Kerry-Edwards (please no)

[Allan]

So this is the democratic "answer?"    

I watched the Edwards speech at the convention on t.v.   His reasoning is something like this:   "You know that guy down the street who makes more money than you?  Well, don't worry, I am here to protect you.  I will take money from others and give it to you!!"   ---applause

Kerry was worse.  He tried to sound like a Republican by stressing that he is strong when it comes to defense.  Forget the fact that he and Edwards voted in favor of military action against Iraq.  The Kerry doctrine seems to be after he  talks to Germany and France and then gets U.N. approval, then, and only then,  can the U.S. take military action.   Um, sorry, John, we "talked to" France and Germany and they did not agree with our position.  Also, most delegates at the convention did not favor military action against Iraq.  Did Kerry really believe that military action against Iraq was appropriate, or was he concerned that the election was looming?

______________

"I don't have an SUV, but my family does."   ---John Kerry

[liszmaninopin]

No, it is not the democratic answer.  It is the democratic affirmation.

I watched the Edwards speech at the convention on t.v.   His reasoning is something like this:   "You know that guy down the street who makes more money than you?  Well, don't worry, I am here to protect you.  I will take money from others and give it to you!!"   ---applause

I feel that you're misrepresenting the whole tone and direction of his argument.  He believes in higher taxes for the wealthier, because they are better able to afford them.  These taxes are then put to use to benefit society.  Perhaps look at it this way:  the very wealthy get more material prosperity from society, shouldn't they give more back?  The graduated income tax has been around for quite a while, are you arguing against it's soundness as a system?

Kerry was worse.  He tried to sound like a Republican by stressing that he is strong when it comes to defense.

Which he is.

Forget the fact that he and Edwards voted in favor of military action against Iraq.

Why forget that?

The Kerry doctrine seems to be after he  talks to Germany and France and then gets U.N. approval, then, and only then,  can the U.S. take military action.   Um, sorry, John, we "talked to" France and Germany and they did not agree with our position.  Also, most delegates at the convention did not favor military action against Iraq.  Did Kerry really believe that military action against Iraq was appropriate, or was he concerned that the election was looming?

Pardon me, but why does his doctrine seem that way-he specifically spoke against asking permission before we use military force.  What he did say is that we should garner as much real support as we can.  Kerry felt the action was appropriate, because the executive branch insisted that there was strong evidence linking Iraq with terror, as well as evidence that they were building WMD's.  Kerry trusted the white house not to distort reality, and so gave his vote as permission to let the white house do what was necessary to protect the country.  

[Allan]

As a  business owner myself, I can't afford any more taxes.   People like Kerry are going to drive people like me out of business since my taxes would go up under his plan.  

Interesting minor note, a little while back the state of Mass. had a vote in which people decided whether the state should increase taxes.  The majority voted "no."  But on the next year's state tax returns there was a box you could check if you wanted to voluntarily pay the higher tax.  Kerry did not elect the higher taxes on his return.   Another minor note, has Kerrry' wife disclosed her tax returns?

[Allan]

Regarding Kerry's (and Edward's) vote to go to war.  I think it is pretty weak for them to assert that they primarily just believed the president.  I would think there was more to it than that.  Remember, Kerry is the one trying to convince us that his thinking is more "nuanced" than Bush's.  Congress was briefed by the Intelligence Committee.  I would think that Kerry and Edwards stand by their votes as, ultimately, independenlty made and their respective responsiblities.

[liszmaninopin]

Taxes are a tricky thing to debate...

Keep in mind that under the current administration, in many areas of the country; the fact that Bush may have lowered federal taxes for a number of people causes problems of its own.  First of all, many state and local governments have had to raise their taxes to make up for the lack of federal funds coming their way.  I've read a survey, in which a majority of people felt that their overall tax burden has not improved.  Also, are tax breaks that drive the deficit higher really a good thing?  Eventually, the debt will have to be paid off, I've heard this described as our children will have to pay for our spending now.(it feels weird for me talking like this, I'm 15)  A tax break is more like a deferment than anything else, unless it's balanced by a decrease in spending.  Bush has engaged in unprecedented spending-and I trust Kerry to walk the tax/spending tightrope more carefully than Bush has.

I understand how you don't want to be put out of business by higher taxes, but don't forget the other perspective.  If lower income people have more money to spend, they will potentially have more money to patronize your business.

Tell me, when congress was briefed, were they told the truth?  It's obvious that the public wasn't told the exact truth, and that our neighbors in the international community weren't told the truth.  Imagine that congress was given info intentionally slanted to strengthen the basis for war.  This is what Kerry had to make his decision upon, the information given to him by the intelligence committee.  If the information was faulty, how could he make the correct decision?  He made the best decision at the time, trusting the info he was given.

[Tash]

interesting... i'm guessing this has to do with the future president...hmmm i'm so ignorant of what's happening in the world...

[liszmaninopin]

You're from Australia, right?  I'm curious, but how much does American politics affect what happens in your country?

[Tash]

well it doesn't really. like they put it on the news and some of the major decisions of the president's and stuff and if john howard decides to follow bush then we all know about it and then abuse howard for being a follower. but i think only the whole war in iraq thing affected australia, if there's more then i'm quite ignorant of it... i can't say i take any form of interest in politics whatsoever!

[Allan]

After reviewing numerous intellence briefings Kerry made his own independent decision to support the war.  Then, when he ran against Howard ("I have a scream") Dean in the democratic primary he was against the war.  Then he was for the war again, but  now he claims it is a "wrong" war.    I hate war like any sane person, Kerry, though sometimes makes me question his sanity (or at least his convictions).

[dinosaurtales]

I think the problem Kerry is having right now is that he has no personal ideals or convictions to hold to.  He is a *survey* policitician, whose *policy statements* reflect the way the wind is blowing in the most recent surveys.  This is a problem in his campaign because his typical constituents who are liberal are anti-war amongst other things.  But the bulk of Democrats I believe are just plain folk to whom Kerrys ideal dont' jive, so Kerry has a bit of a dilemma.  He risks making half of his contituents mad with every statement he makes.  That's why I will vote for Bush.  He means what he says.  

I also think that even if you don't agree with everything Bush is doing (name one president where you can!)  it would send a horrible message to the rest of the world for the US populace to dump the president that's viewed as solving the terror problem.  It's the way wrong time to enable terrorists, and thus a bad time to switch administrations.

[Allan]

Well put, DinosaurTales.   Also, Iraq, committed mutiple violations of a cease fire agreement that Saddam obviously did not take seriously.  Terrorist be warned, we are serious in the U.S. about killing you.

[Allan]

"Kerry is going to be commander in chief of what,  spit balls!!?"     -----Democratic Senator Zell Miller (regarding Kerry's long-standing voting record in Congress of failing to support basic military weapons).

[liszmaninopin]

Zell Miller's speech was disgusting and hypocritical-and I say that without reservation.  Even Cheney has voted to reduce or cut many of the programs that Zell said Kerry tried to cut.

[dinosaurtales]

I am with Allan.  I have heard Kerry *say* a lot of things, but what he has DONE for 20 years has been counter to many of the things he is campaigning on, which makes me think he is just making this stuff up to get elected.  A tiger doesn't change his stripes.  He will be raising taxes to whatever limits he can, I assure you.  As a *rich* taxpayer (you wouldn't believe how little money you can make to be considered a *rich* citizen - you youngsters have NO IDEA what you are in for!) - I can say we are paying PLENTY in taxes.  It needs to be managed appropriately and not spread out amongst Congress's favored busijness owners (not the poor, like the Dems would have you believe is happening.  It's not)

[liszmaninopin]

I agree wholeheartedly that money needs to be managed well-and I don't trust Bush to do it.

[Allan]

Democrat Senator Zell Miller's speech was powerful and refreshing in its bluntness.  He spoke for a lot of Americans.

[liszmaninopin]

Barack Obama's speech was powerful and refreshing.  I can't see anything redeeming about Zell Miller.  He was the most hateful speaker at the RNC-even Cheney was far better.

[liszmaninopin]

However, let me add this.  My support for Kerry/Edwards is wavering.  I still despise Bush, and would vote him out of office in a heartbeat-but Kerry does have some rather dumb positions.  Anymore, I support him because he's the only viable alternative to Bush.

[Allan]

Are you kidding, I am about ready to leave the confines of my Southern Calif, abode (near the ocean) and move to Senator Miller's district  so I can vote for him.  Uh-oh, I guess the papers said he is retiring---doh!  

[liszmaninopin]

No, I'm not kidding, I found Mr. Miller's speech offensive.

[Allan]

I find many of Senator's Ted Kennedy's speeches offensive.  When I heard Senator Miller speak I thought, "at last someone who speaks out against the one's who I so disagree with politically."

[liszmaninopin]

I don't mind that somebody spoke out for their opinions.  However, I think Mr. Miller could have toned it down a bit and still gotten the point across.

[Allan]

Nobody at the DNC told Sharpton to tone things down.  Senator Miller strongly challenged the voting record of Kerry which was fair game.   The good Senator (who served in the military) also voiced his strong opposition to the views that Kerry made after he came back from Vietnam.    

[liszmaninopin]

I think there's a difference between Sharpton and Miller.  Sharpton's speech, in general, was a positive one, with a few jibes here and there.  Miller's was nothing but attacks and silly statements that he didn't even back up later when questioned.

[Allan]

Senator Miller is a stand up guy.  When he was drilled by Chris Matthews he said the term "spit balls" was a metaphor (duh, Chris) , but made the point that he did not believe Kerry's record on defense was a good one.  When he spoke about Kerry's record, he enumerated with specificity the weapons that Kerry voted against.  Again, you may disagree, but Senator Zell backed it up and was willing to tell it as he saw it.  Too many speeches are boring, I thought Zell made things interesting.    Power to you, Senator!!  

[Hmoll]

  I thought Zell made things interesting.      

You must like to watch mad dogs foam at the mouth.

[Hmoll]

  The good Senator (who served in the military) also voiced his strong opposition to the views that Kerry made after he came back from Vietnam.    

Talking about something someone said in their 20's more than 30 years ago. Hardly convincing to anyone with an iq higher than room temperature.

[liszmaninopin]

Not to mention, like I said, Cheney moved against many of the same things that Kerry did.  You can't criticize one and not the other for the same thing.

[Allan]

Kerry essentially labeled many of his fellow Americans as war criminals who absolutely did not deserve that label.  When Kerry testified, John McCain was a prisioner of war.  I don't think some understand the depth of hurt that Kerry caused within his own homeland.  

[liszmaninopin]

If not war crimes, what do you call all the imfamous acts committed in Vietnam?

[Allan]

Kerry's remarks hit at the intergrity of many soldiers.  By calling them criminals he was accusing all of them of intentional criminal acts.   I do not think John McCain, for example, was a criminal.

[Allan]

More Kerryisms.

About a month ago, Kerry stated that, even if he knew Iraq had no WMD, he still would have approved of going to war.  But, just the other day he said that the war was "wrong."

Problem with Kerryisms is that...they ain't funny!

[dinosaurtales]

I totally don't see who really can like Kerry.  He's so full of hot air I actually find him scary.  And what would his wife say when they are meeting with leaders of other countries?  egad!  

Actually, I think a First Lady debate would be pretty fun to watch.  

pure sport.

[Allan]

You voice the opinions of so many, DinosaurTales.  I have nothing against Senator Kerry personally (I don't know him), but his leadership and campaign raise serious doubts about his abilities to lead our country.  I have seen poor campaigns in the past (Republican and Democratic).  Either Kerry is very undisciplined or he is getting (and following) some bad advice.

[dlu]

I am one of those Deomocratic (actually Green....but Nader doesn't have a chance) kids living in a hugely rebublican county (I have an awesone Kerry/Edwards button/pin on my backpack!!!!!!!).....uhuh

[Chuckie]

I don't have time to read all of the posts. All I can say is, Bush made a mistake by doing tax cuts (which is obvious). He should have increased taxes and increased government spending if he wanted to make a difference in the economy.

What Edwards said at the convention isn't really surprising: It's the popular belief these days. Many people think that the rich are prosperous because they steal and manipulate other people (which is sometimes true, giving wealth a bad name), but really, they're just the harder/smarter workers (or they inherited from someone--but it still came from hard work and intelligience). Money is earned. Read Atlas Shrugged.

Its discouraging that I have to pay for someone else's incompetence and laziness.

(Yes, there are exceptions, but think about it.)

[Hmoll]

  Read Atlas Shrugged.

Figures. Everything you said in your post is about as simplistic as Ayn Rand.

[allchopin]

(actually Green....but Nader doesn't have a chance)

Uhh... Nader isn't the Green party candidate.  That's Cobb.  Nader is Independent...   please don't vote.

[lingshu8]

After reviewing numerous intellence briefings Kerry made his own independent decision to support the war.  Then, when he ran against Howard ("I have a scream") Dean in the democratic primary he was against the war.  Then he was for the war again, but  now he claims it is a "wrong" war.    I hate war like any sane person, Kerry, though sometimes makes me question his sanity (or at least his convictions).

The charge that Kerry is "endlessly changing positions on Iraq" is without factual support. In fact, if you check the facts and do not simply accept Republican propaganda unquestioningly, you will see that Kerry has never wavered from his support for giving Bush authority to use force in Iraq, nor has he changed his position that Bush should not have gone to war without greater international support, and without making greater efforts at diplomacy backed by the threat of force.

Here's what Kerry said on the Senate floor before voting to give Bush the authority:

Kerry (Oct. 9, 2002): "Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him (Saddam) by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances."

That's consistent with Kerry's later criticism of Bush for failing -- as Kerry sees it -- to secure enough help and support from other countries. And that's been Kerry's position ever since.

The Bush campaign had to edit Kerry's quotes egregiously out of context to make Kerry look inconsistent in their campaign ads.  See here:

https://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=269

lingshu8

[lingshu8]

"Kerry is going to be commander in chief of what,  spit balls!!?"     -----Democratic Senator Zell Miller (regarding Kerry's long-standing voting record in Congress of failing to support basic military weapons).

Miller's attacks on Kerry were misleading and out-dated. He slammed Kerry for opposing bombers, fighters, and helicopters. That WAS true -- 20 years ago -- but not lately.

First of all, Miller didn't say that Kerry voted against the weapons on the list he rattled off, only that he OPPOSED them. And indeed Kerry did, in 1984, as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for Senate from Massachusetts.  

All the weapons cited by Miller are listed in a memo from the 1984 Kerry campaign.  Once elected, however, Kerry's voting record evolved. He did cast votes more than a decade ago against the B-2 Stealth Bomber in 1989, 1991 and 1992. But by 1992 even President Bush (the current incumbent's father) was calling for cancellation of the B-2 and promising to cut military spending by 30% in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Republicans have also accused Kerry of voting against more mainstream weapons including the M-1 Abrams tank and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, but have been unable to cite any specific votes against those weapons. The best they can do is point to occasional votes Kerry cast against the entire Pentagon budget, which hardly constitutes opposition to any specific weapon.

Kerry voted against the entire Pentagon appropriations bills in 1990 and 1995. Kerry also voted against the Pentagon authorization bills (which provide authority to spend but not the actual money) in those years and also in 1996 . However, he hasn't opposed an annual Pentagon appropriation since then, nor did he do so in 16 of his 19 years in office. So by the Republicans' own measuring stick, Kerry voted *for* the weapons they list far more often than he voted against them.

Kerry himself conceded that some of the positions he took 20 years ago were "ill-advised, and I think some of them are stupid in the context of the world we find ourselves in right now and the things that I've learned since then." That was in an interview published in June, 2003 in the Boston Globe. "I mean, you learn as you go in life," Kerry was quoted as saying. He added that his subsequent Senate voting record on defense has been "pretty responsible."

Bush too has had to "learn as he goes" in life, as we all have.  Should we call turning away from a life of drugs and booze to find Jesus a "flip-flop"?

lingshu8

[Allan]

Kerry, in fact,  endlessly changing his position on Iraq is the greatest problem he has faced in this campaign.   Kerry can now try to say that he is "nuanced" on issues, but what he has really done is tried to appease two sides.  Most democrats dissaproved of the war, but Kerry knows there are those who did and do support the war,  thus he has tried, unsuccessfully, to appease both sides.    

[lingshu8]

Kerry, in fact,  endlessly changing his position on Iraq is the greatest problem he has faced in this campaign.    

No, his biggest problem has been the endless Republican false claims that he has changed his position on the war, when in fact he has been consistent all along.

His statement on the senate floor in 2002 described his position clearly and I challenge you to find a single position statement by Kerry (not an egregiously out-of-context sound bite from a Bush ad) in which Kerry has contradicted or "flip-flopped" from this position.  Again I quote:

Kerry (Oct. 9, 2002): "Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him (Saddam) by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances."

lingshu8

[dinosaurtales]

No, his biggest problem has been the endless Republican false claims that he has changed his position on the war, when in fact he has been consistent all along.

His statement on the senate floor in 2002 described his position clearly and I challenge you to find a single position statement by Kerry (not an egregiously out-of-context sound bite from a Bush ad) in which Kerry has contradicted or "flip-flopped" from this position.  Again I quote:

Kerry (Oct. 9, 2002): "Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him (Saddam) by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances."

lingshu8

Did you watch any of the debates?  I watched 15 big minutes of it and had to turn it off - I couldn't stand it anymore.  Kerry actually flip-flopped TWICE during that 15 minutes alone!!!!!  

I don't trust that guy any further than I could throw him.  His record speaks for itself - he's against having a strong military, and against protecting the US.  I don't believe a word he says during the campaign.  His history is too distinct.  Also regarding his "tax cuts for middle class families" - that's a bunch of crap, too.  He's never voted to lower taxes in his life.  Why would he start now?  A tiger doesn't change his stripes.

[dlu]

Did you watch any of the debates?  I watched 15 big minutes of it and had to turn it off - I couldn't stand it anymore.  Kerry actually flip-flopped TWICE during that 15 minutes alone!!!!!  

I don't trust that guy any further than I could throw him.  His record speaks for itself - he's against having a strong military, and against protecting the US.  I don't believe a word he says during the campaign.  His history is too distinct.  Also regarding his "tax cuts for middle class families" - that's a bunch of crap, too.  He's never voted to lower taxes in his life.  Why would he start now?  A tiger doesn't change his stripes.

Could you provide specific examples so I can see exactly what you are talking about (him "flip-flopping" during the debate twice in 15 minutes)?

[Daevren]

Kerry flip/flops as much as any politician.

But he hasn't lied or commited a war crime yet.

[xvimbi]

Kerry flip/flops as much as any politician.

I would hope that ANYBODY would change his/her opinion or stance or course of action if new information was available that clearly shows that one's old stance is flawed. Adhering to one's stance even if it is wrong is not resolve, but idiocy. Hearing "we would do it all over again and exactly in the same way" is yet another kick in the teeth of any parent who has lost a son or daughter in an unnecessary war, yet another kick in the teeth of the rest of the world who has witnessed what this administration thinks about it and yet another kick in the teeth of any reasonable person who still has his/her shi* together.

I do believe though, that they would indeed do it all over again, because the war against Iraq is part of a bigger agenda that these people have laid out in the 90's. To them, it does not matter if it is wrong or not when measured against other people's or nations opinion. It is an inevitable step towards their long-term goals. The fact that they adhere to their stance is therefore not even idiocy, it is a cold-blooded and well-calculated attitude. They must sell it by repeating over and over again that 2+2=5, but if you repeat it enough times, enough people will believe it in the end. Obviously, they hope to get away with it.

[Daevren]

The whole thing doesn't make sense.

So Kerry voted against a bill regarding defence? Why? In my country those documents are quite complicated. It doesn't mean anything and doesn't tell anyone anything about Kerry's opinion. You could vote against a bill because you think the number of money that bill wants to spend on defene is too small. Or maybe too big. Or maybe it spends money on the wrong thing, maybe the equipment it bought from the wrong country, maybe its equipment for the wrong parts of the military, maybe the funding is not good enough, maybe there is some other detail that is wrong.

If I watch those political debates, those commercials and listen to commentators I get the impression that the US people for some reason are the most braindead people alive when it comes to politics. "They don't understand this, they don't understand that", "Its all apperance and image, what is actually comming out of their mouths is irrelevent", "Kerry and Gore are too smart to appeal to the average citizen so they aren't fit to be president", "There is no room for nuance because the average citizen won't understand, you need to be blach&white so they get the impression you are a strong leader".

In a democracy, politics is for everyone. Plus, no one is too stupid. Just listen to the people that call in on an american football program. Don't tell me the average american is too stupid to understand politics. They are just they are too stupid. How can you have a democracy that way?

Its bizarre that still, no one knows why Bush invaded Iraq.

[xvimbi]

Its bizarre that still, no one knows why Bush invaded Iraq.

I think what you wanted to say is "It's bizarre that still no one is aware of the real reasons why Bush invaded Iraq". The goal is to "shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests" as published here:

https://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Specific details can be found here:

https://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

https://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm

[Daevren]

Well, the only person that voiced that reason was Wolfowitz and he did it once, I think. And that could be seen as a mistake.

We have heard alot of official reasons, they were all proven false. So why does no one ask for the real reason? Doesn't anyone in the US wonder?

All this talk about Iraq and no one asks the president why he send those troops and why he used the false arguments.

Ok, we can assume it is imperialism, military dominance in the middle east, Israel, oil, we will only know for sure in 40 years. But we can never be sure.

Why don't the american people demand a reason from Bush? He is running for president and he refuses to give a reason? Sounds bloody important to me. How can he become president without giving his reason?

[xvimbi]

Well, the only person that voiced that reason was Wolfowitz and he did it once, I think. And that could be seen as a mistake.

It was not a mistake. He voiced those reasons BY mistake. Wolfowitz also admitted that it was clear that the Iraq war would be difficult to sell. They had to wait until 9/11 came along and the sympathy for the US was very high.

We have heard alot of official reasons, they were all proven false. So why does no one ask for the real reason? Doesn't anyone in the US wonder?

Nobody wonders. Forget all those fake reasons, forget the hundreds of Americans who died in the war, forget the thousands of Iraqis who died, forget the unbelievable mayhem that's happening in that region. After all, it is a good thing that Saddam in prison. The world is a better place!
This is how the Bush administration justifies the war, and the nation seems to buy it.

As I said in some other thread: Perception is reality! If you say "2+2=5" long enough, it becomes true!

Why don't the american people demand a reason from Bush? He is running for president and he refuses to give a reason? Sounds bloody important to me. How can he become president without giving his reason?

He said it many times. You are not listening. He says, the risk of Saddam giving his stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction or important information to terrorists was too big. One had to act.

What weapons? you ask. The ones that are buried in the desert and ready to be employed in no time. We haven't found any, you say? The fact that we haven't found them, does not mean they don't exist.

All this reminds me of discussions with religious people, particularly since the President - when he really doesn't know how to answer questions anymore - likes to say "God told me so". End of discussion!