I'm a republican but I would say that I'm undecided as to who I would vote for. Right now I'm just trying to look at where each candidate stands on the issues and make my decision from there. I do think that this country could use a change though. While browsing the internet and trying to learn a little more about Kerry I ran across this little article. I think what bothers me most about Kerry is #4 on this list. He doesn't seem to stand for anything and backtrack's on several issues. What do you guys think? Eight Simple Rules for Beating John Kerry 1/30/2004 John Kerry, who just a month ago was on his political deathbed, is now gathering momentum and would appear to be an unstoppable juggernaut on the way through the Democratic primaries. Yet John Kerry has many “Achilles Heels.” For respectable Democrats like John Edwards and Joe Lieberman, I present my “Eight Simple Rules” that they will hopefully employ. Should they fail to heed my advice, I will offer them again to President Bush. 1) John Kerry is weak on defense issues Yes, John Kerry did many heroic deeds during the Vietnam war. Yet his record after 1970 shows him to be a lightweight on matters of defense. As a member of “Veterans Against the Vietnam War,” John Kerry testified to congress about alleged atrocities committed by American soldiers—never mind the fact, which he later admitted, that he never witnessed the atrocities he spoke of. John Kerry’s record in Congress shows him consistently voting against the CIA and new weapons systems. John Kerry now says that we’re over-estimating the danger that terrorism poses to the United States. I’m sorry, Mr. Kerry, but we under-estimated al Qaeda between 1993 and 2001, and look where it’s gotten us. 2) Iraq policy? What’s that? John Kerry voted against Operation Desert Storm, but condemned Iraq during the late 1990’s because of its unconventional weapons programs. He voted in support of the resolution authorizing Operation Iraqi Freedom, but later regretted it. Where does John Kerry really stand on Iraq? Is he committed to making Iraq self-governing, representative of the people, and stable? The Kerry plan is to turn it Iraq over to the UN and add 20,000 more soldiers. But will this really help to quell the rabid Iraqi nationalism and nihilistic, xenophobic violence that threatens to bring down a future Iraqi government? Americans need a president who will stay the course no matter how difficult things may appear. If Iraqi insurgents shoot down a cargo aircraft or find some other way of inflicting mass casualties, America doesn’t need a president who will, with a jerk of the knee, turn tail and pull out. John Kerry has given no indication of his resoluteness. 3) Michael Dukakis strikes back Before he was Senator John Kerry, he was Lt. Governor John Kerry of Taxachusetts. His boss: the hapless Michael Dukakis. The Bush-Dukakis race of 1988 got very dirty, with accusations that Dukakis was soft on crime contributing to his embarrassing defeat. The same strategy that worked in 1988 can be applied to 2004. All we need now is footage of Kerry riding around in a tank. 4) John Kerry refuses to stand on principle Example: when the “Defense of Marriage Act” came up for a vote, Sen. Kerry said “nay.” After the vote, he claimed that he opposes gay marriage, but he considered the bill “too political.” Of course it’s political, John. Just like everything else in Washington! This is nothing more than a cop-out. John Kerry is too afraid to offend the gay rights lobby, but he doesn’t want to offend the overwhelming majority of Americans who oppose gay marriage. John Kerry also claims that his ‘Catholic faith’ forces him to oppose abortion, but he doesn’t believe in legislating that belief upon Americans. Again, another cop-out. Even if Americans feel that 1.5 million abortions per year is excessive (which they overwhelmingly do,) will John Kerry do anything to rectify the situation? He hasn’t in the past, and will not in the future. Well, if he is neither hot nor cold, then voters must spit him out. 5) Continued Mideast War, John Kerry-style John Kerry is quick to criticize what Preident Bush has done in Iraq, but he rarely speaks about his plans for Palestine. In January 2003, Sen. Kerry told Tim Russert of Meet the Press that he wants American soldiers to enforce the peace in Israel. But how can we negotiate a cease-fire when there are so many deep-rooted issues between Israelis and Palestinians? How do we resolve the security wall, the suicide bombings and assassination attempts against Hamas leaders, the Palestinian refugees and the Jewish settlements? Simply put, the United States cannot end this 2000-year conflict alone, and not a single American soldier should be put in harm’s way until Israelis and Palestinians can both demonstrate some mutual respect for each other. If Americans are sent in with anything less than a comprehensive peace agreement, they will be targets for every jihadist, suicide bomber, and stone-throwing protestor. 6) Corporate hypocrisy John Kerry has campaigned on the message of “the people versus the powerful” and “two Americas.” Class warfare was cool in the 1890’s, but it doesn’t sit well with voters anymore. The anti-corporate message works well in Democratic primaries, but it may have cost Al Gore what should have been an easy victory in 2000. John Kerry speaks from the anti-corporate sidelines, but the real story is that his campaigns have always relied on corporate support. Again, John Kerry refuses to stand on principle, while corporations are being incredibly stupid by financing a guy who unwittingly wants to engineer their demise. Of course, John Kerry’s corporate credentials are visible to even the most myopic political observer: his well-being is tied to his wife, Teresa Heinz, and thus the Heinz ketchup company. Let’s see him stand up for the working man against the ketchup juggernaut of Heinz. Just kidding. 7) The Hydrogen “Manhattan Project” John Kerry wants to decrease American oil consumption by 10 million barrels per day and become independent of the middle east’s oil by 2010. He also wants an effort that spares no expense to drive us into the hydrogen economy by 2020. Anybody see a problem with this? First off, John Kerry’s jobs program is tied to his hydrogen “Manhattan Project.” Next, he campaigns using the “no blood for oil” mantra to justify his energy plan. Not only does this phrase offend non-hippie voters, but his plan will actually create the opposite of what he wants. If we ignore the middle east and stop buying oil, the social order will collapse, the region will sink into economic despair, and terrorism will actually increase. 8) So sue me John Kerry has an idealistic health care proposal that would insure children and people with low incomes. It would make health care more affordable for everyone else by government subsidies for cases costing over $50,000. He also has proposed a more sweeping version of President Bush’s already-generous prescription drug plan. The final cornerstone is a patients’ bill of rights—the right to sue. The lawsuits against the healthcare industry will be counterproductive in John Kerry’s grand plan to bring health care costs down. It also must be noted that it will be awfully difficult to balance the budget with the hydrogen project and the health care spending, even if John Kerry succeeds in undoing the president’s tax cut for “the wealthiest one percent” who pay the majority of our taxes. http://www.geocities.com/conservativecorner/Eight_Simple_Rules.htm
In my mind, I see John Kerry as a big, gawky stork who is about to wade out into some really choppy seas come Fall. Two months ago, Dean was "a lock." Now it's Kerry. I'm thinking Bears vs. Patriots in the 85 Super Bowl.
I think point 2 is pretty big, that he voted to send troops over and then didn't vote for the money to support them. I' m really not seeing how he's different from Bush except on abortion (although he wants to be on both sides of the issue) and the fact that he didn't send money after he sent troops. These are some tough issues, hopefully the dems here won't just say, oh here comes the GOP propaganda machine.
If your pResident still has troops losing their lives daily in Iraq and hasn't created any jobs by November, it will look more like the 2002 Super Bowl, with Kerry as the Patriots winning on a last second FG. Remember, with Kerry as the Dem nominee, the focus will shift to War Hero vs. Draft Dodger. A very legitimate argument.
So the only way to be "strong" on defense is to vote for every bill that increases military spending? Throwing money at the Pentagon is not the only way to show one's support of the military. It's just the easiest. We already have the most expensive military in world history -- our "defense" budget is greater than the next ten countries combined. Handing additional billions of dollars to an already bloated bureacracy isn't the answer to any rational question. If protecting America is so important, why are we pouring most of our "defense" money into fighting a war we started 10,000 miles away?
I am concerned about number 4, also. Kerry's vote on the war was atrocious, considering I still think he was smart enough not to really be for it. Kerry has changed his position on a number of things. However, if the choice is someone who plays typical politician games and takes intermediate postions vs an ill informed guy who has his info spoon fed to him, and who believes it is ok to deceive the American people to advance a rigid position, that hurts most people, I will go with the typical politician. Consistency in the support of error is not admirable.
Bush predicts growth in jobs Posted 2/10/2004 By Richard Benedetto and Peronet Despeignes, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — The Bush administration predicted Monday that the U.S. economy will create 2.6 million jobs this year, despite sluggish growth so far. ....
Gentlemen, if you could please do me the favor of referring to Kerry as "John Forbes Kerry" from here on out, I would appreciate it. Hanoi Kerry would also be acceptable.
I'm voting for Bush regardless of which liberal the Dems put out there... All 8 are examples of why Kerry shouldn't win, however, we can probably find the same on every candidate... Go Bush!!!
I'm liking Kerry more and more. If this article resonates with you, you likely would not vote for any Democrat. Let's see what i've learned today: 1) Kerry doesn't blindly support any mega-budget military spending. His military service exceeded that of Bush and Clinton, and he was active in politics in the early 70's. 2) He wants more world involvement in Iraq and a greater troop presence. He would at least consider diplomacy. He might consider adjusting policy as more information becomes available. 3) The GOP may try a smear campaign about his past with Dukakis. Is that this best they've got? 4) As his anti-abortion stance is religious, rather than philosophical, he's correct in opposing legislation to prohibit abortion. He recognizes separation of church and state. His gay marriage position is similar -- limiting the role of the legislature to what it should be. I see no contradiction is acknowledging that your personal position differs from what is best public policy. King George may disagree. 5) Not sure what point is being made here. The article suggests he's not an isolationalist (which in my book is good), but hasn't quite resolved the whole Israel/Palestine situation yet. And your point is??? 6) His Heinz connection is significant and he does tend to downplay it. I'm unsure, however whether harping on 'family privilege and connections' is a go for the GWB camp. 7) Clean air and self sufficiency aren't necessarily bad. Hadn't heard the collapse of social order and economic despair angle, although I highly doubt the US would pull out entirely. Will Bush be running on a 'greater dependence on Mid-East Oil' platform? 8) He has a plan to insure children and low income Americans. I have no doubts the vested interest will ensure it is adequately watered down should anything be eventually passed, but he's recognizing a problem here. I've certainly done a bit 'o the ol' rose coloured glasses shtick here with Kerry. But when i read the article, i truthfully found more to support, than to fear about the man. I kept reading the successive points thinking, 'surely there must be more here??" And please don't call me Shirley. It will be an interesting election. GWB didn't exactly cruise to victory in 2000. The outcome may largely depend on any third candidates.
Exactly why does that matter? War can develop at any point during any presidency. Not too many of you have been in the military but you sure are of the opinion that you could run the war better than Bush has...
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=6228 Last February the White House predicted 1.7 million new jobs for 2003. But over the course of the year the economy lost 53,000 jobs.
I have a questions for you. Why is it when conservatives post pro-Bush stuff from conservative sources you attack the source as biased. However, when the left-leaning people post stuff from left-leaning sources, that's okay?
Kerry is a fool and a hypocrite. Why you ask? 1. How can he go into the typical class warfare (as Paul Begala said, **** the rich!) mantra so typical of the left when he is damned rich himself! That's ridiculous. 2. Supporting the military doesn't mean idle, bull**** statements like "I support our troops." As Rod Tidwell said in Jerry Maguire, "Show me the money!" Supporting the military means making sure it has the means to get the job done. The world's best weapons aren't cheap. GV76, we may spend the most on the military in the world, far more than anyone else. But we have the best forces for a reason. The American power aren't particularly tolerant of long wars with lots of American casualties. With our superior forces and technology, we can achieve victory quickly with little threat to our personnel while filling the body bags of our enemies. 3. Kerry believes that terrorism is a law enforcement and intel problem. Wrong answer, numbnuts. We tried that under Clinton and look what we got. Countless dead at the Khobar Towers. Countless dead on the U.S.S. Cole. The near toppling of the Towers. And nothing was done to get to the root (pronounced the rut depending on where you live) of the problem short of arresting a few people and hearing Bill Clinton get all touchy-feely on TV to raise his poll numbers. The only thing that can lose the election for GWB is GWB.
