Why do you support Kerry?

[Durandal7]

In the spirit of the thread Why do you like Bush? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=80970) I thought it would be a good idea to have a thread for Kerry supporters to explain why they are supporting Kerry.

Please do not turn this into a Bush-bashing thread (No "I'm voting for Kerry because Bush is evil") and keep sarcasm to a minimum. I want to know what Kerry supporters think his best attributes are and why they support him.

[zimv20]

lots of things i agree with. here are a few:

- he wants to roll back some of the bush tax cuts
- he says he'll crack down on off-shore accounting practices
- he wants to provide a tax credit for companies which create domestic manufacturing jobs
- tax credit for college tuition
- wants to invest in renewable energy research (goal is 20% of energy needs served by renewables by 2020)
- wants to expand loan programs to small business
- wants to offer federal employees' health care plan to everyone
- wants to offer tax credits for small business for up to 50% of health care premiums
- wants health insurance companies to cover more for mental health issues
- wants to hold down malpractice insurance premiums

[Thanatoast]

I'm sorry, I'm gonna say because he's not Bush.

What I mean is that I don't really *support* Kerry, just like I suspect a large portion of the nation doesn't, except for the fact that he's not George W Bush. What other president has raised the deficit so high, alienated allies so quickly, and made the country less safe by ay of his "we don't need nobody" attitude?

Really, I hate to go against your rules, but it's not that I'm voting *for* Kerry, it's that I'm voting *against* Bush.

I really think that Kerry should be *more* outspoken and liberal in his policies. As in pro-gay marriage, anti-unilateralism, and anti-tax cut/pro-middle class. Kerry is the best of two choices, one sad and one simply unacceptable.

[blackfox]

It would seem like 'toast is not alone...

statistics from the latest NYT/CBS poll for this question:

Would you describe your support for George W. Bush as strongly
favoring him, or do you like him but with reservations, or do you
support him because you dislike the other candidates?

Strongly favoring - 56%
Like with Reservations - 32%
Dislike opponent - 11%

now, the results for the same question substituting Kerry for Bush:

Strongly favoring - 31%
Like with Reservations - 27%
Dislike opponent - 37%

As zim noted, Kerry has many admirable ideas and policies planned which make him worthy of a vote come Nov. (well my vote), whereas Bush doesn't really have a plan for his second term...

This of course does not matter...as Bush an Co. can just continue to release vague platitudes about "values", "safety" and "out of the mainstream"...to define the nature of the debate...
meaning that regardless of criteria, validity of claims or any actual substance...if they repeat them enough, they will stick.

As some proof, here is another stat from the same poll:

Do you think George W. Bush is the kind of person who takes a
position and sticks with it or isn’t he that kind of a person?

IS - 81%
ISN"T - 15%

For Kerry:

IS - 39%
ISN"T - 40%

or this:

Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September
11th, 2001 terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon?
YES - 41%
NO - 46%

or...
Do you think of the war with Iraq as part of the war on terrorism,
or do you think of it as separate from the war on terrorism?
If yes, is it a major part of the
war on terrorism, or a minor part of the war on terrorism?

Major Part - 39%
Minor Part - 11%
No Part - 44%

Bear in mind, there are actually facts out there that tell us the reality of these situations...spin and repetition...spin and repetition....

[mouchoir]

- tax credit for college tuition


Hey! Wasn't that an episode of 'The West Wing' ?!

I swear, half the stuff that's been on that show has since happened...

[mactastic]

Basically for the same reasons Toast states. And because I'm sick and tired of our country being an international embarrasment. More later, but time is short right now.

[jelloshotsrule]

the only reason i come close to supporting kerry is because he's not bush.

the problem is, that mentality gives him a clean slate to do whatever the hell he wants, because no matter what, he's still not gwb.

[jayb2000]

Kerry supports its, Bush does not.
That's enough of a reason for me, but I also prefer some of Kerry's plans for tax changes and environmental policies.

[Krizoitz]

I could try and explain but this guy gives a lot of the reasons in a much better voice than I could...

link (http://online.wsj.com/article_email/article_print/0,,SB109028716502668131-IBjfYNhlah3oJ2sZHuIaKWFm4,00.html)

[jelloshotsrule]

I could try and explain but this guy gives a lot of the reasons in a much better voice than I could...

link (http://online.wsj.com/article_email/article_print/0,,SB109028716502668131-IBjfYNhlah3oJ2sZHuIaKWFm4,00.html)


here are just a few problems i have with this dude's kerry praising

first. kerry/edwards will improve america (he lists a variety of ways)... yes, of course they will. a chimpanzee could run the show better than bush. same goes for improving the world view of america (though i feel this is almost more important)..

second.

The initial reaction of the Bush administration to the events of 9/11 was thoroughly effective and professional. It assembled a broad international coalition, under a U.N. resolution, and won a quick military victory in Afghanistan. And then it was diverted to Iraq, ignoring the objections of key allies and the U.N. and ending up in the morass we see today.

kerry's objections? sure, he might have been against the war in words. but did he vote for or against the bill giving bush authority to use force (with basically no restrictions i might add)?

i'm also not sure how effective bush's reactions to 9/11 were... afghanistan is not in good shape

third (commenting on getting europe to help with security/reconstruction in iraq)

A Kerry administration, I believe, would get a more positive reaction from Europe's leaders than is the case now, although the relationship will never quite be the same.

again, anyone would get a better reaction than the texan cowboy style of the bush administration... this doesn't impress me


and finally

just the author's arrogance and extreme nationalism

Since I first heard FDR speak, on a clandestine radio in occupied France in 1940, I have known that America is the greatest country in the world.

why will other countries want to work with us if we go in thinking we're the best, we're so high and mighty, etc? i just don't understand having such a large amount of innate pride in the geographical location where you were born (or now reside)...

but that's me

:)

[pseudobrit]

a chimpanzee could run the show better than bush.

And that's why I'm supporting and voting for the chimpanzee with the best shot at taking Bush out of office.

[IIvan]

I feel that kerry and edwards are much are more connected with thte common people than bush who is so high society- likie the clip in F911 when he is talking to his rich supporters- ""my base""

plus i think he wants to help us out with college paying, and i think he may not get us into more stupid foreign wars- both of which i (being 18-22 during the upcoming administration) am worried about

plus hes NOT stupid and rich and conceited (he is rich but not like bush's family oil fortune)(ouch- i just killed my own point.. oh the terrible nature of our political system- a choice between bad and worse :rolleyes: ) and i feel hes a much more compassionate and not egoistic and obnoxious and embarrassing person than BUSH

sorry if this is a bit jumbled.. ive had a couple to drink :)

[GeeYouEye]

I feel that kerry and edwards are much are more connected with thte common people than bush who is so high society- likie the clip in F911 when he is talking to his rich supporters- ""my base""
Aside from the rest of your post, like everything else in that movie, that quote is taken out of context; it's actually from the 2000 Alfred E. Smith dinner, a charity event where the two major candidates traditionally make fun of themselves. Gore for example, said something to the effect of "I'm so honored to be at this event, which I did invent." of course utterly ridiculous, since the dinner had been around since 1927, well before Gore was born.

[usmcdiorio]

I feel that kerry and edwards are much are more connected with thte common people than bush who is so high society- likie the clip in F911 when he is talking to his rich supporters- ""my base""

plus i think he wants to help us out with college paying, and i think he may not get us into more stupid foreign wars- both of which i (being 18-22 during the upcoming administration) am worried about

plus hes NOT stupid and rich and conceited (he is rich but not like bush's family oil fortune)(ouch- i just killed my own point.. oh the terrible nature of our political system- a choice between bad and worse :rolleyes: ) and i feel hes a much more compassionate and not egoistic and obnoxious and embarrassing person than BUSH

sorry if this is a bit jumbled.. ive had a couple to drink :)

Well I hate to break the news to you, but neither John Kerry or John Edwards are doing poorly for money. Kerry's wife is worth a cool 500 million dollars and Edwards was a big trial lawyer who won many huge settlements, making him a mulimillionaire in the process.

Right now you can get out of college paying. If you're willing to serve your country in the military for four years. This is America, you don't get something for nothing. Free college means higher taxes, so you'll be paying for it one way or another. I'd rather be allowed to allocate my money as I see fit, rather than a beaurocrat bent on achieving "my best interest"

As for the obnoxious and embarrassing, Kerry has had his share. Here are some links. Kerry falls, blames secret service (http://www.drudgereport.com/kerryid2.htm)

Kerry ranting about Bush (http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/03/08/20040308_1642
06_kerry44.htm)

From what I've see in this thread, maybe two people have listed why they think Kerry would make a good president. Is it true that most of you don't actually even like Kerry, and just hate Bush? If so that's pretty sad, the Democratic party should get a candidate who can stand on his own two feet.

[IJ Reilly]

Aside from the rest of your post, like everything else in that movie, that quote is taken out of context; it's actually from the 2000 Alfred E. Smith dinner, a charity event where the two major candidates traditionally make fun of themselves. Gore for example, said something to the effect of "I'm so honored to be at this event, which I did invent." of course utterly ridiculous, since the dinner had been around since 1927, well before Gore was born.

If that's indeed the case (and I'll take your word for it), then I'd agree that Moore took the quote out of context and was being unfair. Hmm, so everything in the movie is out of context? Is that a fair statement?

[usmcdiorio]

Well, I too have noticed something strange. My posts only appear when I"m logged in, which means nobody will see this unless I'm logged in. That's kind of weird, it's never happened to me before. Maybe I'm being punished by a higher power for my conservative viewpoint. :) ;) Now THAT would be strange, I didn't mean to anger anyone in high places, especially Arn, or Rower CPU. With any luck, everything will be back to normal soon and every one can enjoy reading my posts and replying with witty comebacks like the good ol' days.

[usmcdiorio]

Well, an update on my status. i am now a newbie, with one post. Not where I'd like to be, but hopefully everyone can see my masterfully constructed works of art from now on.

[Sayhey]

Aside from the rest of your post, like everything else in that movie, that quote is taken out of context; it's actually from the 2000 Alfred E. Smith dinner, a charity event where the two major candidates traditionally make fun of themselves. Gore for example, said something to the effect of "I'm so honored to be at this event, which I did invent." of course utterly ridiculous, since the dinner had been around since 1927, well before Gore was born.

How, do you view that speech and not know Bush is poking fun at himself? Moore's point is one of irony. What Bush is saying in jest is in fact the case. There is no "out of context" problem here, only a problem of not getting Moore's message.

[Waluigi]

I support John Kerry because he won't invoke God when waging war against Arab Nations. That one point is enough for me to give him the nod over GWB, although there is much more.

[skunk]

Time for a statement from He Who Must Be Obeyed: any explanation, Rower?

[tristan]

I'll be honest and say I don't know a lot about Kerry besides his Vietnam service and his anti-war beliefs when he came back. I've DVR'd some large chunks of the democratic convention so I can find out more about him.

But I'll vote for Kerry because he's a democrat, and I like the democrats because they're the only ones who seem willing to really do something about what I see as this country's biggest problems - Health Care and Education.

There's no reason the US shouldn't have the best educational system and the best health care system in the world. It would be the best investment in the future our country could make. Instead, we have one of the worst for a developed country, and the blame for that goes right to the republicans, who I assume never get sick, have unlimited money for education, and have no aging parents or children. :-)

[skunk]

We do have one of the best health care systems in the world. Link (http://www.mercola.com/2004/may/22/us_health_care.htm) (despite some recent setbacks. (probably due to HMO's IMHO.))
Did you read the letter following the headline article in your link?
What do we get for the most expensive health care in the world?

The absolute best system in the entire world for treating acute surgical emergencies.

Beyond that, the system is an unmitigated failure at treating chronic illness. Traditional medicine clearly kills more people than it saves. Prescribed drugs are the fourth leading cause of death and the first three, heart attacks, cancer and strokes, are facilitated by physician ignorance of foundational concepts of nutritional physiology.

This is not new news, as I posted an article in a past newsletter on the flawed traditional medical paradigm. We are not achieving the high levels of health that we could be. More and more people do not have the energy they need to get through the day, while millions of others are suffering with painful crippling diseases because they have violated basic health principles.

Many of their choices were made out of ignorance and it is my vision and passion to make a dent in this mess.

As I wrote in a past newsletter article, health care costs are continually rising. We are currently paying over $1.5 trillion for health care in the United States and that is expected to rise to $3 trillion by the end of the decade.

This is largely due to the costs of drugs and surgery and a reliance on a medical system that does not treat the cause of disease.

The system is crumbling before our eyes. Our country simply cannot afford this nightmare mess and gets nothing--except lining the pockets of pharmaceutical companies--in return. Paying all this money would be much easier to swallow if we received glowing health in return, but, as you know, that isn't the case.

In fact, the United States barely ranks among the top 20 healthiest nations.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement, I think you'll agree.

And for education, we have one of the better systems in the world. I am not sure how elementary compares (probably not well since it is government run.), but in the college arena we have tons of international students. I doubt they would come around the globe to get a second rate education.
Have you any evidence of the quality of your education system? International students also go to the US because they are ambitious and believe the US is the centre of gravity, not necessarily for the absolute quality of the education.

[tristan]

The US has great educational and health care systems - if you can afford it. If you can't, tough luck. That's not only wrong, it's shortsighted.

I'm not advocating any European style socialist system, but there are lots of solutions.

Clinton put in the Hope tax credit, which can pay most of the tuition for two years of community college. It's still not as good as the deal my grandfather got - his B.A., M.A., and PhD were free because he served in the war, an investment the U.S. Gov recouped many times over in tax revenue, but it's a start.

The Dean health care plan let people buy into the Federal govt employees health care plan, and then gave subsidies to people who couldn't afford it. The Fed govt employee plan is a private plan with low administrative costs that is bid competitively.

Both logical, common sense solutions. The Republicans haven't even made an effort in these areas.

[edesignuk]

Kerry != Bush

That would be good enough for me :D

[yellow]

Free Iced Cream.

[Rower_CPU]

Time for a statement from He Who Must Be Obeyed: any explanation, Rower?

Ha, love the Rumpole reference - although the gender switch there is a bit disconcerting. ;)

I'll update folks soon about the situation with usmcdiorio.

[LeeTom]

The #1 reason I'm voting for Kerry is that I believe George W. Bush is the worst president in the history of The United States of America, and he will go down in history only as that.

Lee Tom

[sebisworld]

"When it comes to issues that affect out families, are John Kerry's priorities the same as yours? Kerry voted against parental notification for teenage abortions, Kerry even voted to allow schools to hand-out the morning after pill without parents knowlegde. He voted to take control away from parents by taking away their right to know." (one of the latest Bush ads)

If I was living in a country with the highest teen pregnancy rate of all civilized nations, this ad would really help me decide, Unfortunately, I don't have the right to vote for your government, but I strongly hope that Kerry wins, because quite frankly, I think the world cannot bear four more years of lets-shoot-anyone-who-crosses-us Bush.

[IJ Reilly]

I'll update folks soon about the situation with usmcdiorio.

How very enigmatic of you!

On topic: I'm voting for Kerry because we deserve to have an adult in the White House.

[ifjake]

i came to this thread because frankly i'm having a hard time deciding who to vote for. this is the first election in which i will be able to vote, and i don't want to go off of liberal or conservative, republican or democrat so much. even though i probably am slightly conservative if you ask me a bunch of questions, i still want to hear out Kerry and see why people support him. unfortunately i either hear vague stuff like "Kerry will improve the situation in america" or "the economy is good, but it can be better," or the obvious and a little too overly resounding "he's not bush." i want to know who i would be voting for if i voted for Kerry not who he is not. some of these posts have been informative and informed, but that seems a little on the minority of people who support kerry. so i'll probably wait until later to figure it out. maybe during debates.

[LeeTom]

Lets just say, that the Democrats are force feeding that line, (and the media, and Hollywood) when in actuality he hasn't been a bad president. Just like the economy was "worse than the depression" :rolleyes:

I'm not a Democrat, and I don't like Hollywood. I STRONGLY believe that George W. Bush will be considered the worst president in U.S. history. You can roll your eyes all you want, but it's MY opinion, and it's why I'm voting for Kerry.

Lee Tom

[blackfox]

The US has great educational and health care systems - if you can afford it. If you can't, tough luck. That's not only wrong, it's shortsighted.

I'm not advocating any European style socialist system, but there are lots of solutions.

Clinton put in the Hope tax credit, which can pay most of the tuition for two years of community college. It's still not as good as the deal my grandfather got - his B.A., M.A., and PhD were free because he served in the war, an investment the U.S. Gov recouped many times over in tax revenue, but it's a start.

The Dean health care plan let people buy into the Federal govt employees health care plan, and then gave subsidies to people who couldn't afford it. The Fed govt employee plan is a private plan with low administrative costs that is bid competitively.

Both logical, common sense solutions. The Republicans haven't even made an effort in these areas.

Kerry has proposed a very comprehensive educational reform/assistance program, although w/ the deficit as large as it is, it may be difficult to implement fully. Even so, some of the more modest parts of the proposal (in dollar terms), will increase aid to those wanting to go to college. In the interest of fairness, Bush has also increased grant and loans available to Collegiates, albeit somewhat haphazardly. It is still modest in comparison to Kerry's proposal(s). The real difference might be that Kerry would actually fund the Educational Programs he and/or Congress implement. While Bush hails the NCLB act, he has not given the States the money promised for compliance. I personally do not like the theory behind the NCLB act, but at least it might have had a chance if properly funded.

As for Health Care, Dean's proposal regarding the Federal Employees Health Plan has been adopted by the Kerry Team. The Bush Health Care reform looks to be a disaster already, as drug prices have skyrocketed before the policy is even fully implemented. The lack of flexibility on changing plans (or cards) is a major problem, as is the substantial gap in coverage between certain dollar amounts, which I am sure affects a large % of those in need (especially considering the rising cost of drugs and care). I do not hold Bush solely accountable for this, I mostly hold the House Republicans (and to a lesser degree the Senate) for this mess. The Democrats in the House probably didn't have a chance stopping it, but the Senate Democrats should've stood firmer with regards to their own proposal imo. Oh, I forgot to mention how this is going to be super expensive as well as not effective. I do blame Bush for distorting the truth of the effectiveness of the Program(now) and the costs (then). Nothing new, I guess.

So...for me it is not hard to give Kerry a chance...to use the Rhetoric coined by Reagan:

"Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

For most Americans on a disturbingly large amount of issues, the answer is "NO"... Reagan's phrase effected change then, and should do now.

[jelloshotsrule]

i came to this thread because frankly i'm having a hard time deciding who to vote for. this is the first election in which i will be able to vote, and i don't want to go off of liberal or conservative, republican or democrat so much. even though i probably am slightly conservative if you ask me a bunch of questions, i still want to hear out Kerry and see why people support him. unfortunately i either hear vague stuff like "Kerry will improve the situation in america" or "the economy is good, but it can be better," or the obvious and a little too overly resounding "he's not bush." i want to know who i would be voting for if i voted for Kerry not who he is not. some of these posts have been informative and informed, but that seems a little on the minority of people who support kerry. so i'll probably wait until later to figure it out. maybe during debates.

congratulations on your first election, and your decision to think for yourself on who to vote for.

i won't give you my opinions of the two major candidates (most already have heard enough from me about them). but i do urge you to check out other candidates. most notably of course, ralph nader. his site (along with kerry's and bush's) list his policies on most important issues...

votenader.org
johnkerry.com
georgewbush.com


take a look and make an informed decision

[jelloshotsrule]

I think that the greatest travesty of democracy has been people blindly voting on party lines.

agreed. i just don't get some peoples' allegiance to a party... there are some people in each party that i respect and plenty of others that i don't (from both parties). so why should i say "well, i don't know what this guy will do in office, but he's a democrat (or even, 'but he's not a republican')" or vice versa.....

it's similar to single issue voting in my list of pet peeves

[davecuse]

My vote will go to Kerry based on a number of issues, most noteably his tax program which was outlined this morning on CNBC, all taxes will remain the same except for the top 3% income bracket so...

Couples making more than $260,000 a year will pay $5,400 more in taxes per year, 37% increase.

Single person making more than $250,000 a year will pay $6,500 more in taxes per year, a 43% increase

Parents with a child in college receive $2,500 assistance package.

On top of that I think that Kerry has a much longer term perspective in his policies. His backing of stem cell research seems like a no-brainer to me. The bottom line is, I firmly believe that Kerry and Edwards would restore some faith in our government, not only abroad but here. I'm not sure what Kerry's view is on the Patriot Act, but I would be very interested if someone could enlighten me.

[Durandal7]

I'm not sure what Kerry's view is on the Patriot Act, but I would be very interested if someone could enlighten me.

He is against the Patriot Act though he was originally a supporter who stated "(The PATRIOT act will) make it a lot more difficult for new terrorist organizations to develop" and voted for it in the Senate.

[IJ Reilly]

He is against the Patriot Act though he was originally a supporter who stated "(The PATRIOT act will) make it a lot more difficult for new terrorist organizations to develop" and voted for it in the Senate.

Only half true. In fact he's called for strengthening some provisions of the Patriot Act and amending others.

Instead of simply parroting GOP talking points, you might go directly to the source. It's not difficult to discover a candidate's actual positions on issues.

[blackfox]

He is against the Patriot Act though he was originally a supporter who stated "(The PATRIOT act will) make it a lot more difficult for new terrorist organizations to develop" and voted for it in the Senate.
You not so subtlely imply the "flip-flop" line about Kerry (Your avatar also echos another popular GOP criticism).

As far as the "flip-flop" about the Patriot Act, there are a few things:

I am pretty pissed that no-one in the Senate took the time to read and/or understand the provisions of the Patriot Act. Kerry is one of many Senators (seems like all of them) who deserves some blame for this oversight. I can understand the fact that many Senators do not have time to read (often huge bills), but I do beleive that with the use of staffers etc., they probably should've done a better job of understanding what they were passing.

With that in mind, Kerry like many Senators at the time was under intense pressure to pass this bill, both from the Administration and from their constituents, as it was perceived as an action to combat terrorism at a time we all felt helpless and fearful. Some parts of the Patriot Act are not completely bad, and it is difficult to know how this bill was marketed to the Congress specifically. With that in mind, and with the general climate within America (and the Congress, by extension), the Patriot Act was bound to pass, as it held symbolic significance, regardless of substance or merit.

So now much time has passed and the climate within America has calmed somewhat. People have begun to look into the details of what the Patriot Act allows, and what it represents. There have been concerns voiced from a perspective of abstraction, in that the powers enacted with the PA conflict with established US values and laws and the trend this may be setting. Some of these concerns appear justified from the concrete cases that have already developed from the PA's use.

Under these circumstances, I feel it is natural that many people, including Senators feel that their initial judgement was in error and subsequently change their opinion on the matter. Often times this is a source of embarrassment, but it is also a sign of responsibility. While it is often admirable to stay steadfast on a position, this is only if that position is consistently a decent and correct one. In the case of the PA, I do not believe it is the case. So I feel Kerry (and many others) are correct to change their position on this matter, as it is both their perogative as a person, and their responsibility as an Elected official, regardless if the opposition wishes to paint it as something to it's advantage...

I do not understand those who throw around marketing phrases like "flip-flopper", as they often seem to miss any context to the instances they use to back their claims, or of the fact that it is often good to change one's mind, as we all do...it is called learning.

As for your Avatar, I assume it is related to the "out-of-the-mainstream" charge levied at Kerry from the Right because of his "liberal voting record".

Let me ask you, did anyone ever pause to think by what criteria/standards that charge was judged?

Well, let me enlighten you...The charge that Kerry was the No. 1 Liberal in the Senate (by voting record) is not technically true. The reason is because Kerry has missed a large number of votes on Social and Foreign Policy, that his composite score/rating from 2003 was based only on Economic Policy. Even then, he was not the most Liberal man in the Senate on just Economic issues, he shared that spot with six other senators.

A separate calculation was made taking into account all of the voting records of Kerry, Edwards, Bush and Cheney (Bush's record is derived from his announced positions on roll call votes as Pres. Cheney's is from his record as Wyoming Senator '79-'88). McCain and Kennedy (ed) are thrown in also...the results?

Kerry falls a little left of Center-democratic (as exemplified by Daschle). He is much closer to Center than to the most-left Senators (Kennedy).

Edwards falls right of Center-democratic, almost the same as Lieberman, among the more conservative democrats.

Bush falls more to the extreme of Center of the Republicans (exemp. by Richard Shelby (AL) ). He is noticeably more conservative than McCain.

Cheney is more to the right than 90% of his republican colleages...which could be looked at as extreme.

The point is, again marketing. Not truth. Any assertion that Kerry/Edwards, or the Democratic party in general, is "out of the mainstream" might be easily applied to the Republicans as well. As far as Bush/Cheney goes, it is definitely closer to the truth...

(the paragraphs dealing with political orientation were from a Brookings Institute Study, published in the NYT)

FYI...

[Durandal7]

Only half true. In fact he's called for strengthening some provisions of the Patriot Act and amending others.

Instead of simply parroting GOP talking points, you might go directly to the source. It's not difficult to discover a candidate's actual positions on issues.

"It is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time." -John Kerry, December 2003

I'm hazy on Kerry's position. He seems to sometimes endorse the PATRIOT Act, sometimes support replacing it with another potentially restrictive law and at times repealing it.

Now I checked John Kerry's website in the Issues (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/) section. I checked the Civil Rights, National Security and Homeland Security sections and found them devoid of any mention of the PATRIOT Act. I did a search and found this (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0417a.html) which would support what you say. I am then forced to conclude that compared with the above quote, he is either flip-flopping or was simply trying to get a primary crowd fired up with some Bush Administration bashing.


You not so subtlely imply the "flip-flop" line about Kerry (Your avatar also echos another popular GOP criticism).

I was unaware that "John Kerry is an Andorian" was a popular GOP criticism. :rolleyes:


Well, let me enlighten you...The charge that Kerry was the No. 1 Liberal in the Senate (by voting record) is not technically true. The reason is because Kerry has missed a large number of votes on Social and Foreign Policy, that his composite score/rating from 2003 was based only on Economic Policy. Even then, he was not the most Liberal man in the Senate on just Economic issues, he shared that spot with six other senators.

Your defense of his voting record is actually "If he had showed up once in a while it would look better." I do feel enlightened, I had thought that the Democrats could offer some better defenses.

I find it rather odd that at the mere sight of a cartoonish depiction of Kerry I end up being assailed by lenghthy explanations about how John Kerry isn't a liberal. This seems to indicate some sort of paranoia and insecurity that is intrinsic to the Democratic campaign. At the very least it indicates that you're all too defensive and have no sense of humor. No one ever said "liberal" and if you're all going to get touchy about a harmless 75x50 pixel image than I'll gladly remove it :confused:

In fact, this whole thread has been enlightening. It appears that most of Kerry's support comes simply from a hatred of Bush. Talk about a shaky base.

[blackfox]

"It is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time." -John Kerry, December 2003

I'm hazy on Kerry's position. He seems to sometimes endorse the PATRIOT Act, sometimes support replacing it with another potentially restrictive law and at times repealing it.

Now I checked John Kerry's website in the Issues (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/) section. I checked the Civil Rights, National Security and Homeland Security sections and found them devoid of any mention of the PATRIOT Act. I did a search and found this (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0417a.html) which would support what you say. I am then forced to conclude that compared with the above quote, he is either flip-flopping or was simply trying to get a primary crowd fired up with some Bush Administration bashing.


I was unaware that "John Kerry is an Andorian" was a popular GOP criticism. :rolleyes:



Your defense of his voting record is actually "If he had showed up once in a while it would look better." I do feel enlightened, I had thought that the Democrats could offer some better defenses.

In fact, this whole thread has been enlightening. It appears that most of Kerry's support comes simply from a hatred of Bush. Talk about a shaky base.
As for the Andorian bit, I was not aware of the connection, actually I have no idea what an Andorian might be (from)...still seems to imply he is not in step with our "earthling" voters and their priorities...which while perhaps true, is a charge that can also (more accurately) be leveled at the current Administration.

As for the voting record "if he had shown up..." bear in mind that this is in reference to 2003 only, as he was preparing and running a Presidential Primary. You seem to miss the point I was trying to make...which was not about how often Kerry showed up to vote in 2003, or even how Liberal he is (or any value-judgement on that), but that the Bush Administration is pushing a line that is purposely misleading and patently false. As I made pains to show, the evidence used by Bush to back that assertion was limited in scope and relevance to the reality of the man or his actual voting record. As I tried to demonstrate, Kerry is actually pretty centrist, as are most of the Democrats. They are not "wild-eyed", although some are pissed off at what the current Administration has done with its' tenure. It is one thing to criticize an opponent for his real failings and mistakes, it is another to purposefully create the illusion of them. To accuse your opponents of being out-of-step and negative and hateful, while running one of the most negative campaigns in history and running on a platform of Fear seems the epitome of Irony, if it wasn't so carefully planned.Seems to be a trend I would say...

As for hating Bush, I do not...I am sure he is a nice enough man. As I have said repeatedly, however, I judge a President's merit by what he accomplishes (or does not accomplish) during his tenure. Not what he wanted to do, should've done or could've done...but by what took place. By that measure, he is imo, one of the most incompetent or narrowly self-interested Presidents in my memory at least. What accomplishments can he hold up to the Nation? What opportunities for accomplishment did he let pass by?...that is why I vote for Kerry. I admit, I do not know that much about Kerry, so I cannot fully praise him on his strengths, as I have never lived on the East Coast. I do know that I could do a lot worse, and I know that well...I am living it right now. I might add that I am voting for Kerry because I love America, and that I want the rest of the world to possibly love it too, or at least respect it...I am a Democrat, I do admit, but this is not necessarily a matter of Partisanship...I would vote for McCain, for example...it is a matter of Leadership and of Character. I cannot say that Bush has either...he had a chance, and he squandered it. You consider the Democratic base shaky? What would you call the Republican one?...

[jelloshotsrule]

blackfox- i agree that kerry is not the most liberal democrat..

that's why i won't vote for him

:)

[IJ Reilly]

"It is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time." -John Kerry, December 2003

I'm hazy on Kerry's position. He seems to sometimes endorse the PATRIOT Act, sometimes support replacing it with another potentially restrictive law and at times repealing it.

Now I checked John Kerry's website in the Issues (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/) section. I checked the Civil Rights, National Security and Homeland Security sections and found them devoid of any mention of the PATRIOT Act. I did a search and found this (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0417a.html) which would support what you say. I am then forced to conclude that compared with the above quote, he is either flip-flopping or was simply trying to get a primary crowd fired up with some Bush Administration bashing.

I don't understand why you're "forced to conclude" any such thing. Even the single line from the one speech you've quoted is consistent with his policy statement on his web site. And please, let's not get into a silly semantical debate over the meanings of the words "replace" and "amend."

[blackfox]

blackfox- i agree that kerry is not the most liberal democrat..

that's why i won't vote for him

:)
I understand you position Jello, but the majority of the voting public does hover more to the center. Also, to be a member of the Senate often involves compromise and of course the individual personality of the member, both of which water down any strict political ideological adherence.

Gore made a plea to third-party voters in his speech that while often used, still holds true imo. He asked the question as to whether those who voted in 2000 for a third-party candidate got what they wanted as a result...namely the disastrous policies of Bush.

The Democratic Party may not be perfect to you Jello, but it's victory in Nov. will make a big difference. While I respect your ideological position, I cannot help but think the following cliche is appropriate:

"the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

I implore you to vote Democratic and save your Independent vote for 2008.

[jelloshotsrule]

I implore you to vote Democratic and save your Independent vote for 2008.


when i realize how worthless kerry has been for people for the last 4 years? sure!

in reality, i'm in a sure democrat state, so no way i'd vote for kerry...

also, since we're quoting...

by thomas paine, the crisis, 1776

These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value.

check out this article

http://counterpunch.org/chretien07262004.html

[jefhatfield]

my support for kerry is most deeply rooted in my dislike for the current president

when bush started out, i had about as many good things to say about him as bad things

bush treated september 11th like a real president, but it went downhill from there and he has never been able to attack the slide in the economy...w's domestic policies are what may end his job

we can go into the iraq war issue, but as many people like me who don't like it, i can find a person who thinks it is aboslutely the right thing to do...so for every vote kerry gets for bush going into iraq, bush will get a vote for having gone in there and capture saddam

this election will be close and i hope, then, that the public looks at w's mostly failed domestic policy

and i also hope edwards will help kerry carry at least one southern state...that's all it will take to tip the electoral college in the favor of the democrats

this time, i think the dems can capture florida and perhaps the carolinas while not giving up any states they carried in the last election...if the dems carried a few southern states, it would take bush to carry california or new york to win the election

[blackfox]

bush treated september 11th like a real president, but it went downhill from there and he has never been able to attack the slide in the economy...w's domestic policies are what may end his job...

...this time, i think the dems can capture florida and perhaps the carolinas while not giving up any states they carried in the last election...if the dems carried a few southern states, it would take bush to carry california or new york to win the election
Jef, as it stands now, it seems like the Democrats are in a poor position to take Florida (bush ahead by 6pts), but in a good position to take Ohio. As related to your point, this is based mostly on the perception of the Economy. Ohio's satisfaction with it is way below the National average (37% I believe), while Florida is mostly satisfied (70-something% approval)...I agree with the Southern state strategy/outcome, however...

[blackfox]

Stelliform (and whoever else might be interested)...the NYT has put together an interactive Election Guide...quite interesting imo.

With regards to Louisiana, Bush won it by 7% in 2000, and it is currently leaning Republican. As with all candidates, Kerry has limited time and resources, so I imagine he is concentrating on the large amount of swing-states...

As for consumer confidence, well glad it is improving, but people's perception of the state of the Economy and employment opportunities vary wildly from State to State...so we shall see.

Here is a link to the NYT interactive mappy thing:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/2004_ELECTIONGUIDE_GRAPHIC/

[usmcdiorio]

Ha, love the Rumpole reference - although the gender switch there is a bit disconcerting. ;)

I'll update folks soon about the situation with usmcdiorio.


I wasn't aware there was a situation. I'd very much like to know more about it.

[carbonmotion]

I'm not advocating any European style socialist system, but there are lots of solutions.

Bah! As an IR major, I have to make this correction again and again. Europe is not a country, group, or any sort of alliance... its a continent. European Union is the alliance of some of the better off european states mostly in the north. Not one members of the EU has a socialist system of economics ..let me say that again NOT ONE MEMEBER OF THE EU HAS A SOCIALST SYSTEM OF ECONOMICS. The corret term is welfareism, please use lexis nexis next time.

[Rower_CPU]

How very enigmatic of you!

Sorry for that, but I didn't want to make accusations or say anything that turned out not to be true.

As pointed out by vniow here, usmcdiorio and usmcdiorio2 were accounts created by someone who was banned from MR for a flagrant violation of forum rules. We also found IP matches for Perci Mac and based on that account's activity/inactivity in relation to the other 3 we concluded that it was yet another account by the same person. According to the rules multiple-accounts are not allowed and re-registrations after banning are frowned upon as well, so all 3 of those accounts have been banned.

This person is not welcome on the forums and we appreciate your help in taking care of any subsequent registrations that may take place. Thanks :)

[skunk]

So it's beginning to look like there's a whole load of commies here, and one solitary republican with multiple personality disorder? Weird! :eek:

[mischief]

So it's beginning to look like there's a whole load of commies here, and one solitary republican with multiple personality disorder? Weird! :eek:

You and a couple of other folks use that term a bit too fast and loose for my liking.

Just how do you define "Commie"?

Do you refer to the Bolshevik Leninist movement which has come and gone? Do you refer to the as-yet-unseen followers of textbook Marxism?
Do you refer to those in Religious retreats like the Kibbutz?
Do you refer to the Maoists that are dying off in China?

All these references would be accurate.

To use the term in reference to Social Democrats, those who live in countries with an overriding sense of social resposibility and those who prefer not to go without essential prescriptions because they are too expensive as "Commies" shows a distinct lack of compassion, critical thinking and perspective.

I apologize for my agressive response but I've been increasingly offended by such use of slurs and propoganda in a forum that was supposed to be about discourse and, ideally about finding some common ground.

[Lyle]

So it's beginning to look like there's a whole load of commies here, and one solitary republican with multiple personality disorder?You and a couple of other folks use that term a bit too fast and loose for my liking.I was going to say, "That's just what I'd expect one of you commies to say," but I was afraid you'd miss the sarcasm just as you did with skunk's post. :rolleyes:

[skunk]

I was going to say, "That's just what I'd expect one of you commies to say," but I was afraid you'd miss the sarcasm just as you did with skunk's post. :rolleyes:
I never imagined my sarcasm could be missed! :) :confused: :D

[mischief]

I never imagined my sarcasm could be missed! :) :confused: :D

Oops.

I've gotten a little antsy to try out my new Troll Rifle.... :o

Edit: Perhaps I shouldn't post while listening to Al Sharpton? :eek: :confused:

[Mudbug]

The trolling (posts removed) can stop now.

[IJ Reilly]

Thanks for the quick response.

[MattG]

I support Kerry simply because he's not George W. Bush. He can talk without sounding like he's had a lobotomy, he won't be making important decisions for this country based on what "god" is telling him to do, and he won't try to pass laws conjured out of his own personal hates and prejudices.

How any rational person could want George W. Bush in office is beyond me.

[yg17]

I'm very, very liberal so thats why I'll be voting for Kerry. No, he's not a left wing extremist and maybe there are better choices for a democratic canidate, however, I agree with him on most issues, and, well....he's not Bush. I haven't supported or agreed with Bush (or almost any other Republican for that matter) on any of the major issues; abortion, death penalty, gun control, war in Iraq, ect. And the whole Howard Stern/FCC/Censorship thing only made me want Bush out of office even more. So I'm voting for Kerry because I agree with him, but also because he's not Bush. I'd vote for an orangutang before I vote for Bush

[kaylie_kipe]

I agree with Thannatoast - "What other president has raised the deficit so high, alienated allies so quickly, and made the country less safe by ay of his "we don't need nobody" attitude?" I also do not agree with the way Bush is trying to ban gay marriage. I am not a homosexual but I do believe that they are just people, living their lives the way they want to and they should not be discriminated against for that. I believe that Bush is out of hiss league in trying to ban their marriages.

[Leo Hubbard]

I'd vote for an orangutang before I vote for Bush
wierd how many people stated the same thing. These words and the stuff about Howard Stern seem to come directly from this blog http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/000521.html . I don't think Bush had anything to do with the FCC cracking down on Howard Stern. That was probably more Janet Jacksons fault than anyone elses. And I doubt things would get any easier for him with a Democrat in charge. The President doesn't micromanage the government afterall.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=I%27d+vote+for+an+orangutan+before+I+vote+for+Bush&spell=1

[pseudobrit]

wierd how many people stated the same thing. These words and the stuff about Howard Stern seem to come directly from this blog http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/000521.html . I don't think Bush had anything to do with the FCC cracking down on Howard Stern. That was probably more Janet Jacksons fault than anyone elses. And I doubt things would get any easier for him with a Democrat in charge. The President doesn't micromanage the government afterall.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=I%27d+vote+for+an+orangutan+before+I+vote+for+Bush&spell=1

You dig up conspiracies in the weirdest places, don't you? I see two references to Bush and an organutan in Google's search. Twice across the entire www is a little shy from a vast blog-based conspiracy.

Howards Stern himself has been railing against Bush because of the FCC for months now; he doesn't need some stupid little blog to do his dirty work.

And if you don't think Bush has anything to do with the FCC, then I'd like to know who you think they ultimately report to and get orders from.

[Sayhey]

You dig up conspiracies in the weirdest places, don't you? I see two references to Bush and an organutan in Google's search. Twice across the entire www is a little shy from a vast blog-based conspiracy.

Howards Stern himself has been railing against Bush because of the FCC for months now; he doesn't need some stupid little blog to do his dirty work.

And if you don't think Bush has anything to do with the FCC, then I'd like to know who you think they ultimately report to and get orders from.

Come on pseudo, the jig is up! We've been discovered! It is now out in the open, Amy is our cell leader in the grand left-wing conspiracy. I have to also say I didn't know her true name until just now, but not a word comes out of my mouth or is written by these worn out little fingers that isn't ok'd by our fearless leader. Did you know that Kerry and Edwards take her orders as well? Amy Alkon, the true power behind the throne! :D

[themadchemist]

spin and repetition...spin and repetition....

Sounds kind of like my favorite beltway one-two punch: Tax and spend, tax and spend! :D You know, people always knock it, but sometimes you wonder why Scandinavia ranks so high in quality of life.

[Alte22a]

Hi guys,

Hmm I guess this is my business really, its american domestic affairs. I am from the UK, worked in Tokyo last year and just started to work here in NYC. The impression that my co workers and I think Bush is the most dangerous person on planet earth? The way he will nilly declare war on certain countries and so. I am from the Uk and Our government backs the USA 100%. I would say that I am proud of my government. The reason for that is that Church Hill beg the states to save us in WW2 otherwise I will be speaking german. And I find it rightful for the Uk to back the US for that reason. With the war on Iraq I think things could of waited. A full investigation plus the UN backing would of been the right thing to do. But thats hind sight since I was for the war because Saddam wasnt fit to be a leader. but never made the connection with Bin Laden. Plus I dont see the connection with Bin Laden to 9/11. Since if I was a Terrorist that blew the twin towers, wouldn't I boast about it? Wouldn't I as a Terror say "WOULD YOU PLEASE LISTEN TO ME!?"

For the things thats been played out so far I wish that Bush was out of power and Kerry would succeed him to restore faith with the outside world. Because the places that I've travelled to and spoke to the people they think that Bush is really wrong. I dont think that planet earth will last for another 4 years.

[skunk]

I am from the Uk and Our government backs the USA 100%. I would say that I am proud of my government. The reason for that is that Church Hill beg the states to save us in WW2 otherwise I will be speaking german. And I find it rightful for the Uk to back the US for that reason.
You are from the UK??? Who the hell (or where?) is Church Hill?

With the war on Iraq I think things could of waited. A full investigation plus the UN backing would of been the right thing to do.
So you back the US 100% even though you don't agree with what they did?

But thats hind sight since I was for the war because Saddam wasnt fit to be a leader. but never made the connection with Bin Laden. Plus I dont see the connection with Bin Laden to 9/11. Since if I was a Terrorist that blew the twin towers, wouldn't I boast about it? Wouldn't I as a Terror say "WOULD YOU PLEASE LISTEN TO ME!?"
If you doubt UBL's connection to 9/11, then presumably you did not approve of the action in Afghanistan either.

For the things thats been played out so far I wish that Bush was out of power and Kerry would succeed him to restore faith with the outside world. Because the places that I've travelled to and spoke to the people they think that Bush is really wrong. I dont think that planet earth will last for another 4 years.
What a strange and self-contradictory post! Welcome to the Forum, but please try for a little more coherence if you are trying to make a point.