Some Questions for Kerry

Quote:

(Note to anti-religion group: Kerry is proposing policy based on a Bible verse.)

Stupid Kerry, Stupid Bush. Stop with religion.

ACtually these are some intelligible questions. Though i doubt Kerry will ever address them.

0 Replies

That has been the problem a lot of us have with Kerry. He is making some pretty ambitious promises on the campaign trail, but is giving absolutely no specifics of what he means by most of them or how accomplishing them would look.

0 Replies

ANd then like many politicians he goes and contradicts himself later. Lol i suggest they plan out everything theyre going to say and double check to make sure they dont do stupid things like contradict themselves. Or they could be honest adn actually have completely truthful views. Its hard to be contradictory when you tell the truth.

0 Replies

But you can't be all things to all people without contradicting yourself.

0 Replies

Who says they have to be all things to everyone?

0 Replies

Re: Some Questions for Kerry

Foxfyre wrote:

I propose that these be the questions presented to the presidential candidates in the first debate.

We don't always get the politicians to answer the questions we'd like so maybe you can settle for someone who will likely vote for Kerry answering some of them (I'm skipping some of the "gotcha" questions that seem to have as their sole aim tripping him up on words).

Quote:

Regarding military action, your platform says "we will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake." But the platform's preceding paragraph denounces President Bush's "doctrine of unilateral pre-emption." If unilateralism is wrong, are you not committed to some sort of "green light from abroad"?

In his speech he differentiated it as being unilateral when necessary versus multilateral when necessary, suggesting that it is the degree of willingness to embrace the unilateral path that he'd be different on.

Quote:

Are you glad that in 1981 Israel set back Iraq's nuclear weapons program with a unilateral pre-emptive attack on the reactor near Baghdad?

I, for one, am. And if the US action were based on such good intel and so brilliantly executed nobody would have had a chance to whine about it much either.

If the point is a comparison to the invasion of Iraq I think it is a poorly made point as Israel's strike on the reactors was everything this war was not.

Quote:

Your platform says: "A nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk." But Iran's radical Islamist regime is undeterred by diplomatic hand-wringing about its acquisition of nuclear weapons, which may be imminent. Is pre-emptive military action against Iran feasible, or are its nuclear facilities too dispersed and hardened? What would you do other than accept Iran as a nuclear power?

Good question, and quite frankly there is no basis at all for forcing their hand.

Iran, unlike Iraq has a legal right to nukes. Invasion of Iran is unlikely to be in the cards.

Quote:

In 2020? First of all, answering this question truthfully is tricky. The US position has pretty much been lipservice to the "one China" policy and the unsubtle hint that we may well become militarily involved under certain circumstances.

Any president who tips the cards right now would be being foolish.

This question's answer is ambiguous as a matter of standing foreign policy, and it's like asking a prospective Israeli PM about their nukes.

It's a question whose answer at all would be a contradiction of a wise foreign policy that is suitably nuanced for a compelex scenario.

Kerry can no more answer this than anyone else, we are in a standoff with China on this and it's like asking to show them our hand before it's time.

Quote:

You supported humanitarian military interventions in Somalia, the Balkans and Haiti. Would you intervene militarily to stop the accelerating genocide in Sudan?

Good question, I would. And I'm interested in Kerry's answer.

Quote:

The easily distressed abortion rights groups were distressed when you said that your faith teaches you what elementary biology teaches everyone: life begins at conception. But you say personhood does not. Fine. When does it? What are its defining attributes?

Viability outside the womb for me, dunno about what Kerry would say.

Quote:

When the Pope said Catholic legislators have a duty to oppose gay marriage, you said he had "crossed the line" because "it is important not to have the Church instructing politicians." Have you felt that way even when the Church has instructed politicians take liberal positions regarding economic justice, race and other matters?

I for one would feel that way about anything the Churches say. It's their opinion and nothing more.

Quote:

Do you advocate new laws to discourage the kind of people who are choosing to participate in politics through financial contributions on your behalf?

I, personally, prefer either letting the stopgates out and letting money play its dirty game to the hilt or going the complete opposite direction.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

He is making some pretty ambitious promises on the campaign trail, but is giving absolutely no specifics of what he means by most of them or how accomplishing them would look.

Ain't that the essence of politics? :wink: But seriously: to what extent should Kerry - or any politician - explain what the insight of their policy is on certain issues? In an (American) campaign trail, it seems, people want one-liners, strong words, clear thoughts. They don't want a politician outlining his stance on a certain issue for two hours. I do agree with you in essence that Kerry, as any other politician, should at least give a short description of how he wants to accomplish his ideas, cause I personally hate one-liners. However, for the mainstream audience, I think the best way for a politician to get their votes is by just clear words and one-liners.

0 Replies

Ah yes, I finally remembered why I don't vote.

0 Replies

You are property of (the American) company McDonalds and therefore can not cast a vote in Canada, cuz you're not a Canadian citizen?

0 Replies

Rick d'Israeli wrote:

You are property of (the American) company McDonalds and therefore can not cast a vote in Canada, cuz you're not a Canadian citizen?

No, it's just that if I am spotted wearing the costume and sign in public again, I'll be arrested on charges of being anti-American. Laughing

0 Replies

Rick writes

Quote:

Ain't that the essence of politics? But seriously: to what extent should Kerry - or any politician - explain what the insight of their policy is on certain issues? In an (American) campaign trail, it seems, people want one-liners, strong words, clear thoughts. They don't want a politician outlining his stance on a certain issue for two hours. I do agree with you in essence that Kerry, as any other politician, should at least give a short description of how he wants to accomplish his ideas, cause I personally hate one-liners. However, for the mainstream audience, I think the best way for a politician to get their votes is by just clear words and one-liners.

In part I agree; Americans are so indoctrinated with instant information and the 15 second sound bite, they often do not think any deeper than the surface impression. If encouraged, however, I think many Americans do become interested in the substantive issues. Witness the level of discussion (at least by some) here on A2K.

Also one of the 'charms' of former presidential candidate, Ross Perot, was his use of the infomercial method of campaigning. Not only was he a compelling personality and made campaign rhetoric fun, but his use of posters and graphics and detailed analysis in 30-minute blocks of time did capture the attention of the American public. It also made him one of the most successful third party candidates of the Twentieth Century. I'm certain he would have done even better and possibly would even have been elected if he hadn't chickened out during the Democrat convention before re-entering the race. Of course the reason he gave for dropping out painted him as something of a nut and that hurt him seriously.

In a personal project, I am learning that people are very interested in and quite able to think outside the box to grasp the most intricate complexities of religion and theology. I think the same is true of politics and governance if presented in manageable and interesting forms.

How refreshing it would be to have presidential candidates do infomercials outlining their healthcare plans, for instance, how they would work, how they would be financed, who would benefit, why it would be better than what we have, etc. I would like a reasoned and comprehensive analysis of what is and what is not acceptable to expect of the U.S. military; whether the presidential candidate is inclined to use military intervention in a crisis situation such as the Sudan. I don't think it's fair to require a presidential candidate to say he absolutely would or would not invade Iran or North Korea but it is reasonable to ask whether he would see a severe threat to the U.S. as worth acting unilaterally to address it.

I think the way we run presidential campaigns these days is incompetent and just plain stupid. There is almost no way the best man for the job can be elected.

0 Replies

I expect Kerry will answer more questions and be more specific as the debates and election approach. Not a direct quote, but I heard him say the other day that he wasn't going to tip his hand and provide details YET. In other words, keep the details close until the debates so that the other side doesn't a) steal your ideas b)twist what you say c) know how to rebutt.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

If encouraged, however, I think many Americans do become interested in the substantive issues.

But the problem is: how do you encourage these voters? I think one of the solutions could be closing the gap between politics and the public. Although I can not totally compare the Netherlands with the USA on this part, there is a large number of Dutch who do vote (last time it was around 80% of the people who were allowed to vote - national elections) but who do not know the policies of the party they voted for. One clear example is my own mother. Two elections ago or something she voted for the SP - the Socialist Party. Now, when I talked to her, I got the feeling she was in fact opposite to most of the ideas of the SP. I recommended her to do a test on a site which can show you which party shares most of your ideas and ideals. It turned out that the SP she voted for wasn't even in her top list, but at the bottom! Why she had voted for the SP? Because the party's leader came from the same province we live in, and she thought him to be very friendly and charming. What this has to do with the gap between politics and the public? There is a part of the voters who vote for what they see, what bond they have with the candidate (party), and not for the (deeper) ideas the candidate (party) stands for. That will of course always be part of politics, and it should be part of politics of course, but there are people who DO want to vote, but aren't bothered anymore by the policies of their person or party they vote for. Now back to the main issue: how do you encourage these voters to focus on the ideas and policies of their candidate (besides the candidate's character)? By closing the gap between politics and the public, by showing that the policies of your candidate will influence you, your family members and friends, and the rest of the world, more than the person's character, or heritage will. And least, in my opinion.

0 Replies

Voting on inadequate information is not unique to the Netherlands. Too many Americans dislike one candidate based purely on party affiliation and/or belief in falsehoods about that person; others like a candidate because he's good looking, personable, articulate whether or not he's the devil himself or force themselves to like a candidate because they dislike the other candidate so much. Our percentage of eligible voters who actually vote is much less than the Netherlands apparently.

I would guess less than 50% of Americans who actually do vote could accurately state what the candidate's position is on more than a very few issues. Too often people say that "Candidate A" would do this. When you point out that Candiate A never did it before, they don't care. When you ask how s/he would do it, they don't have a clue.

I shudder when the mantra is "exercise your right to vote". I don't want people who don't have a clue voting out there. I want the emphasis to be "inform yourself on the issues, and then vote your conviction accordingly.' Rounding up gullible people, bussing them to the polls, and giving them a 3x5 card with the name of the person they're supposed to vote for is little short of criminal.

The League of Women Voters and a few others do a pretty good job getting information to the public, but we're not pushing nearly hard enough to enourage people to really look at and care about that information.

0 Replies

Squinney, I suspect the candidates will be forced to be somewhat more specific in the debates, but the debates too often just encourage more canned sound bites. There are a few key issues that Kerry has said he won't discuss specifics on until after the election.

0 Replies

The Question:
Regarding military action, your platform says "we will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake." But the platform's preceding paragraph denounces President Bush's "doctrine of unilateral pre-emption." If unilateralism is wrong, are you not committed to some sort of "green light from abroad"?

Craven's response:

Quote:

In his speech he differentiated it as being unilateral when necessary versus multilateral when necessary, suggesting that it is the degree of willingness to embrace the unilateral path that he'd be different on.

But Kerry has blasted Bush again and again for acting 'unilaterally' when we both know that Bush did not. So if Bush went into Iraq without sufficient mulilateral support, what then would prompt a willingness to act unilaterally? Another 9/11? Iran or North Korea building missile silos for their nukes? Increase in the genocide in Sudan? What?

The question:
Are you glad that in 1981 Israel set back Iraq's nuclear weapons program with a unilateral pre-emptive attack on the reactor near Baghdad?

Craven's response

Quote:

(paraphrased because I lost the original) Brilliantly executed with good intel unlike Iraq.

But with good intel, would you support Israel taking out Iran's nuclear capability?

The question:
Your platform says: "A nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk." But Iran's radical Islamist regime is undeterred by diplomatic hand-wringing about its acquisition of nuclear weapons, which may be imminent. Is pre-emptive military action against Iran feasible, or are its nuclear facilities too dispersed and hardened? What would you do other than accept Iran as a nuclear power?

Craven's response

Quote:

Good question, and quite frankly there is no basis at all for forcing their hand.

Iran, unlike Iraq has a legal right to nukes. Invasion of Iran is unlikely to be in the cards.

So in other words, even though the threat is unacceptable, you will do nothing?

Agreed, however, that it is way to early to formulate a policy for defending or not defending Taiwan in 2020.

The question:
Do you advocate new laws to discourage the kind of people who are choosing to participate in politics through financial contributions on your behalf?

Craven's response:

Quote:

I, personally, prefer either letting the stopgates out and letting money play its dirty game to the hilt or going the complete opposite direction.

This means you suggest shelving all campaign finance reform and make it a free fire zone as it used to be? (I would comment that the current campaign finance laws are so full of holes they are laughably ridiculous and I personally think more attention should be given to veracity of promises, claims, and attacks than should be given to money. I do support 100% full disclosure of all campaign contributions, keeping it illegal to accept contributions from nonAmericans, and a limit on how much any one source can contribute to reduce the possibility of undue influence.)

0 Replies

I have one last question for Senator Kerry:
Given that you have made your service in Vietnam the cornerstone of your campaign and apparently your primary qualification to be President of the United States, why won't you sign Form 180 so your entire military record is available to the public?

0 Replies

"Senator, last week your staff said you hadn't been in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968, even though you had written and spoken emphatically about having been there on many occasions, including the floor of the Senate. How did you make such a mistake?"

"What persuaded you last week that your memory from all those years was wrong?"

"In June of last year you showed a Washington Post reporter a hat you carry in a compartment of your attache case and told her that a CIA man gave you that hat when you took him on your swift boat across the border into Cambodia. Do you have the hat with you?"

"Could you please tell us everything about that trip, your conversation with CIA man, and whether any members of your crew participated in that conversation?"

"Which day did that occur?"

"Your staff said this week that you made a trip into Cambodia carrying quote commandos close quote. Was that the same trip as this trip with the CIA man?"

"How many commandos were there? What date did this occur on?"

"Historian Douglas Brinkley has said that your journals indicated three or four cross border missions to Cambodia, where you acted as a ferry-man for SEALs, Green Berets and CIA men. Is he right about his number?"

"Can you details these missions for us?"

"In June of 2000, you told a reporter for U.S.News & World Report that you had run weapons to anticommunist forces in Cambodia. Can you provide us the details of those missions? Which forces were you resupplying? Which weapons did you take? Where did you drop them off?"

"Did you provide reports of all these missions? Did you make entries in your log about the ship's movements? Have you discussed these covert missions with the crew since they occurred?"

"You have not authorized the release of all your military and medical records by signing an SF-180. Why not? Will you do so now?"

"Will you hold another press conference tomorrow so we can follow up on your answers?"

"What do you think about war veterans who exaggerate their accomplishments in order to advance their careers?"

0 Replies

Some Questions for Kerry

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know