On my way right now to shout at Kerry. I don't have much voice left after last night's baseball game, though (home plate umpire was atrocious). I do have a full set of 10 fingers and plenty of sign language to utilize.
haha! interested then disinterested then interested in this whole back n forth drama between rocketman and T_J... as for KERRY in houston I WISH I WOULD HAVE KNOWN EARLIER! Big To Do's this year: do everything in my 1 man power to get Dubya out of office. donate/volunteer what little time and money i have to the democratic cause. also Houston's March 20th GLOBAY DAY OF PROTEST OF THE WAR IN IRAQ!!!!
Sounds like it was a lot of fun! From today's NYTs.... Mr. Kerry, making his first swing through Mr. Bush's home state, drew hundreds of angry Houston Democrats to a Saturday morning rally. Primary contests will be held Tuesday in Texas, Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi. The partisan crowd included a man who introduced himself as a fellow Massachusetts native. "You're from Texas now, aren't you?" Mr. Kerry asked him. "I mean, George Bush can move here. So can you, right?" But the most interesting voices were those of the smattering of people who said they voted for Mr. Bush in 2000. Jose Silva, 26, a Houston special education teacher and an independent, said he had been turned off by the president's conservatism in office. "I felt like he ran on a centrist platform, and I thought we needed more integrity in the White House," he said, explaining why he voted for Mr. Bush. "But I don't feel like Bush has represented my interests. He's gone from center to pretty far right on most issues." Mr. Silva was skeptical that Mr. Kerry could win Texas, but said he had "a chance for a good showing," particularly if he ran with a Southerner and did away with his Northeastern liberal image. Michael Hatley, 28, a project manager for a local Web design company, said he had voted for Mr. Bush shortly after leaving the Army because he seemed "stronger on national defense, and steadier, and he made Gore out to be a vacillator." He said he was voting for Mr. Kerry this time because of Mr. Bush's handling of foreign policy. And he described a simple formula for Mr. Kerry to appeal to Texans. "He's going to have to look real strong, not vacillate on issues," Mr. Hatley said. "He's going to have to run the line between looking like a complainer and looking like a fighter. Texans are going to like strength."
Excuse me while I let out a hearty belly-laugh. Ok, done. Sir, if you're looking for a candidate who doesn't vacillate on issues, I don't think you could have picked a worse candidate than John Kerry.
man, i'm sure i'm going to get ripped by both sides, but i'm not happy with what either side is offering for president right about now. i was looking for some alternative to the status quo, but i'm not enamored with kerry at all...not in the least.
Max, I'm not especially thrilled by Kerry either, but I'm unclear on why you're not. You liked Edwards and Kerry's got a virtually identical platform. Is it his 'liberal' voting record? And if so, is there a specific part of it you find troubling or just the liberal tag? The flip-flopping criticism is silly, in my opinion. I think there's something wrong if you don't reconsider positions on important issues over the course of 19 years in the Senate. I do not think Kerry is politically brave, but I also don't think that's a damning flaw. What specifically is your beef with Kerry though, considering that you liked Edwards? Is it just a personality thing? Aside from personality and personal history, there just isn't a single real difference between the two. On another (hilarious) note, after all the chest thumping it sounds like the Conquistadork's protest was considerably lamer than the anti-war ones he loves to mock. Didn't even merit a mention in the paper. And then (surprise!) he went poof again. LOL.
Correction: There was a mention in the paper. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2437205 "Promised protests failed to materialize..." Poof.
As ashamed as I am to admit it, batman, i think it is largely a personality thing. I also acknowledge the personal background differences. Of course, TJ thinks it's just because I'm in love with trial lawyers...because we all know how supportive I am of lawyers. I'll listen to both...honestly, i realize i am among the 10% undecided right now...Bush is kinda the "devil I know", and believe it or not, that gives him some edge. I think both of these guys are consumate politicians...I think Saletan's article was dead-on...it's not that Bush doesn't have ideals, but that he can't be flexible at all given new information or a new context. And Kerry...I don't know...there's just something about him that strikes me wrong. Sort of a gut thing. Maybe I'll be one of those awful people who just doesn't vote...it's hard for me to even believe I'm saying that...but at this point, I don't feel strongly about either one.
That's cool, Max. I figured it had to be something like that. I think you'll eventually decide to vote, whether you can manage personal affection for either of these guys or not. You're obviously interested in the big issues, and there are gigantic differences between the two candidates this time around. On abortion, which I know is a big issue for you, Bush is clearly your man. On everything else, from what I've read in your recent posts, I'm pretty sure Kerry is. Certainly on the war, where Kerry's early position and recent shift have virtually mirrored your own (as well as the majority of the country's).
you're right. i will probably have a hard time avoiding voting. on abortion...real quick...i'm interested in kerry's views, because i know he's catholic, and apparently his faith is important to him on the gay marriage issue...so, not sure where he plays out on that. i'm guessing it's quite possible that the president during the 2004-8 term could end up nominating supreme court justices.
See? That's precisely the point. Last time around we could choose between a candidate whose family both has long been entrenched in national politics and made a great deal of money in the oil business and... hmm, exactly the same thing. Sure, Gore wouldn't have nominated some of the wackos that Bush has for various court appointments, but big business, those that are really running the show, were set to win either way. Now, the Bush klan is in my view a bit more insidious given their Carlyle Group connections and their shady dealings with the PRC and GW's uncle's little military supply concern, but still, big business wins either way. Same thing this go-around. It was obvious to me early on that Kerry was BY FAR the most palatable democratic candidate to everyone in the boardroom, and, surprise surprise, he gets the nod. The liberal media (take a peek at who owns ABC, CBS and NBC sometime) essentially chased Dean out of the race. I'm sure they would have done the same to Edwards had he won anything, what with his anti-NAFTA posturing (which is probably all it is, by the way). So, yeah, again, big business carries on either way and everyone's happy.
Kerry's pro-choice, Max. But you probably knew that. I don't know how his personal religious beliefs factor into that. He may be like various other politicians who are personally opposed to abortion but support a woman's decision to decide for herself. I know that doesn't recommend him to you. The next president will likely make at least one Supreme Court appointment. You'll have to decide for yourself whether a pro-choice justice or one in line with Bush and Ashcroft would be more dangerous in the long run. Incidentally, I don't buy Kerry's line on gay marriage. I think he's for it and just won't commit political suicide over it. That troubles me, but a candidate taking a cynical political stance on an issue doesn't bother me nearly as much as someone who would amend the Constitution for political purposes.
speaking of Dean...did any of you guys see Darryl Hammond's Clinton bit last night on SNL's news skit? "Clinton" was talking about Dean as a VP candidate and said that the man was crazy..."if you've looked into the eyes of a raccoon at a picnic, you've looked into the eyes of Howard Dean." It was so freaking hysterical. Then he talked about Edwards and made a comparison to himself (southerner, etc)...but said, "He's me without any of the excitement. He'd probably have sex in the oval office with his wife!"
yeah..the constitutional amendment thing is downright silly. i agree with you...i'm torn...i find myself valuing some of each of what these guys has to say...and not liking some of what each guy has to say. andymoon would say i'm ripe pickings for a 3rd party candidate, i guess...but i'm not sure that's the answer, either. i'm big on providing healthcare...or making it more affordable...or SOMETHING to address those costs. i can damn well guarantee you i don't want my son's health left to faith in the free market.
I hear you, Max. And, by the way, if you go Bush just on account of abortion, I'd understand that. On just about anything else, I kind of wouldn't. Especially as a parent. It's not just health care -- it's also all the empty (unfunded) platitudes on education. But what a parent should be most concerned about is the incredible deficit. Presidents may or may not have a meaningful impact on the economy, but they certainly have control over the budget and they set priorities regarding taxes, spending and the importance of a balanced budget. And this president clearly prefers tax cuts for the rich, even if they mean unprecedented deficits passed on to future generations, to a balanced budget.
i hear ya, batman. the deficit is a real concern for me. i have no problem with tax cuts, as long as they're not followed by record increases in spending. i can say honestly that the tax cuts actually helped me this year, and i'm not wealthy by US standards. believe it or not, i'm still more confident in bush defending the US if push came to shove. but, i feel kinda goofy even saying that given the past 4 years.
