While I certainly don't think Bush is the greatest president of all time I still could never bring myself to vote for Kerry. I don't believe in the "it's time for a change" just for changes sake mentality. I can't for the life of me see why someone would vote for Kerry other than they hate Bush. With all of the crap going on in the world I think a change right now would do more harm than good.
Besides the fact that JK has no plan whatsoever for leading this country; Reason #1 is that he is basis his entire campaign & putting all of his energy into talking about what Bush is doing wrong. Come up with something original for once and provide a friggin' solution to some of these so called problems.
What? He's made speech after speech over th past few months with pragmatic initiatives about various issues, domestic and foreign. Today's speech focused on health care: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040511/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_16 The policy initiatives that he supports/favors are outlined in great detail here: http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/ You have no clue about this because you've already made up your mind and don't even bother to pay attention. That is well and good and your right, however, you shouldn't tell lies or spout misinformation about Kerry, as you obviously haven't been paying attention to him at all.
Yeah, that explains the white hot campaign success of Dennis Kuchinich, Al Sharpton, and Carol Mosely Braun, as well as the tremendous staying power of howard Dean. It just goes to show how warped the spectrum has become when people think Kerry is some sort of radical leftist.
From what I've read on his site his plan is to blame Bush for all that is wrong and anything that he can't fix as president he'll just continue to blame Bush. Didn't he support the troops going to Iraq? What would he have done differently in Iraq? Maybe Bush did get us into that but what would he do to fix it? What are his plans to attack terrorism, here and abroad? Pacification will not work. The ONLY good thing about a Kerry victory would be that it would probably delay Hillary Clinton running for about 8 years possibly.
Sam: You're right that the three fringe candidates were left of Kerry. You're dead wrong about Dean, who was to the right of Kerry on every single issue apart from the Iraq war where he was right and Kerry was wrong. You're right that Kerry's not a "radical" leftist, since he's too hung up on political expediency to be a "radical" at all, on any issue whatsoever. But he earned his liberal voting record rating. As the votes go, he has been extremely liberal. Instead of running away from it he should explain it. But he won't because he's too much of a p***y. And he really is a p***y. Better than Bush to be sure, for any number of reasons, but if the American people are given a choice between two candidates they don't like, it's a toss up as to which they'll choose. Kerry could fix this, but nothing he's doing now suggests he knows how. I'm not saying Dean would have been a better nominee -- we know now the ways in which he was flawed -- but when I watch Kerry blow opportunity after opportunity, I sure do miss Dean's honesty, passion and (until the last month or two) clarity of purpose. Here's a great editorial from Eleanor Clift which mirrors my thinking about the whole thing: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4926162/ Where’s Kerry? If ever there was a moment for the Democrat to come out swinging, this is it WEB EXCLUSIVE By Eleanor Clift Newsweek Updated: 4:05 p.m._ET May_ 07, 2004 May 7 - Somewhere in the mountains of Pakistan or Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden is having the second-best week of his life. American soldiers using Saddam’s torture chambers to abuse and sexually humiliate Iraqis pushes the U.S. presence in Iraq beyond the point where it can be saved. Capitol Hill is in an uproar, and the White House is panicking. Even Karl Rove makes a rare appearance in print, opining in remarks to an unnamed Bush adviser that it will take a generation for the Arab world to get over the revelations of the last week, and fretting about the perils of premising President Bush’s re-election campaign on national security. A year after the celebratory landing on the USS Lincoln, the headlines are about torture in Iraq, and this time it’s not Saddam’s fault. The news is jarring for the American people. Bush was supposed to be a competent, can-do guy, and his administration looks like it’s spinning out of control. After hearing that videotapes will soon surface depicting sexually explicit scenes, some Hill aides turned to black humor. Now that the p*rn industry has shut down in California because of an AIDS scare, it’s picked up and moved to Baghdad, said one aide glumly. Voters don’t see much difference between Kerry and Bush on Iraq. Nader has found a smart way to exploit thatThe search for a scapegoat is underway, with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld the prime target. Only hours before CBS aired pictures of the Baghdad abuse last week, Rumsfeld was on the Hill for a closed-door briefing with senators. He never mentioned the controversy that was about to erupt. Lawmakers are fuming about being kept in the dark. Still, the GOP Congress is a wholly owned subsidiary of the White House, and it’s up to Rove to set in motion the events that would force Rumsfeld’s resignation. “He’ll get the [Trent] Lott treatment only if it is orchestrated by the White House,” says a Senate Republican. Former Senate majority leader Trent Lott was stripped of his leadership post when congressional Republicans, encouraged by the White House, scolded him for racist comments made at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party. If Rove views Rumsfeld as a political liability, someone prominent on the Hill like the venerable Virginia Sen. John Warner will call for his resignation. Firing Rumsfeld would allow Bush to proclaim a clean break from the past, but it would also be an admission that so much has gone wrong, almost unthinkable for the brash Bush. If ever there was a moment for John Kerry to come out swinging, this is it. It is the biggest story of the war, and he is essentially silent. The independent voters who will decide this election want someone who is bold, decisive and a leader. They want someone like John McCain, who even though he wears a Republican team shirt has been candid and blunt in assessing the fallout from this and other Bush fiascos. Here’s where Kerry’s vaunted caution comes into play. He held a press conference Wednesday in Los Angeles where he voiced boilerplate outrage and accused the administration of being “slow and inappropriate” in its response. He did call for Rumsfeld’s resignation, but he’s done that before. This is the language of a diplomat when the situation requires a warrior. There are differences between Kerry and Bush on the war, but most people don’t see them. The administration’s colossal mishandling of Iraq will only boost the Nader vote if Kerry doesn’t sharpen his position. He could demand that the now infamous Abu Ghurayb prison be torn down and that the administration ban the use of mercenary contractors in prison interrogation. He should call on the administration to hold people accountable up the chain of command to the highest levels. Rumsfeld set the tone with his dismissive attitude toward early reports of prisoner abuse, but the persistent failure to honor the guidelines set forth in the Geneva Convention goes all the way to the Oval Office. Kerry’s decision-making style is that he calls a lot of people for advice rather than just go with his gut. Surely his instinct as a Vietnam vet must be to come out swinging with both fists. But he’s getting conflicting advice, and his tendency is to keep consulting and defer a decision. The campaign doesn’t want to be lured into fighting the race on Bush’s turf, which is national security and foreign policy, but the war looms so large, and Kerry will never be as convincing on the economy as he is on military matters. Because of his privileged life and millionaire wife, he can’t say “I feel your pain” on economic issues the way he can on Iraq. Never has the United States fallen so far so fast in world opinion. For the same reason Vietnam was such a wrenching experience, the war in Iraq is turning Americans into people we don’t want to be.
From a political strategist's point of view, there is little doubt in my mind that, thus far, the Bush camp is winning the campaign; The first and often most important battle in a head to head political war is the one in which each side tries to define the other guy's candidate before he does the same to your guy, and the Bush people have succeeded in defining Kerry before Kerry's people defined Bush. Since then Kerry has, you will note, largely been on the defensive, and a person in that position usually is seen as either weak or reactionary, and usually lacks definition in people's minds. This is what it seems obvious has happened. People like Jeff Gundy say that "he has no plan for running the country", when what they should be saying is " I don't have any real idea what their plan for running the country is." The fact is, Kerry has a plan; he has to. It's just that you have to go looking for it; it's not on the front page of the news, because when Kerry is on the front page, he's there defending himself from a Bush attack, or launching an attack o Bush himself. If you want to know his plan, you will. But in America's increasingly limited attention span, details like that take second place to slogans and soundbites. I am not attacking anyone here, as I myself haven't got a firm grasp on Kerry's plan either. I just know it's out there if you want to find it. What the Kerry campaign has working for it, however, is this: Bush has suceeded in defining Kerry before Kerry could define Bush, but Bush's own actions and Presidency are working against him. If neither of these guys had been President before, and the campaigns were where they are, Bush would win in a cakewalk. But Bush is paying the price for being as extreme and reckless/dishonest/incompetent as he has; it confirms the support of the hard liners, but they were yours anyways; what he's lost are the moderates. I think it's Bush's race to win or lose, and if he pulled an Osama out of his hat, or if the transfer somehow goes smoothly, he'll probably win; like I said, attention spans. On the other hand, if the casualties continue to mount, if he continues to ignore accountability for himself or his staff and there's no distraction to take away the heat, he'll probably lose. In my mind, Kerry will be a spectator along for the ride, whether he wins or loses.
If you could explain Bush's plan to attack *terrorism*, the world would like to know. It's an assumption that we even think that's the topic. The Bushies plan so far has been coddling the people who pay for and house the top terrorists who were behind 9/11 and recent attacks. War on terrorism is a euphemism for war without end.
Wow, talk about deaf and blind; somebody makes a bs statement, I call them on it providing links & proof tending to indicate that they are erroneous, and then somebody else makes the exact same r****ded statement. I don't believe you read a word I said, and I don't think you follow any of the links I posted. His plan on Iraq is detailed here. Anybody with knowledge of the Internet could find it. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/ You guys should really get a clue about the issues that you want to debate unless you want to debate TJ style, in which case you should probably reevaluate your priorities in life.
MacBeth: Your post is mostly right on. The Clark stuff is too easy though. You could say the same of Edwards, Gephardt, Graham, Lieberman or any other serious candidate who didn't scream into a mike. The Bush people had that money to spend on character assassination and they had ads worked up on all these guys. The question is how does one fight back. Kerry's been as bad as he could be at it, but nothing (and I mean nothing) from the primary suggests Clark would have handled it better. If anything, the primaries indicate he would have handled it worse. Kerry is exceptionally bad at conveying a strong, clear message and understanding the political situation he's in but if anyone was worse at those things it was Clark. There's more to it than what you posted though. It is easy to define Kerry for the same reason it was easy to define Gore. And it's no surprise he's on the defensive (as Gore always was) -- he is running a careful campaign. He's not playing to win; he's playing not to lose. This would be true regardless of what Bush was doing and he played the primaries the same way. He's the nominee by default. He didn't do a single thing differently -- he just waited for the others to take each other out. Dean and Gephardt killed each other and Clark killed himself by being worse than Kerry at the things Kerry's bad at. What the HELL is he doing talking about health care today???? The reason people don't know his position on Iraq is because it is a nuanced, defensive, necessarily (for the defensive reasons) complicated stance. It can also be explained in simple terms, though he's incapable of doing it. It goes like this: The difference between Kerry and Bush on Iraq is that while both of them would like to increase international involvement as part of rebuilding and a subsequent exit strategy, Bush lacks the political capital to bring the international community back to the table. They'll listen to Kerry where they won't to Bush. That's it. That's the whole damn difference. I defy anyone to present another meaningful departure between the two guys on Iraq. Among the dumber things Bush has said is "a leader leads." It's so obvious it seems ridiculous to even bother saying it out loud. Which is why it's so bizarre that Kerry doesn't understand it. He still can and should win, and win in a landslide, but we watched Gore go through all this before and we're watching it again. I'd love to hear from anyone, by the way, why Kerry makes a better candidate or president than Gore, since he doesn't. The only reason Gore's a more ridiculed figure is because we watched him go through this stuff longer. If Kerry doesn't right his ship and fast, it's only a matter of time before he'll outpace Gore in the clueless loser category.
Sorry Einstein about my "r****ded statement". When I grow up I hope to be able provide links and debate politics as well as you. And now I'm "deaf and blind" as well? I don't remember trying to make this a personal issue, but it looks like you have. Having a plan is one thing. Having the ability to pull it off is another. I don't have any proof that Kerry is not the person to run this country. I just don't think he is. Just a gut feeling. I know that means nothing to you.
That's your opinion and your right. And you're right, as long as we're being honest, I don't particularly care all that much what you think. What I do care about is when people cite false or otherwise demonstrably untrue justifications for their opposition to them. Saying you don't think he can implement a policy is one thing, saying he has provided none is incorrect as a factual matter, and saying such does both him and you a disservice. If you don't like him then you don't like him, but that don't let your opinions distort the facts.
If Les were to name me GM I'd have some policies and plans I'd like to implement. That doesn't me it's going to happen. I'm not even sure why there is a political debate forum. Most people are set in their ways (self included) and no amount of "debate" is going to change that.
Faos: I love you in the GARM, but you're not acquitting yourself well here. A fact-based accusation was made and refuted and then you made it again. When it was pointed out that you'd ignored the evidence which had already been presented, you said you just had a feeling. Debate does happen here, but it can never happen with someone who only comes around to say I have a gut feeling, don't care about the facts and nothing will change my mind. There's a lot of air between you being named GM without (I assume) experience that would make you a good candidate and someone who's spent his entire life building a picture perfect resume for a presidential run, whether you like him or not. In fact, every single thing about Kerry's career presents him as a far better qualified candidate than candidate Bush was in 2000. That doesn't mean you should think he'd make a better president according only to his resume, but when you dismiss both his resume and his ability to carry out a plan based on a gut feeling, your arguments aren't going to impress too many people. For myself, I think Kerry would be, at best, a mediocre president. The difference between you and me here is I can tell you why.
BJ, I hope you'll still love me in the GARM after this. Like Chance, there's a reason I don't hangout in the D&D hangout very often. I can't remember the last time I even looked in here before the beheading yesterday. I'll just say it for you: I suck at debate (unless it's a topic bashing Britney Spears in which I can prove she's a no talent piece of crap). No, I don't have a "fact" why I don't think Kerry would make a good president, or even just a better one than the one we have. Again, I don't think it would be good for a change of command in the midst of everything that is going on. I did look at some of the "evidence" on Kerry's site. Again, he has a lot of plans and ideas, but can he pull them off? Is it worth the gamble of voting him into office?
It is more than worth the gamble given the damage that Bush has done. It is time to restore integrity to the White House.
