Ultimate John Kerry ad

Remove all ads!

I did not think there was any "meat" in the "big finish," other than personal opinion, which you happen to share.

Yes, I was waiting for the evidence to go with that comment, and hopefully it will be forthcoming at some point.

That was my point, nor does it validate his - get it? You seem to believe that that comment works for him, but not the reverse. Go figure.

And which points would those be? If there were any points to refute I would be glad to. Again, I'm waiting for the evidence to emerge, other than, "I live in MA" or "it does not smell right". Given his poor record, what makes you think Shrub is the leader we need? Care to defend that record, BTA? And take a bit of your own advice?

 

The 'Kerry flip-flop' line has been refuted on these boards so many times it almost doesn't seem worth rehearsing.

The "he put himself in the line of fire for future political gain" argument is just plain stupid, and almost not worth commenting on. Avoiding the draft like Bush, Cheney, and Clinton was really a political handicap, no? And it sure explains why all the ambitious wannabe political wonks I know have dropped out of their policy degree programs to join the Marines. Right.

All this "we need a great leader" bull**** seems rather frightening to me, and reminds me how often rightists have been attracted to charismatic leaders wielding despotic power. Fortunately, as we've seen on the debates, Bush only seems presidential when the script is written for him, and his production team is working 24/7. Your "great leader" is a lightweight.

As for Kerry's positions, what you call blowing with the wind others call listening to sensible policy. Enough damage has been done by these half-cocked Republican bozos, and I think the US is getting the idea.

 

BTA - The issue was courage and conviction. TGS was refuting MY claims on the earlier post. If you would like, take a look at these points. I have time, I will repeat them:

1. John Kerry did serve in Vietnam. TGS says: So what? He was not there very long, and it doesn't really count because he went there for "political reasons." TGS did not prove that he went there for political reasons. I'm still waiting for that evidence. Kerry's war record has been discussed numerous times here. But IMO, it took courage to go and fight there. Anyone here who is anxious to hot-foot it over to Iraq, raise your hand, please. I didn't think so.

2. The MIA issue - This is a fairly famous event for those of us who remember (I'm not trying to date myself here) how hot this topic was some years back. I wish I could remember all the details of this. But Kerry went with McCain and helped to resolve the issue. Prsident Bush did not want to deal with it. But Kerry and McCain showed courage and conviction in this particualar issue, which at the time still haunted America. It was like the "ghost of Vietnam." He also met with the families of MIA's. You can put whatever spin you would like on his motives, but HE DID IT. Bush was running a baseball team at the time, at taxpayers expense. He made 10 million on the deal, with the new stadium, paid for by the public. Thank you very much.

Here's the thing, McCain, who disliked Kerry because of his anti-war rhetoric after his return, was won over by Kerry. They became good friends after the MIA issue. To me that says something; for you, maybe not. As I said, it is a matter of opinion. But at least I am willing give a reason.

Try to keep in mind that TGS was refutting my comments, and thus, I was the one who was disappointed because of his weak rebuttal.

[ October 15, 2004, 21:05: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I had a hard time understanding Kerry at first, because it was so hard to understand where he stood on the issues. In fact, I disliked him a great deal. I was still in mourning for Howard Dean, I guess.

It was the debates that convinced me. You watched them also. For conservatives, there's a certain, almost unspoken language, which is readily understood. I'm sure you picked things up from Bush, which I did not in quite the same way because of this. The same is true for liberals and progressives. I have a better grasp of what Kerry is about on the issues. He is claiming to be a "populist." It was important for him to say that the middle class was his battle cry. The rap on a populist always is that they go with what's popular. Yes, hence, why they are called "populists." It's a tough rap to overcome. One must measure populists very carefully to get a good gage on them. But, IMO, Kerry seems to be doing OK.

TGS says that Kerry doesn't stand for anything except himself, without saying what Bush stood for. I did say what I believed Kerry stood for. The middle class is not an economic class, but a set of values. It also means representation. He wants - or so he says - to represent those who have such values. It's not Catholic, it's not liberal, it's not conservative; but to be sure the middle class is all those things and more

IMO, Bush just wants to represent those who support him - his base. His policies have shown that to be true. That is my opinion. Feel free to disagree.

 

Sheesh, you try to get some work done during the day, eat a sandwich and all goes to hell in this thread :0

I'll try to summarize my feelings. I do not have any specific/linkable examples of Kerry. What I have is a junior senator who as been in the senate for a really long time and hasn't made a mark. Whenever a republican has dared run for the Senate seat one of their most effective tactics is to show that Kerry hasn't really done anything. If Kerry was a man of conviction and actually stood for something there wouldn't be so many examples of flip/flops that are played throughout the internet.

In no way do I implie that people can be infallable or not be allowed to change their minds. I just believe (note this is my belief) that Kerry is not someone who shows leadership qualities. To me it seems that his entire campaign is based on "Anybody but Bush" and the democrats seem to approve of that platform.

Bush is criticized for still defending Iraq. I really can't blame him. He made the decision using all the evidence he had available. This was the same evidence available to Congress when they voted to go to war. Now it turns out the evidence was wrong and people want to take an eraser and make it all go away. I strongly agree taking Saddam out of power in the long run was the correct move. One of the arguements I hear at work is why him and not North Korea, they are more dangerous. I don't really believe this. North Korea may have the ability to cause us more harm, but I don't think they have the desire. Iraq didn't have the capability, but they did have the desire. I consider desire more dangerous than capability. My neighbor across the street from me has a rifle, but I'm more worried about the neighbor down the street who hates my wife (It is an interesting street). I firmly believe that pulling out of Iraq is the plan. The problem is we can't do it until it is stablized. Hopefully it won't take forever.

As to my belief that Kerry is a poser who enlisted for political gain and got out as quick as he could being "stupid" well your mother is fat. Seriously, the military people that I know are almost universal in this opinion. The fact that Kerry wasted almost no time in getting "politically" involved when he got back to me is further proof.

Now a lot of my criticisms of Kerry (this thread and others) have been responded with the "Yeah, but Bush did this..." or other Bush related bashing, so I will attempt to head them off at the pass. Do I believe that Bush has had his share of flip/flops? Without a doubt I do. Do I consider it chronic? Not at all. Was Bush a weenie for using family connections to get into the national guard and then spent his time drinking, drugging, and having sex instead of serving his country? Yes, I do believe that. However, knowing the tone of the country I do not hold it against him. Without a doubt if I had to do things to get "Little Snook" out of going to Iraq I would do everything in my power (legal or not) to do so. I didn't hold it against "Draft Dodger Clinton" and I won't hold it against anyone else.

I don't believe that I mentioned on these boards my personal opinions on the strengths and weaknesses of President Bush. This may come as a shocker to some people, but I am as of now still undecided as to how I will vote this November. I in no way shape or form consider him a superior President. However, I do not have the venomous hatred of him that so many others seem to have. I am also deeply troubled by the amount of non-USA interference that is happening in this years election. I don't see other nations electing people and passing laws that are beneficial to the USA. Why is everyone surprised that Americans are looking to vote for someone who has their interests in mind rather than the "Worlds"

As I stated in other threads I have not seen any of the debates nor do I anticipate watching them. I believe I already know where the candidates stand on most of the issues that are important to me. My difficulty is trying to determine in which order I'm going to rank those issues to determine who is the lesser evil.

/me gets off soapbox and tries to get some more work done.

EDIT: As to claims that Kerry represents the middle class. To me that is bogus. He is just like every other priveledged family in that he has never had anything recognizable as a job (Note: Bush is the same way). The middle class per my definition is an economic and a value based group of people. People that are not part of the middle class are people that are on welfare or otherwise rely on the government to take care of them. The middle class is a group of people who typically have two income households and work hard for every penny they make. They one day hope to be able to pass on some accumulated wealth to their children and they hope to live long and comfortable lives. I am a CPA so I actually see the amount of taxes that the middle and upper classes pay (the lower classes pay basically none). If people ever calculated how much of their money is going to pay taxes (federal, state, local, real estate, excise, sales, meals, room, gasoline, cigarrette, liquor, etc. they would be horrified. When I look at the people that the Democratic party seems to be trying to "register" to vote for them, they don't seem to be middle class to me.

[ October 15, 2004, 22:14: Message edited by: The Great Snook ]

 

Well seeing as the military is and have always been overwhelmingly right-wing everywhere this isnt really very strange. When your job is to kill people you better put on the pink glasses and demonize anyone who have ever said anything negative of what you do if you want to be able to continue your job of killing people. If you dont you may start to think and if you do that you are no longer a good soldier cause a good soldier need to be able to gun down a human being just like him without reflecting on what he is doing. Those that are not able to do that and who do start to think have to live with the horrors of what they have done and what has been done to them and the people around and many cant deal with that and go nutty which is evidenced in every conflict humanity has seen. Therefore the military is bound to love a president like Bush who sees everything in black and white and who doesnt hesitate in telling them that the people they are killing are evil evil baby eating monsters.

Well, actually the world may dislike Bush but he may be good for it. Bush alienating of large parts of the world have lead to there being a renewed interest in cooperation in for instance the EU and countries like China, India and Brazil have found themselves in more prominent positions as their smaller neighbours approach them instead of the US. I myself am actually almost tempted to want Bush to win as his further antagonisation of the world may lead to the emergance of new super-powers who rely more on their own power than the good-will of the US. The risk with this though is that as I see it Bush is leading the US on a very dangerous path and may very well be opening up the possibility of an authoritarian USA in a not so distant future and even a weakened authoritarian USA could demolish the world.

 

BTA - It appears that Kerry will be spread thin. If he really wants to represent the common man, he will have to be almost all things, to all people. He's surely no Lincoln. Since, he sees many different sides to the issues, it will be important that he settles on that which will yield "the greatest good, for the greatest amount." Kerry is not an idealist, so he will be pragmatic. But on healthcare he will have to deliver: Lower prices on drugs; more coverage for more individuals; and a larger role for the government in picking up the tab. This is from his website:

TGS - I notice that you raise really two issues: Iraq and taxes. The centerpiece of your argument for Bush is Iraq. But we've been through that argument already. But for some of us this election is more than about Iraq; it is about the direction of the country, as BTA has mentioned. The middle class is certainly more than about taxes. And as I pointed out, it is also about representation. That is what John McCain speaks of when he says that "the people need to take their government back" from the special interests who populate Washington with lawyers (no offence DMC) and lobbyists.

Another of MA's sons was from an elite family also - Bobby Kennedy. I have seen the newsreels of him fighting for migrant workers in CA, championing civil rights and taking on the fat cats for the common man. You can't tell me that a man can't be for the common man because he comes from an aristocratic and wealthy backgroud - it just is not true.

Well, what about Clark? or Howard Dean? or Joe Leiberman? even John Edwards could have been the top choice. No, that was not the Democrats, just those of us who really wanted Bush replaced, which includes yours truly. But I'm not a Democrat.

That comment is far from true, since as Kerry pointed out in the debates, many former military generals and officers support him, including General Clark.


Speaking of Karl Rove, this appeared today:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6256355/

[ October 17, 2004, 02:31: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

@Chandos

Great. Did they happen to mention how they were going to pay for this? Don't get me wrong, I hate drug companies just as much as the next guy, but what do you think will happen if they start losing money? I'm guessing they will restrict the supply of drugs shipped to Canada. To the best of my knowledge there isn't any law which forces them to sell to Canadian pharmacies. As an aside let me tell you a little story. I think it was the tax reform act of 1997 that established the Hope Learning Credit to help the middle class pay for college. Guess what happened.. that year the college tuition rose higher than in previous years. The colleges decided they would gladly take the government's credit as well as the students money. Nice huh. Kind of makes you wonder where this mythical $1,000 will end up going.

Iraq - I apoligize for mentioning Iraq in my post. The post was supposed to be a critique of Kerry and therefore Iraq was meaningless as he had nothing to do with it. As I said in my other post it appears that all critiques of Kerry eventually turn into what Bush did instead. I'm just as guilty

Taxes- Taxes equal cash in peoples pockets. Do you remember the phrase "It is the economy stupid"? I believe the major concern of the middle class is CASH. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't believe surveys that say what people are worried about. I believe it all boils down to when they pay their bills do they have enough cash to pay them.

Taking back the government- You will never get an arguement from me on this. The only caveat I add is that unions, trial lawyers, greenpeace, etc. are also special interests that need to be lanced from our government.

Bobby Kennedy- No arguement from me. I just have never seen Kerry do anything even remotely in his league.

Anybody but Bush- I firmly believe that Clark, Dean, and or Lieberman would have at least had a real platform. They all are passionate men with strong convictions. Edwards is a mirror of Kerry and we would have been stuck with the same foolishness. This election would be far different (and I think a runaway) if any of them had made the ticket. Once again the Democrats were infiltrated by the looney left (not to be confused with the religious right) and steered the party away from where it needed to be.

Military people- Never forget that in todays military generals and admirals are politicians. I'm talking about soldiers.

Karl Rove- I have no opinion on him

Is Vegas taking odds on when Beren or Tal will pop in and tell us to move to a new thread?

 

TGS - No need to apologize for mentioning Iraq. But I do think that Kerry's plan has a better chance for success. But it would leave America with a lot less influence on events there.

As has been often pointed out, the money saved on the Iraq War could pay for many of the programs for education and healthcare.

 

TGS, I dont really think Kerry is the loony lefts guy, he seems to me more to be a Republican lite democrat. Which is probably why he won the primaries. Dean seems to have been the loony lefts pick and Clarke for some bizarre reasons seems to have been no ones choice. Wesley Clarke made a very very good impression on me, a unashamed liberal who cannot really be called a wiener.

 

I thought Clark would be a nice choice as well, but obviously not many thought so. In an interesting side note, my state was the only state in which he won the primary.

 

"Oklahoma is OK by me."

Sorry, just had to throw that in.