1
   

The Lies, foibles and misrepresentations of John Kerry

 
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2004 10:44 am
Kerry would be even a worse president than Bush, he's done nothing and has know plan that would make me want to vote for him.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2004 02:37 pm
Wow, McG, you really put work in that formatting there.

One thing I picked up on immediately was this bit:

Quote:
GILBERT: Senator Kerry, President Bush a week ago on "Meet the Press " described himself as a war president. He said he's got war on his mind as he considers these policies and decisions he has to make. If you were elected, would you see yourself as a war president?

KERRY: I'd see myself first of all as a jobs president, as a health care president, as an education president and also an environmental president. And add them all together, you can't be safe at home today unless you are also safe abroad.


The commentator here focuses on safe at home / safe abroad contradiction - which gets priority, domestic or foreign issues? He concludes, "Once again, Kerry's response to a simple yes or no question is: both."

That's fair enough. But what struck me was Kerry's inability to, even on a domestic scale, choose a priority. Any priority. Whats your signature issue, John Kerry? What point do you want to tell us, voters about - warn us that, "people, this is whats really important now"? What specific issue do you really, really care about? What issue evokes your ambition to go down in history on it, like FDR had the New Deal, LBJ the Great Society, Reagan facing down the Soviets?

Well, jobs. And health. And education. And foreign policy. Oh, and the environment. <sighs>

Sure, all of those things need to be tackled, no doubt, but what do you wanna do foremost? You can't be the jobs-health-education-terrorism-environment president, y'know.

This is consistent with his record: he wants to cater to everyone and estrange noone, and thus tries to define (and redefine) his position in ways that make 'em everything to everyone. But the risks he doesnt seem to acknowledge are that,

a) as President, you sometimes have to lead a country, not just follow all its preferences. You dont have to be a Blair, dragging his country into ever new unpopular causes, but it would help if you sketched at least what personal angle and priorities you would take into your presidency.
b) you wont be able to change everything all at once - if you dont choose your priorities, you wont get anything done at all. Look at what happened to Clinton in his first term.
c) people will want to identify you with a cause, a keynote issue (beyond, get Bush out) - and more importantly: with a sense that here's a candidate who really cares about something. When applied with moderation, commitment is reassuring, it demonstrates that this guy is in it for more than vanity.
d) if they dont see such a personal commitment to some specific thing beyond oneself and 'the general picture', they wont feel much involved with you no matter how you redefine your position to fit their preferences of the moment.

As Saletan noted in the item I quoted above: "I remain mystified at how a man who braved bullets can be so terrified of being pinned down on a political issue." And for Chrissakes, if pander you must, at least dont do it so transparently.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2004 02:45 pm
This is exactly why if he is nominated there will be buyers remorse amongst DNC in a few months. I think Edwards, Dean and Clark are wise to this.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2004 03:17 pm
The next election will be a referendum on Mr. Bush's performance in office or should I say failures. The latest pols show that Kerry would beat Bush by 12 percentage points and Edwards would beat him by 10. You can play the terrorism card for just just so long. Than you have to put up or shut up. Bush in his interview on meet the press although he was not asked mentioned terrorism 22 times.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2004 03:22 pm
Well, Kerry has a sucky record and Edwards is an attorney, that will be mentioned way more than 22 times.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2004 03:25 pm
everyone likes a winner, but I don't see any winners on either side of the aisle in this coming election.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2004 03:43 pm
What kind of a record does Bush have. Bush is and always has been a failure. Were it not for daddies money and influence the best he could probably do is an associates position at Wal Mart [Maybe]
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2004 04:06 pm
dyslexia wrote:
everyone likes a winner, but I don't see any winners on either side of the aisle in this coming election.


Same here.

au1929 wrote:
The next election will be a referendum on Mr. Bush's performance in office


Yep ... so lets hope that - if Kerry isnt the type to win these elections - at least Bush will lose 'em. That would be nice. And the numbers do look hopeful.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2004 04:19 pm
Polls right now mean very little, the next ones that will, will be in late October to November.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2004 04:20 pm
That would be nice.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2004 04:50 pm
So maybe he's a straw man, but put him up against Bush, and I'd vote for him. Or against Bush. You know what I mean. Put a snowman up, I'd vote for HIM rather than Bush.

But what do I know? I voted for Tony Blair, war criminal.
0 Replies
 
bocdaver
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Feb, 2004 02:38 am
It is clear to me that Senator Kerry is far and away the best candidate and one that will beat Bush easily/ America is tired of a useless war, an economy in the tank and a domestic agenda run by the far right. However, I hope that the election of Kerry will be a landslide which will give him coat tails to carry the House and Senate Democrats to victory.

Otherwise, we will be faced with the same problem that President Bill Clinton was faced with-namely, opposition by the recalcitrant Senate and House.

We all know what happened then--President Clinton signed the so called Welfare "reform" and the NAFTA legislation. His progressive ideas were bottled up the right wing. Kerry must win big and also lead the Senate and House to victory.

Otherwise--STALEMATE.
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Feb, 2004 10:45 am
Absolutely agree, bocdaver. However, even a stalemate woud be better than letting the right wing run things the way they are doing now.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Feb, 2004 10:52 am
Is it stalemate or as it is supposed to be checks and balance. IMO control of the government functions by one party is extremely dangerous. That is what we have now. I should note that should Bush get reelected they will have the other piece of the puzzle in their pocket. The supreme court.
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Feb, 2004 10:41 pm
Absolutely, au. The last time we had a Democratic president and a Republican Congress (the Clinton years), the country thrived. Not a stalemate at all...just proper checks and balances.
0 Replies
 
bocdaver
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Feb, 2004 11:01 pm
Eva- I would be happy with a stalemate.

I subscribe to the general proposition that the best government is one which governs least.

I would hope that would mean:


l. Less spending. I assume Kerry would veto any Republican Legislation that would call for more spending. I also assume that the Republican Legislature would fail to pass any of the President's initiatives.

2. Kerry would, of course, not let down on Homeland Defense. He is smart enough to know that a perceived lessening on Homeland Defense, followed by, God Forbid, another attack, would be disasterous to the Nation and his administration.

3. There would be no more entitlement legislation passed.

A Stalemate would not be bad at all.

However, your link of the "good times" with Clinton is quite erroneous.

If you review the Clinton years closely, you will find that the economy only began to warm up when the Republicans took over the House and Senate in 1996.

Furthermore, as Bob Woodward mentioned in his book on Greenspan--"Maestro" and I quote

"There is no doubt that Alan Greenspan was the steward of the economic growth of the nineties"
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Feb, 2004 11:31 pm
Oh, I agree about Greenspan. Absolutely. And yes, decreased spending would be a definite plus. I am appalled at the amount of money we've spent during the past three years. Just appalled! If I hear the Republicans call the Democrats "big spenders" again after what this administration and Congress have done, I will throw up.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 08:53 pm
Quote:
Hoffa's Comments on Kerry Leave Some Perplexed
By Robert B. Bluey
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
February 25, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Teamsters union chief Jimmy Hoffa has confused both environmentalists and free-market advocates after saying that Democratic front-runner John Kerry, if elected president, would "drill like never before" across the United States.

Hoffa made the comments during a Feb. 17 segment on Hardball with Chris Matthews. Matthews had asked Hoffa why the union chose to endorse the Massachusetts senator even though Kerry opposed drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

"Well, we talked about that," Hoffa responded. "He says, look, I am against ANWR, but I am going to put that pipeline in and we're going to drill like never before."

The union supports drilling in ANWR and the creation of a natural gas pipeline that could stretch from Alaska to Chicago. Neither plan draws much support from Kerry's environmentalist base, however.

When Matthews pressed Hoffa for details on the promises Kerry made, the Teamsters president offered a vague response.

"Well, they are going to drill all over, according to him," Hoffa said. "And he says, we're going to be drilling all over the United States. And he says that is going to create more jobs."

Following the exit of Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) from the Democratic presidential race, Kerry courted unions, including the Teamsters, to support his candidacy. He secured the AFL-CIO's endorsement last week.

But Hoffa's comments have left Kerry's largest environmental backer somewhat confused about what the union chief might mean by Kerry's intentions to "drill like never before."

Betsy Loyless, vice president for policy and lobbying at the League of Conservation Voters, said she wasn't sure what Hoffa was talking about. She suggested asking the union, but three calls made by CNSNews.com on Monday and Tuesday weren't returned.

"We think there can be a balance between protecting the environment and growing the economy," Loyless said. "John Kerry knows ... promoting renewable and clean energy sources makes good sense."

When it comes to drilling in areas besides ANWR, Loyless said it was the Bush administration that wants to tap into public lands, not Kerry.

"This administration is making many of the wrong choices," she said. "This administration has said oil and gas drilling are the primary uses for public lands. We know that John Kerry disagrees that oil and gas drilling are primary functions for public lands."

And as for the natural gas pipeline, Loyless said most environmental groups, including the League of Conservation Voters, remain neutral on the idea. The plan was first authorized in 1976 and is expected to cost up to $20 billion. The most contentious issue is what route the pipeline would take from Alaska's Prudhoe Bay to the lower 48 states.

When Kerry was asked about Hoffa's comments last Thursday by CNN anchor Judy Woodruff, he skirted the issue and instead talked about the pipeline.

"I think he ... I said exactly what my policy has been all my life. Which is I'm for the natural gas pipeline. Absolutely. I voted for the natural gas pipeline. I think it's important to build it. And so do most Americans," Kerry said.

"I'm also for the drilling in the 95 percent of the Alaska oil shelf that's up for leasing now," he added. "In fact, President Clinton put out the biggest lease in American history in that part of the shelf. I'm not for drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and I haven't changed and I won't change."

When Woodruff asked if there was a contradiction in that statement, Kerry replied, "Absolutely none whatsoever." She didn't ask him to clarify what Hoffa might have meant by "drilling all over the United States."

Hoffa's interview caught the attention of free-market advocates at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Myron Ebell, director of global warming and international environmental policy, said it would be out of character for Kerry to make such a guarantee to Hoffa given his track record on environmental issues.

"If the Teamsters are concerned about jobs, the only way Hoffa could justify it is if he took Kerry's words to mean that he would start drilling in a lot of places that are off-limits," Ebell said. "But I don't believe Kerry would ever concede that."

The more interesting question, Ebell said, is what Kerry could possibly offer the Teamsters that President Bush hasn't already put on the table. During the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush unsuccessfully courted Hoffa in hopes of winning his endorsement.

"[The Bush administration] is in favor of the pipeline," Ebell said. "They're in favor of ANWR and they're in favor of opening up large areas of the Rocky Mountains to further gas exploration."

It's typical of unions to throw their weight behind one candidate for purely partisan reasons, said Justin Hakes, assistant director of legal information at the National Right to Work Foundation.

"Big labor feels threatened by the Bush administration," he said. "There's so much discontent with him on the left that once the Democratic candidate is selected, you're going to see a massive effort put forth."

Ebell added, "It may be the old Bill Clinton routine of telling each person you're talking to exactly what they want to hear, and hoping it never catches up to you."
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 09:07 pm
The Onion?
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 09:23 pm
hobitbob wrote:
The Onion?


Shocked It is?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/16/2024 at 01:09:13