conservative lines, acted in the closing minutes for candidates to qualify for the Nov. 2 election ballot — too late for any strong Democrat to get in the race.
Sen. John Breaux, D-La., accused Alexander of an underhanded maneuver that "effectively prevented the people of his district from a having a choice."
"Rodney is a confused politician who has placed loyalty at the very bottom of his priorities," Breaux said.
Alexander's decision gives House Republicans 229 seats to 205 for the Democrats with one Democratic-leaning independent. With the switch, Democrats would have to gain 12 seats this fall to attain the majority.
Alexander had registered at the start of qualifying on Wednesday as a Democrat. At the time he said, "I'm not ashamed to be a Democrat, but I vote what I think the people of the 5th District want me to represent."
This development comes on the heels of Randy Kelly, the Democratic Mayor of St. Paul, Minn., endorsing President Bush in his re-election bid.
Of course these two gentleman were instantly labeled as "disloyal", and in the case of Mayor Kelly one talk show host went so far as to insinuated that he was a "traitor" to the Democratic party. Evidently it's more important to be loyal to a party than to ones own beliefs.
The anti-abortion group Wisconsin Right to Life is airing a TV spot and radio ads about blocked judicial nominees aimed at Wisconsin Democratic Sens. Russ Feingold and Herbert Kohl.
But come this weekend, the ad campaign will be illegal because of whom it's targeting.
Under the provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, special interest groups are prohibited from running corporate-funded radio and TV ads that mention a candidate's name within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. Feingold is on the ballot Sept. 14.
WRL insists its ad has nothing to do with electioneering and argues that citizens need to know whom to lobby if they oppose the fact that the Wisconsin senators are blocking confirmation votes on many of President Bush's judicial nominations. The nominees are considered by many Democrats to be too anti-abortion to sit on the bench.
But Feingold's campaign manager, George Aldrich, said the campaign is a "gimmick designed to score political points during an election by an organization that has endorsed all three of our potential Republican opponents."
Since when did free speech become a "gimmick?"
Today is Wictory Wednesday, the one day out of the week where Right minded bloggers ask their readers to do their part to help the President win re-election.
With the Republican convention just weeks away, now is the time to start building the momentum that will carry us through the election in November. Do your part to get the ball rolling and make sure you donate, and/or volunteer to help re-elect President Bush.
And don't forget to check out the blogs listed above!
And now it would seem that John Kerry is once again, for the war in Iraq.
President Bush mocked rival John Kerry's stand on the Iraq war Tuesday and rejected the Democrat's timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops as the Republican campaigned with Kerry pal and Vietnam War hero Sen. John McCain.
Seeking to shore up his support in the military rich, GOP-leaning Florida panhandle, Bush assailed Kerry on the dominant issue of the campaign as the incumbent made his 24th trip to the swing state that narrowly ensured his election in 2000.
"Now, almost two years after he voted for the war in Iraq, and almost 220 days after switching positions to declare himself the anti-war candidate, my opponent has found a new nuance," Bush said. "After months of questioning my motives and even my credibility, Sen. Kerry now agrees with me."
Bush added sarcastically that Kerry still had time to change his position: "There are still 84 days left in the campaign."
This picture appears to show Kerry as he decides whether to be for or against the war this week (obviously he fell off to the right side).
This may come as a shock to some, but I am deeply disappointed in Alan Keyes' decision to accept the Illinois GOP's invitation to run for the Senate seat of retiring GOP Sen. Peter Fitzgerald
Alan Keyes, the Republican two-time presidential hopeful, has entered Illinois' Senate race, facing a demanding task against a strong Democratic opponent with less than three months to go before the election.
Keyes accepted the party's offer Sunday, during a rally in this Chicago suburb before hundreds of supporters. He will face Barack Obama, who grew more formidable as the state GOP became mired in scandal and disarray.
"We do face an uphill battle, there's no doubt," Keyes said. "So I'm not going to stand here and with tremendous ease promise you a victory. But I'll tell you what I will promise. I will promise you a fight!"
Now I know the Illinois GOP wanted to find a candidate with name recognition, but by inviting Keyes to run they only hurt their credibility (which after the Jack Ryan debacle was already hurting). And with his acceptance of the invitation Keyes hurts his as well.
Keyes was right to criticize Hillary Clinton when she packed her bags and moved to New York in order to run for the U.S. Senate seat she currently holds. Unfortunately, now he has opened himself to the same criticism, more so since he actually spoke out against what he has now done. Yes, there is a difference in the circumstances as Keyes was actually invited to run by the Republican party, but the end result is the same.
Keyes should have stayed in Maryland, and the Illinois GOP should have found a *local* sacrificial lamb to run against Obama (let's face it, at this point Obama would have to admit to having an affair with an underage prostitute while smoking crack in an al-Qaeda safe house to lose). Sometimes it is more important to take the high road.
John Kerry may have become the poster boy for the anti-war movement when he returned from Vietnam and threw his someone elses medals into the river, but he made no friends among the people who we were trying to help in Vietnam. Now, with Kerry campaigning on his Vietnam experience (or at least half of it) those who felt he betrayed them are starting to step forward, and let their voices be heard.
The John Kerry many Vietnamese-Americans remember is not the hero promoted by the Democratic Party, but the ex-soldier who returned to the United States to denounce the Vietnam War.
"His close association and anti-war activity make him known as Mr. Jane Fonda," said Frank Jao, who fought in the South Vietnamese army against the communist North.
Jao emigrated to California, and now is the Donald Trump of Orange County's Little Saigon, the largest Vietnamese community outside of Vietnam. In this area, 58 percent of the residents are registered Republicans.
While older Vietnamese-Americans may see Kerry as a turncoat, many younger voters are more open-minded, said Christian Collet, a pollster with Pacific Opinions Research.
"There is definitely a handful ... that wants to put war behind them and move forward with a constructive dialogue with Vietnam. And to that extent, John Kerry will get a handful of votes from those people," Collet said.
Another reason Vietnamese-Americans criticize Kerry is that he has worked to block a bill forcing communist Vietnam to clean up its human rights abuses. The bill passed 410 to 1 in the House, but Kerry blocked it in the Senate. Kerry has claimed that the best way to improve abuses in Vietnam is to engage the communists, not punish them.
That would be John Kerry "the appeaser" speaking there, as opposed to the "tough, take action when necessary" John Kerry we heard so much about at the Democratic convention.
Who knew that when Al Gore created the internet it would come to this?
A number of Finnish conscripts have been excused their full term of military service because they are addicted to the Internet, the Finnish Defense Forces said Tuesday.
Doctors have found the young men miss their computers too much to cope with their compulsory six months in the forces.
"For people who play (Internet) games all night and don't have any friends, don't have any hobbies, to come into the army is a very big shock," said Commander-Captain Jyrki Kivela at the military conscription unit.
"Some of (the conscripts) go to the doctor and say they can't stay. Sometimes, the doctors have said they have an Internet addiction," Kivela said.
There are no official figures for the Internet addict dropout rate.
This story is so ridiculous I just had to share it. Have you ever had a BLT for lunch at work? How about a pizza with sausage? If you have, you might want to check whether your company has a policy on consuming pork products on company property.
A Central Florida woman was fired from her job after eating "unclean" meat and violating a reported company policy that pork and pork products are not permissible on company premises, according to Local 6 News.
Lina Morales was hired as an administrative assistant at Rising Star -- a Central Florida telecommunications company with strong Muslim ties, Local 6 News reported.
However, 10 months after being hired by Rising Star, religious differences led to her termination.
Morales, who is Catholic, was warned about eating pizza with meat the Muslim faith considered "unclean," Local 6 News reported. She was then fired for eating a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich, according to the report.
...
Local 6 News obtained the termination letter that states she was fired for refusing to comply with company policy that pork and pork products are not permissible on company premises.
...
Attorney Travis Hollifield is representing Morales in a lawsuit against the company.
"It's just un-American," Hollifield said. "It's not in compliance with the laws of this country."
Local 6 News reported that the case has precedent-setting issues because it addresses employee rights and religion in the workplace.
"It's a classic case of religious discrimination," Hollifield said. "They have not articulated a single reason other than religious reason behind the policy."
The CEO of Rising Star, Kujaatele Kweli, told Local 6 News that they have tried to create an office that accommodates anybody's religion -- not just Islam.
"Clearly you're accommodating," Holfeld said.
"Yes." Kweli replied.
"And you have an ecumenical philosophy," Holfeld said.
"Yes," Kweli replied.
"(Then) shouldn't you be able to accommodate all faiths in the same lunch room?" Holfeld asked.
"We do, we can," Kweli said.
"But you've dismissed one of your employees for eating pork in the lunch room," Holfeld said.
"Yes, pork is considered unclean," Kweli said.
I'm sure the ACLU will be all over this case. Seriously. Oh nevermind, who am I kidding? They're too busy trying to remove crosses from government seals.
Today is Wictory Wednesday, the one day out of the week where Right minded bloggers ask their readers to do their part to help the President win re-election.
Join Nancy Reagan and give your support to the President. Make sure you do your part and donate, and/or volunteer to help re-elect President Bush.
And don't forget to check out the blogs listed above!
As you may have read here, or elsewhere, in May of this year the Anti Christian Liberties Union (ACLU) threatened to sue Los Angeles County if they did not remove a small cross from their county seal. Shortly thereafter the Board of Supervisors gave in to the ACLU's thuggish demands and voted 3 to 2 to remove the cross.
Since that time there has been a tremendous amount of outrage expressed at the supervisors decision, and several petitions were started to get the board to reverse their decision. It would seem that the LA Board of Supervisors do not care what their constituents want.
Sticking by its earlier decision to remove a small cross from Los Angeles County's official seal, the Board of Supervisors declined Tuesday to put the matter before voters.
Supervisors Mike Antonovich and Don Knabe favored doing so, but Zev Yaroslavsky and Yvonne Brathwaite Burke voted no. Supervisor Gloria Molina abstained.
Yes, that is the entire article, no wonder I missed it when it was posted back in July. Obviously the local media didn't feel that this abuse of power was a very important story.
It is one thing for the supervisors to vote for removing the cross themselves (an act of cowardice that I hope will be remembered when they're up for re-election), but to refuse to give the people the right to vote on this issue for themselves is appalling. It is a slap in the face to the people they are supposed to represent. And, quite frankly this vote only guarantees that this matter will be dragged on for at least the next year.
Had the supervisors done the right thing, this issue would be put on the ballot this November, where the voters could decide the fate of the cross. As it stands now several organizations are still collecting signatures in an attempt to put this matter on the ballot themselves.
Hopefully they will succeed.
For months now we've had to listen to speculation over whether or not the Democrats would be able to use Nancy Reagan's disagreement with President Bush over stem-cell research funding to their advantage, as they did with her son. The answer is now clear. They will not.
Former first lady Nancy Reagan, who opposes President Bush's policy on limiting embryonic stem cell research, is backing the Republican's re-election bid.
"The campaign is certainly about more than one issue," said spokeswoman Joanne Drake, who described Reagan on Tuesday as in "full and complete support of President Bush's candidacy."
...
Reagan has limited her public appearances since the death of her husband two months ago. She will not attend the Republican National Convention in New York later this month, but the former first lady hasn't ruled out campaigning for Bush, according to Drake.
"She's taking it one day at a time right now. We'll see," Drake said. "She will certainly want to help but there are no plans right now."
Have I ever mentioned how much I admire Nancy Reagan? Once again she proves herself to be a class act. Nancy obviously has strong feelings on the subject of stem-cell research, but she is wise enough to know that this election is about more than just one issue. And, she is wise enough not to allow herself to be used by the Democrats based on this one issue.
What happens when a reporter asks Teresa Heinz-Kerry to explain remarks she made during a speech and rather than actually explaining her remarks she tells him to "shove it?" Well, he receives death threats and is called a Nazi of course.
Teresa Heinz Kerry's "shove it" phrase to a Pittsburgh editor was the most cited Kerry campaign message in the press last week — mentioned 381 times in American publications, according to Factiva, a Dow Jones/Reuters company that tracks daily press mentions.
But the two words also brought death threats, insults and accusations upon Colin McNickle, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review editorial-page editor who vexed Mrs. Kerry by asking her to explain her claim that "un-American traits" were emerging in politics.
"I have learned about the power of a simple question," Mr. McNickle said from his office in Pittsburgh yesterday, adding, "But no reporter should ever be afraid to ask a question."
...
Mr. McNickle, however, was demonized after his July 25 exchange with Mrs. Kerry was caught on videotape by a local TV station, then picked up by the news channels and replayed endlessly.
"What did you mean?" Mr. McNickle asked the wife of the Democratic presidential candidate after she told Pennsylvania delegates that "un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits" were sullying politics.
Mrs. Kerry denied she had used the phrase, then snapped, "You said something I didn't say. Now shove it."
In the aftermath of the "shove it," Mr. Kerry supported his wife, as did the Democratic National Committee, which called Mr. McNickle's paper "a right-wing rag," and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
Mr. McNickle denied he had been rude.
"I didn't bully her. I didn't set her up. She stumbled all by herself," he said. "She began her remarks about her husband's vision, then went off on a tangent."
But Mr. McNickle swiftly became the target of partisan ire, inspired by what he termed the "DNC's liberal attack machine." In hundreds of e-mails and telephone calls to his office and home, and even on the street, Mr. McNickle's life was threatened. He was called a "Nazi" and a variety of obscene names, and had death wished upon him.
In a Boston Globe interview, singer Patti LaBelle advised Mrs. Kerry to "pimp slap" Mr. McNickle; liberal columnist Molly Ivins suggested he had inappropriately "touched" Mrs. Kerry; and former Baltimore Sun columnist Jack Germond told CNN that Mr. McNickle "was not a legitimate newspaperman."
He responded in a Tribune-Review column Sunday, explaining he was only seeking an example of "un-American traits" from Mrs. Kerry, but "I got a finger in the face and was told to 'shove it.' I have been told worse things by more important people."
A mention of Mr. McNickle's column in Editor & Publisher was picked up by the Drudge Report yesterday, ultimately reversing the firestorm of criticism, Mr. McNickle said.
"Today, I got 1,700 e-mails in four hours, most supportive, saying I'd done a good job," Mr. McNickle said.
"But you know what?" he pointed out. "Mrs. Kerry never answered my question."
And Mr. McNickle, she never will.
Teresa considers herself an opinionated woman, and that's fine. But, if she's going to offer her opinions to the American public, she shouldn't be so cowardly when she's asked to explain her opinions. What was most galling in this encounter is that the "shove it" remark came after she asked the reporter which paper he worked for. I'm sure if it had been some "liberal rag" she would have gone on to rant about "un-American" activities without providing any specific details on what she meant.
Also from that article:
Last night, Mrs. Kerry's bluntness was on display again. A Bush supporter was chanting "Four more years! Four more years!" through a bullhorn at a Wisconsin rally while Mrs. Kerry was speaking. She departed from her text to say: "They want four more years of hell."
Mr. Kerry gave her a long hug and a big smile when she finished speaking. "She speaks her mind, and she speaks the truth," the candidate said
Hell? Four more years of Hell? Well, now I guess we know which campaign is running on pessimism. I was half expecting the story to continue somewhere along these lines:
Journalist: Mrs. Heinz-Kerry, what did you mean by four more years of Hell?
Heinz-Kerry: I didn't say that.
Journalist: Mrs. Heinz-Kerry, you used the word 'Hell' to describe the past four years, what did you mean by 'Hell'?
Heinz-Kerry: What do you mean? I never said Hell. You're putting words in my mouth, I never said Hell. Now go to Hell.
I'm not sure what all of this means, math and economics were never my strong suit, but this news has to be good for the president.
The American manufacturing sector sped up activity in July, cementing the longest stretch of rapid growth in more than 30 years, a survey showed.
The Institute for Supply Management purchasing managers' index (PMI), based on a survey of supply executives, rose 0.9 point from June to 62.0 in July, in line with private economists' forecasts.
It was the 14th consecutive reading above 50 points, which indicates an expansion in activity.
"The manufacturing sector continues to grow at a rapid rate as the PMI has now been above 60 percent for nine consecutive months," survey chief Norbert Ore said in a statement.
"This is the longest period of growth above 60 percent since the 12-month period of July 1972 through June 1973," he said.
Key findings in the report showed:
-- New orders sped up, with the index rising 4.7 points from June to 64.7 in July.
-- Production accelerated, with the index up 2.9 to 66.1.
-- Employment grew, albeit at a slower rate, with the index easing 2.4 to 57.3.
-- Input prices rose at slower pace, with the index falling 4.0 points to 77.0.
...
US President George W. Bush campaigning for re-election November 2, highlighted recent reports showing record existing home sales in June and consumer confidence at a two-year high in July.
"These gains in our economy have come at a time when Americans are benefitting from the full effects of tax relief," he said in a weekend radio address.
So much for that "big bounce" the Kerry camp was expecting after that farce of a convention they put on.
Last week's Democratic convention boosted voters' impressions of John Kerry but failed to give him the expected bump in the head-to-head race against President Bush, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds.
In the survey, taken Friday and Saturday, Bush led Kerry 50%-46% among likely voters. Independent candidate Ralph Nader was at 2%.
The survey showed Kerry losing 1 percentage point and Bush gaining 4 percentage points from a poll taken the week before the Boston convention.
The change in support was within the poll's margin of error of +/-4 percentage points in the sample of 763 likely voters. But it was nonetheless surprising, the first time since the chaotic Democratic convention in 1972 that a candidate hasn't gained ground during his convention.
USA TODAY extended its survey to Sunday to get a fuller picture of what's happening.
A Newsweek poll taken Thursday and Friday gave the Democratic ticket a 49%-42% lead. Over three weeks, that reflected a 4-point "bounce" for Kerry, the smallest ever in the Newsweek poll.
Among registered voters in the USA TODAY poll, Kerry and Bush each had 47%. Bush was up 4 points, Kerry unchanged from the pre-convention survey.
Analysts said the lack of a bounce may reflect the intensely polarized contest. Nearly nine of 10 voters say their minds are made up and won't change. "The convention, typically a kicking-off point for a party, is now merely a reaffirmation" of where voters stand, said David Moore, senior editor of the Gallup Poll.
"In a race this tight, the polls are going to be all over the place," said Stephanie Cutter, Kerry's communications director. "Most importantly, voters now clearly trust John Kerry more than Bush to lead and defend America."
But Matthew Dowd, chief strategist for the Bush campaign, said "history doesn't bode well" for Kerry. Since World War II, the three challengers who have unseated presidents held clear leads after their conventions.
