1
   

John Kerry For President

 
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 09:16 am
Calling it like it is...

Kerry Calls GOP Convention 'Bitter and Insulting'
Democrat Challenges Charges That He Is Unfit to Command

By Patricia Wilson
Reuters
Friday, September 3, 2004; 3:39 PM

NEWARK, Ohio - Democrat John Kerry Friday dismissed the Republican convention as "bitter and insulting" and promised to be a U.S. president who would tell Americans the truth.

"Every time they open their mouths they can't tell the truth," Kerry said at a rally. "It's time for us to have a president of the United States who can look you in the eye and when he does, you know you're being told the truth."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59721-2004Sep3.html?nav=hcmodule
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 09:34 am
They can whine about the RNC campaign being bitter all they want but Kerry is the problem, weak and wobbly isn't what the majority want right now.


Quote:
Still whining Kerry running out of time
By A Boston Herald editorial
Saturday, September 4, 2004

It's time John Kerry [related, bio] chooses between being a whiner and being a leader. His midnight performance Thursday and remarks at events Friday showed he's yet to get the difference in this campaign.

Americans do not want to hear Kerry's whining about being ``attacked'' and ``insulted'' at the Republican National Convention. Americans do not want to hear his childish claims that he was attacked first and therefore he now must attack back.

Americans do not want to hear the Democratic nominee call the commander in chief during a war where American lives are on the line ``unfit for office and unfit for duty.''

They want to hear that he is as committed as President Bush [related, bio] to stopping fanatics from taking over American schools and slaughtering children. And if he has better ideas about how to go about doing it than Bush does, Americans want to hear those, too.

For this is what we are facing. Anyone thinking the Russian school massacre couldn't happen here underestimates the lack of moral conscience which exists in the likes of al-Qaeda, Hamas and other extremists.

Partisan Democrats, with an air of intellectual superiority, sniff that terror is a tactic, not a cause. They do so to imply that President Bush and his supporters don't even understand the nature of the world's dangers, never mind the correct means to protect against them.

President Bush left no doubt that he understands completely in his acceptance speech Thursday night. ``If America shows uncertainty or weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch.'' .

We bet John Kerry would like to have his Thursday microphone-clutching performance for the cameras back given the Russian horror.

His complaints about attacks on his patriotism (as opposed to the voting record critique we heard) would be merely annoying if played only against the backdrop of a political contest.

But the larger contest - between liberty and tyranny, between good and evil - is the challenge against which Kerry's and Bush's leadership will be measured. And on that score, Kerry's thin-skin and oft-used tactic of claiming he's forced to attack because of unfair smears is not only unimpressive, it's offensive.

And it's about time someone called him on it.

Defining differences is what campaigns are all about.

George W. Bush told the country in no uncertain terms what he will do in a second term. And he told the country how his beliefs and record differ from Kerry's. That's just what Zell Miller did. That's just what Dick Cheney did. That's just what Rudy Giuliani did. Stop whining, Senator, and start telling voters why you believe you're right and these men are wrong.


Source
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 09:42 am
actually I am leaning towards voting for Kerry on the basis that he can do less harm than Bush, I don't support the policies of either candidate but a domination of government by the right wing of the right wing is a scary thought to me. But then, I am a liberal non-violent anarchist who thinks no man is wise enough to rule any other man by coercion, especially a democrat or a republican.
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 09:46 am
democrats begin to panic
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/28061.htm

Quote:


Kerry was either drunk, or on several designer drugs, or both. His eyes were scary, unstable. He fidgeted with cards of notes, roaring out at Bush at one second, talking about how bad jobs were and what a mess America is the next. He appeared exhausted and near collapse.

Edwards, when camera not emphasizing him, seemed to have a "how did I get teamed up with this loser" look.


http://users.snowcrest.net/cafemocha/images/panic.gif
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 10:10 am
Quote:
"Every time they open their mouths they can't tell the truth," Kerry said at a rally. "It's time for us to have a president of the United States who can look you in the eye and when he does, you know you're being told the truth."


One word: Cambodia.
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 11:47 am
http://conservababes.com/pics/sinkopinko.jpg

Anybody here old enough to remember Jamie Brockett's version of the Titanic??

(I'm gonna MOVE you, babee!!)
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 12:03 pm
was that the Titanic that George H W Bush wanted us to "stay the course?"
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 12:08 pm
dyslexia wrote:
actually I am leaning towards voting for Kerry on the basis that he can do less harm than Bush, I don't support the policies of either candidate but a domination of government by the right wing of the right wing is a scary thought to me. But then, I am a liberal non-violent anarchist who thinks no man is wise enough to rule any other man by coercion, especially a democrat or a republican.


Would you like a cheesecake? I'm handing 'em out to A2Kers who decide to vote for Kerry.

(Really, I'm happy to see you say it because I hope you're not the only one thinking that way. The Republican convention was scary, man.) (And not scary like "oooh they might actually win" though some of that, scary like "Daaamn, we have to do everything we possibly can to get those fanatics out of the White House...")
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Sep, 2004 05:23 pm
Tricky Dick's Turn-About



As George W. Bush's vice president, Dick Cheney has carefully and successfully portrayed himself as a hawkish foreign-policy expert. Based exclusively on his recent public statements, one might believe Cheney has an unrivaled record supporting massive spending on defense, intelligence, and counterterrorism. That image has been augmented by the vice president's attacks on Senator John Kerry for supposedly working to cut defense and block intelligence reform, for misunderstanding terrorism, and for taking inconsistent positions on Iraq.

But a look more deeply at Cheney's career shows our current vice president either suffers from amnesia, self-hatred, or a little bit of both. It was Congressman Cheney, after all -- not Senator Kerry -- who contradicted his own party during the height of the Cold War and called for President Ronald Reagan to "take a whack" at defense spending. It was Defense Secretary Cheney -- not Senator Kerry -- who in 1992 blocked critical intelligence reforms and bragged to Congress about gutting defense spending.

In fact, the vice president's previous actions are remarkably consistent with behavior he now excoriates. His blustery rhetoric is designed not only to distort Kerry's record but to hide his own.

In March of this year, Cheney attacked Kerry for having "repeatedly voted against weapons systems for the military," hammering the senator for voting "against the Apache helicopter, against the Tomahawk cruise missile, against even the Bradley Fighting Vehicle." He said this record has "given us ample doubts about [Kerry's] judgment and the attitude he brings to bear on vital issues of national security."

What Cheney leaves out of his stump speeches is the ironic fact that almost all of the cuts Kerry voted for were endorsed or originally proposed by Cheney himself. At issue is not the cuts themselves, but the hypocrisy of Cheney attacking an opponent who merely followed his lead.

Cheney accuses Kerry of calling for "major reductions or outright cancellations of many of our most important weapons systems"; Bush ads attack the senator for voting "against 13 weapons systems for our troops" over 20 years. But it was Defense Secretary Cheney who gloated that he had "put an end to more than 100 systems" in less than three years. In December 1991, he bragged to The Washington Post that he was setting "an all-time record as Defense Secretary for canceling or stopping production" of weapons and equipment.

And Cheney has gotten specific. He regularly attacks Kerry's vote against the B-2 stealth bomber in October 1990. But seven months earlier, Cheney had put forth the proposal to cut the B-2 bomber program. Cheney cites Kerry's vote against the AH-64 Apache helicopter. But it was Cheney who told Congress in 1989, "I forced the Army to make choices ... I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out."

Cheney slams Kerry's vote against the F-14 aircraft in October 1990; according to the Post, Cheney "asked Congress to kill" the F-14 in 1991 and had been "skeptical" of a proposal to continue production of the planes as early as 1990. Cheney hammers Kerry for voting against the F-16 aircraft and the Trident submarine, yet Kerry was merely endorsing cancellations proposed by Cheney -- who, according to The Boston Globe, had "decided the military already [had] enough" of those weapons. Cheney accuses Kerry of voting against "even the Bradley Fighting Vehicle." But in 1991 it was Cheney's Pentagon that said it wanted "to terminate such Gulf War veterans as the . . . Bradley Fighting Vehicle."

At one point, Cheney told the Post he had terminated "the F-14, F-15 and F-16 fighters, the A-6, A-12, AV-8B and P-3 Navy and Marine planes, and the Army's Apache helicopter and M-1A1 tank." Five of these weapons systems are listed by the Bush campaign in its attempts to chastise Kerry for his anti-defense votes. Cheney was so successful at cutting weapons that The Boston Globe worried "The Army's cupboard is left particularly bare ... [it] will soon have virtually no major weapons in production."

Read the rest here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/09/opinion/main642456.shtml
0 Replies
 
padmasambava
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Sep, 2004 08:16 pm
This is a good post.

The responses make me think the recruiters are working too slowly. They'd better find some of these fighting spirits and put them to work dying for their country.
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 05/04/2024 at 11:08:03