kjvtrue wrote:My father said, "the reason why I'm voting for Kerry, is because he hates Homosexuals." I asked my father, "how do you know this," he replied, "because I watched him say that on CBS Evening News."
You tell your father to go ahead and vote for Kerry for that reason. Tell him I admire his reasoning!
Clinton lied, but nobody died.
Every soldier Clinton sent to war came home alive.
Bush is still lying, and our soldiers are still dying.
And if they are fortunate enough to come home in one piece (or even less than that), Bush will cut their veterans' benefits.
Bush is the Worst. President. Ever.
kjvtrue
There are lies and than there are lies. Whatever lies that Clinton's told hurt no one. On the other hand that ogre in the White House's lies have killed thousands of people and turned the US into a rogue nation. Is he any better than Bin Ladin?
I will vote for anyone other than Bush. However, I much prefer Clark and I really hope that people ignore the polls and vote him in.
About Clinton and his supposed lies. Yes he deceived the nation about his connection to Monica Lewinsky. He did not lie under oath. In the Paula Jones case the definition for sexual relations was given and the intimate acts that was between Clinton and Monica did not fall into that definition so when Clinton said under oath that he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky he did not commit perjury.
revel
Does it matter whether Clinton lied or not? How many people died because of Clinton's "lies"? Dubya on the other hand has on his hands the blood of thousands.
I just read David Brooks' column (
"It's the tautology, stupid.") and it made me go hmmm. But I don't really see the alternative. Bush must go. Period. Any of the four who seem to have a chance at beating him -- Kerry, Dean, Edwards, Clark -- would be better than him. Period.
So, when that is the starting point, yes, electablity is the main criteria. I am still on the fence as to who has the best chance of beating Bush, but I am not convinced that anyone has a better chance than Kerry. And whomever has the best chance, I will vote for. The trick is figuring that out. Which reminds me of a thread I'd wanted to start...
Piffka wrote:According to the
JohnKerry.com website:
Quote:With a 100% rating from the Human Rights Campaign since 1995, John Kerry is a powerful voice in the ongoing fight for civil rights:
Preventing Hate Crimes
Ending Discrimination
HIV/AIDS Funding
Protecting Gay and Lesbian Families
Lifting the Ban on Gays in the Military
"John Kerry supports same-sex civil unions so that gay couples can no longer be denied the health benefits, inheritance rights, or Social Security survivor benefits that are guaranteed for heterosexual couples."
Thank you Piffka. I was too lazy too go look it up.
whatcha guys doin'? you know you just lost a vote for Kerry!
ehBeth wrote:whatcha guys doin'? you know you just lost a vote for Kerry!
Only if kjvtrue comes back, reads this and reports it to that news-watching dad, who believes "me" instead of the TV.
So many if's....
ehBeth wrote:whatcha guys doin'? you know you just lost a vote for Kerry!
Sorry Beth. I'd rather see votes gained on the truth and what was said about Kerry is just too terrible to keep my mouth shut ;-)
kjv, Is your father a Christian?
or puts it into her op-ed.
Corpoate Media
Seems that the Corp. Media wants to annoint Kerry because he is a weak candidate. They paint him liberal but in my view he is moderate and corp. attached. He is no firebrand. The right wing and their media suckups have successfully sabotoged Dean because that's who they fear the most. He brings out the anger and frustration in people of this Neo Fascist regime that is the most dangerous bunch of thugs to ever control America.
gop.com has definitely identified anger as the emotion to tap into.
Quote:Rising Tide: You've said that in place of solutions, the Democratic presidential candidates are serving up raw emotion and that emotion is anger. Why are they so angry and how are voters responding to that?
Chairman Gillespie: Well, they're angry that they don't control a majority of the governorships and obviously just lost two more after California. We now have 28 out of the 50 governors seats. They're angry they don't control a majority of the state legislative chambers. They're angry they don't control the House or the Senate in Congress. And most of all, they're angry they don't control the White House. The response from voters is to move away from that. People like passion in politics, but they don't like the hatred that they see coming out of the Democratic candidates. That's why their party is shrinking and our party is growing. According to their own pollster, and one who's pretty well respected on their side of the aisle, Mark Penn, only 32 percent of voters now identify themselves as Democrats, the lowest percentage in the history of public opinion polling. It's the lowest percentage since Franklin Roosevelt forged the New Deal coalition. As their party gets smaller, it gets more liberal and more elitist and more angry, and as it gets more liberal, more elitist, and more angry, it gets smaller. It's a downward spiral on the Democratic side.
http://www.gop.com/News/RisingTideRead.aspx?ID=38
kjvtrue wrote: "Well, look at all the lies that Billy Boy, and his aging Barbie Doll, has said!"
What does Clinton have to do with this. It always comes back to Clinton with some people. At least his lies didn't cost hundreds of lives.
soz
I read Brooks' column too. Have you noticed how much more level he sounds when on the Lehrer show (PBS Newshour, friday nights)?
That's attributable in part to the even-handed and cautious tradition which Lehrer has developed for his show. Another example is Thomas Oliphant (Boston Globe) whose columns are often considerably more heated than his commentary on Lehrer would suggest.
But as regards Brooks, I think there is another factor in play here too. His columns are constructed really quite similarly to Maureen Dowd's. That is, with a thesis arising out of a central 'schtick'. It's wit first, analysis second.
As a reader, I don't at all mind such a style, and I often have fun with tricks like that myself. But I mention all of this really to point out that Brooks doesn't tell us anything terribly important in that column. What he points to (folks will tend to support someone they believe can win the election) was equally true in the case of Bush, as he sought the nomination.
Though I think fairly well of Brooks, and consider him a bright and non-extreme example of right journalism, he is a bit of a sneak. The undercurrent in the column is the suggestion that none of the democratic candidates holds a sincere or original platform or philosophy, and that their 'supporters' are driven merely by opportunism.
Of course, the flip side of this suggestion is that Bush is uniquely sincere and principled, and that his supporters are moved to back him through deeply held ideals.
blatham, I very much agree with all of what you say there re: Brooks. That's what I was getting at with "But I don't really see the alternative." You fleshed it out wonderfully, exactly what I think about it as well.
<note to self -- stomping seems to work...>
