Watching Kerry speak right now...

[VanillaGorilla]

Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court.

This is B.S. Gore lost get over it. He would have lost the recount he wanted. Much to the disapionrment of the main stream press Bush won Florida.

AWOL from National Guard and Deserted the military during a time of war.

I take it you were more upset about Clinton's draft dodging?

Allot of what is in your post isn't true as well.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.

Seeing that clinton was in office for 8 years and Bush was in office for 8 months who is more to blame? As I said earlier Clinton was offered Bin Laden and declined.

 

[Number 5]

another popular misrepresentation by republicans and the hangers on. Kerry is not the most liberal senator in the US. QUOTE]
The fact is Kerry has the most liberal voting record in the senate. The national journal is non partisan. Libs have often used it in the past to say certain candidates are too conservative. Now they are pissed the tables have turned.

What are you taxing about here? Tax cuts........ the notion of you keeping more of your own money is generally a conservative principle. Voting against tax cuts would be a liberal position not fiscally conservative. If you'r trying to say that it is fiscally conservative because of balancing the budget, I take it you would support cutting government spending as well?

yes, i should have been more specific. Kerry is a supporter of 'clinton economics.' he wants a balanced budget. he voted against the tax-cuts because he did not want them at the expense of a budget deficit.

both mainstream republicans and mainstream democrats agree that lower taxes are good for the economy. however, democrats only want them if the govt can afford them. bush republicans want tax cuts even at the cost of a deficit for reasons that they have not clearly articulated.

both camps are promising to cut the deficit in half over the next term but neither is offering numbers that add up. politicians never offer number that add up anymore. anyway, i believe Kerry would be more likely to cut the deficit because he is fiscally conservative when it comes to that.

-5

 

[VanillaGorilla]

WMD were NOT used in the gulf war. Please show me a news source that says otherwise. And yes, I've heard of Gulf War Syndrome and how they're trying to blame it on chemical or nerve agents. But is there any conclusive proof of this?

There is proof that gulf war syndrome exists. In fact one man passed over to his wife.

Here's an 'overlooked' or 'forgotten' point for you: we sent the UN in to disarm iraq's **** after the gulf war:

Invalid Link Removed
So had the inspectors failed?

Prior to their departure, the inspection teams had destroyed or made unusable 48 long range missiles, 14 conventional missile warheads, 30 chemical warheads, "supergun" components, close to 40,000 chemical munitions, 690 tonnes of chemical weapons agents and the al-Hakam biological weapons plant. It had discovered evidence of a nuclear programme that was more advanced than previously expected.

Some inspectors suspected that Iraq's NBC programmes remained intact. However, the former Unscom inspector, Scott Ritter, insisted that Iraq was left with no capability to resume NBC programmes or weaponise any hidden stocks. The Bush administration refuses to accept this, but with no reliable monitoring since 1998, there is no way of knowing if Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction.

First of all Scott Rider resigned saying that Iraq had WMDs and we were not doing anything about it. He later did a 180 and said there isn't any WMDs. He is also a pedophile. He also got caught trying to pick up a child on the internet. Her is not credible. Second the UN let Sadam play games with inspectors. They let him get away with it and did nothing when he kicked them out. If they held him to their resolutions and kept the inspections up we would not be at war today. We know know they were getting paid off.

 

[jboogie]

There is proof that gulf war syndrome exists. In fact one man passed over to his wife.

You didn't answer the question... give me proof it was caused by WMDs. I anxiously await your link.

 

[CEDeoudes59]

My question is: Are their any Democrats (politicians or citizens) who believe the war was a good idea?

I know Democrats must stand united against Bush. But common sense should tell us, the world and Iraq is better off without Saddam. So this is mainly a politcal stance.

My point is: the democratic party has drifted so far left. The wack unproven conspiracy theories dominate the party. The moderate democrats who voted for war and STILL support our president - aren't even heard anymore. They do exist (Liberman, Z.Miller, Gov. Bill Richardson).

 

[Number 5]

My question is: Are their any Democrats (politicians or citizens) who believe the war was a good idea?

it's complicated. i'm not a democrat per se. if i had to classify myself i'd go with liberatarian. however, i think the gulf war may have been strategically advantageous for the US because of the oil, so had it been handled properly, then i would have supported it.

but there has been too much bungling and people have not been held accountable. the pure incompentence of this administration just pisses me off. to top it off, iraq is a mess right now, so unless things improve over there very soon, then the war will have been a mistake for sure.

saddam was an asshole of course, no debate there, i just don't think that was enough of a reason to invade the country.

-5

 

[size]

About oil:
Major oil production in the near future is going to be coming out of Russia. Consequently, the future for oil is not the middle east.

 

[jrkarp]

Accomplishments as president:​

• Attacked and took over two countries.

Defending our country.

• Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.

War is expensive.

• Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.

See above.

• Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.

Yes, Bush is omnipotent and magically caused those bankruptcies.

• Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.

Ah yes, that was Bush's fault too. Right.

• First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.

Good. I'm sure whoever it was deserved it.

• First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.

So? That was a long time ago, and he quit drinking. At least he took steps to better himself afterwards.

• First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.

All right, this **** pisses me off. Anybody who thinks that just because Bush is in Texas means that he is not working is simply ignorant. Where the President goes, his office goes with him.

• After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.

See above. Blaming Bush for 9/11? Did this list come from a Michael Moore web site?

• Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.

So? At least he didn't accept any illegal contributions (a la Al Gore).

• In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.

Anybody who understand economics knows that the President actually has very little control over the economy. Economies go up and down.

• Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.

Well, that sucks for them, but those programs cost money.

• Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.

Bush did not set this record. See above comment about bankruptcy.

• Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.

Don't really know anything about this.

• Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.

Maybe he has better **** to do than be hounded by the press.

• Signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any president in US history.

This really shows how misinformed this list is. The Constitution has not been amended or altered in any way since Bush has been in office.

• Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.

What was he supposed to do?

• Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.

Maybe, but he also wants to drill in Alaska to help increase domestic oil production but the environmentalists throw a hissy fit.

• Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.

I'll agree that that's wrong.

• Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind. (Invalid Link Removed)[/url]

Who gives a **** what people in other countries think about us or him? The next time we bail those people out they'll be singing our praises. If Germany invades France again, I say we let them keep it.

• Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.

I'd like to see documentation on this.

• My presidency is the most secretive and un-accountable of any in US history.

They're all secretive and un-accountable.

• Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleeza Rice has an Chevron oil tanker named after her).

Who cares how rich they are? Does being rich make someone bad? If it does, then Kerry is a very bad man. BTW, National Security Advisor is not a Cabinet position.

• First president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously go bankrupt.

This incredible omnipotence that you libs think Bush has. Amazing.

• Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.

Right, and that was his fault too. If we keep going this way, you people will blame Bush for the Kennedy assassination and say that he has Jimmy Hoffa buried on his ranch.

• First president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation.

I'm pretty sure we occupied Japan and Germany after WWII.

• Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.

Of course; he added a cabinet post and created an entire new executive department.

• Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history.

War is expensive.

• First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission.

The UN is completely ineffective. Who cares?

• First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the elections monitoring board.

So?

• Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.

I'd like to see documentation on this as well.

• Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.

They rendered themselves irrelevant when they did nothing to enforce the resolutions that they passed a decade ago.

• Withdrew from the World Court of Law.

We don't want American soldiers subject to courts in foreign jurisdictions.

• Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.

They're not prisoners of war. They're enemy combatants. POW's were captured fighting for a government, not a terrorist organization.

• First president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).

I'm sure that was the first time UN elections inspectors were offered. And I can't imagine any president would let the UN come in and supervise our elections.

• All-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.

So?

• My biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).

Yeah, Ken Lay is an asshole.

• Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.

So? He wants to get reelected.

• First president in US history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community.

The UN does not have any control or authority over our military. Only the President does.

• First president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)

The Secret Service actually does remove the President from danger against his will from time to time. And prove he lied.

• First US president to establish a secret shadow government.

Wow, this has to be from a Michael Moore web site.

• Took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).

The rest of the world has always hated us, because we're richer and stronger. They only like us when they need us (the French, for example).

• With a policy of 'dis-engagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.

Right. Bush created the hostile relations, not the Israelis firing missiles into neighborhoods or Palestinians blowing up buses.

• First US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.

Who cares what they think?

• First US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea.

Alright. Let's tell them we're going to pull out of South Korea. See what they say then. The only reason there is a South Korea is because of us.

• Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

Don't know anything about it, but it does sound bad.

• Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.

See last answer.

• Failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'.

He's trying. He can't fucking miracle him into American custody, can he? Oh, he did get Saddam, BTW.

• Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capitol building. After 18 months I have no leads and zero suspects.

Right. That's Bush's fault too. Where's the item about Bush being on the grassy knoll in Dallas on 11/22/63?

• In the 18 months following the 911 attacks I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.

Really? I thought there was a Congressional panel investigating it.

• Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.

In defense of our county, liberty<security.

• In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war.

Really? I think the country was much more divided in the 1960's.

• Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

Right. Everything bad is Bush's fault. Never mind that presidents have so little control over the economy. Never mind that economies are cyclical.

 

[Number 5]

About oil:
Major oil production in the near future is going to be coming out of Russia. Consequently, the future for oil is not the middle east.

?????????

russia has about 22 years of oil reserves left whereas the persian gulf countries have 100+ years left. the future of oil is in the persian gulf, especially iraq, kuwait and uae.

source: Invalid Link Removed

-5

 

[size]

?????????
russia has about 22 years of oil reserves left whereas the persian gulf countries have 100+ years left. the future of oil is in the persian gulf, especially iraq, kuwait and uae.

source: Invalid Link Removed
-5

You are refering to volumes, I am not. This will lead this off topic, but do you believe oil will have the same importance/expectations in 100 years? Have you ever read about thermal conversion process? It is really interesting Invalid Link Removed

 

[VanillaGorilla]

yes, i should have been more specific. Kerry is a supporter of 'clinton economics.' he wants a balanced budget. he voted against the tax-cuts because he did not want them at the expense of a budget deficit.

both mainstream republicans and mainstream democrats agree that lower taxes are good for the economy. however, democrats only want them if the govt can afford them. bush republicans want tax cuts even at the cost of a deficit for reasons that they have not clearly articulated.

both camps are promising to cut the deficit in half over the next term but neither is offering numbers that add up. politicians never offer number that add up anymore. anyway, i believe Kerry would be more likely to cut the deficit because he is fiscally conservative when it comes to that.

Clinton economics is to raise taxes threw the roof and keep spending. Clinton was responsible for one of the highest tax hikes in American history. Kerry is not fiscally conservative at all. There are two sides to the equation of a balanced budget. They are cutting taxes and government spending. John Kerry is not for cutting government spending. That is why he is not fiscally conservative. The left ignores cutting government spending. So when the subject of tax cuts come up they act like you can never cut government spending with out killing a child or some ones grandmother. They also act as if government doesn't waste money as well. The left believes that it knows how to spend your money better than you do. In fact they don't believe it's your money at all. They believe it's the governments. That is also the definition of socialism.

 

[CEDeoudes59]

It's true, Kerry voted to raise taxes 351 times.

Almost any political discussion we have this is what happens:
* Democrats bash Bush.
* Republicans defend Bush.
* Republicans bash Kerry.
* Democrats bash Bush 'thereby' (?) defending Kerry.

Tell me if i'm wrong? :trout:

I respect moderate democrats, and in fact agree with some of their policies.
But I really want to see someone step up to the plate and defend the voting record of Kerry especially on National Defense.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

How's your reading comprehension? I asked for proof that he used them in the gulf war, you conservie.

Our troops we exposed to something in the gulf war. This is going back a few years and you are probably just going to dismiss this but I 'll write it any way. A few years ago that had a gulf war vet, his wife, and his doctor on a talk show. ( I believe it was the Tom Snyder show) The doctor was frustrated because the man had some major anomalies in his brain that were getting worse, he had severe night sweats, he had extreme fatigue, and his joints ached all the time but couldn't get any answers from the government of what he was exposed to.. He passed on his symptoms to his wife.The vet told the story about being ordered to destroy one of sadams weapons stashes which he reluctantly did. Shortly after returning home he came down with gulf war syndrome.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Right. Everything bad is Bush's fault. Never mind that presidents have so little control over the economy. Never mind that economies are cyclical.

The economy also started to tank before he took office and it's also ignore that our economy took quite a hit after 9-11. It's not like every thing was fine then it tanked because of policies implemented by Bush.

 

[Number 5]

Clinton economics is to raise taxes threw the roof and keep spending. Clinton was responsible for one of the highest tax hikes in American history. Kerry is not fiscally conservative at all. There are two sides to the equation of a balanced budget. They are cutting taxes and government spending. John Kerry is not for cutting government spending. That is why he is not fiscally conservative. The left ignores cutting government spending.

not true. the now famous case of kerry voting against additional funding for the iraq war is an example of that. he proposed an amendment to that bill to repeal some of the tax cuts in order to finance the additional funds for the war, but the amendment was rejected by republicans, which was one of the reasons kerry voted against the extra funding.

kerry is very keen on a balanced budget, more so than bush, so in that sense he is fiscally more conservative than bush, or maybe fiscally responsible would be a more appropriate term.

it's obvious that bush is all about cutting taxes, but he created the biggest budget deficit in US history in order to do so.

-5

 

[jweave23]

The economy also started to tank before he took office and it's also ignore that our economy took quite a hit after 9-11. It's not like every thing was fine then it tanked because of policies implemented by Bush.

I do have to agree with this basically. The economy was starting to tank, and I would not blame the Bush or Clinton administration necessarily. What I would blame them for is not responding appropriately with fiscal policy (i.e tax cuts during a war....how brilliant). The economy is cyclical as said, but if the current administration does not respond with countering fiscal policy, they have not done their job, IMHO.

 

[PC1]

..................But I really want to see someone step up to the plate and defend the voting record of Kerry especially on National Defense.

One of the interesting aspects about the race so far anyway, is that Kerry really isn't running on his record as a senator. Barely a mention of it in his acceptance speech.

So far, he's gained traction by just being "not Bush" among core Democrats and among swing voters who are against the war. I don't know if he's going to get away with this going forward or not.

One strategy I heard this AM, from Chuck Scarborough on Imus, that I thought was very plausible, is that he can defend his liberal voting record as a senator simply by saying he represented a VERY LIBERAL state in Massachusetts. That's what he was elected to do, represent his constituency. And as president, he'll represent the greater interests of all the US.

I don't know how effective this would be, but it did strike me as being plausible.

The only other comment I'd like to interject here has to do with the degree and volume of negativity of this campaign. It's really been the democrats and the democrat candidates who have been spewing the hate and vitriol against Bush.

To the degree republicans seem to go negative, they do by invoking the "L" word in Kerry's case........ calling him an eliteist Massachusetts Liberal.

Liberal is a very unpleasant term, causing at least some physical discomfort to be sure. But I wouldn't characterize that as "hateful".

Whereas, just LISTEN to the accusations of lies and WORSE from the left that have been hitting the airwaves for months now. I don't ever recall hearing anything quite like it, ever, not even among conservatives who really had it in for Clinton after the Lewinsky scandal. That got bad I admit, but pales in comparison to the accusations from the democrats themselves.......... Bush is stupid, he's a crook, he lied to the country, he stole the election, and on and on and on. And I'm putting it quite mildly here. Democrats GO OFF on speeches against Bush. Gore has become a pollitical arsonist, "HE LIED TO US".

You NEVER hear a Republican pollitician speak like Gore has against Bush.

So pointing out negatives about a candidates views or phillosophy is one thing....... the hatred and disrespect are something else altogether, and in that sense, I feel the democrats have conducted their campaign outrageously and disgracefully.

 

[jweave23]

Liberal is a very unpleasant term, causing at least some physical discomfort to be sure. But I wouldn't characterize that as "hateful".

That is very sad IMO. The word "liberal" has been demonized and vilified by the right to such an extent that many people consider it an insult, but yet not the word "conservative". I have to applaud the right for this, they have done an extraordinary job at making anything remotely attached to this word seem bad or negative.

BTW the hate is coming from both sides, let's not kid ourselves. I have to sometimes check myself because to me I see the exact opposite: the left not being quite as negative as the right. I think what we choose to see just shows our inherent political tendancies, objectivity can be a bitch sometimes

 

[Matthew D]

really if you look up the word liberal in the original meaning it mean someone that was working against the established norm of doing things.. working for change inside a society and conservative was just the defenders of the status quo

 

[Dwight Schrute]

So pointing out negatives about a candidates views or phillosophy is one thing....... the hatred and disrespect are something else altogether, and in that sense, I feel the democrats have conducted their campaign outrageously and disgracefully.

I have felt this way as well.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

not true. the now famous case of kerry voting against additional funding for the iraq war is an example of that. he proposed an amendment to that bill to repeal some of the tax cuts in order to finance the additional funds for the war, but the amendment was rejected by republicans, which was one of the reasons kerry voted against the extra funding.

You are giving an example of Kerry voting for a war then not sending the funding to back the war and our troops as an example of cutting government funding? That is a really bad example. It is also the subject he said one of the most ridiculous things he ever said......."I voted for it before I voted against it".

kerry is very keen on a balanced budget, more so than bush, so in that sense he is fiscally more conservative than bush, or maybe fiscally responsible would be a more appropriate term.

Number 5 you can't change the definition of fiscally conservative. As I have already said some one who is fiscally conservative is for small government, low taxes, and a balanced budget. You keep trying to say that because Kerry wants a balanced budget makes him a fiscal conservative. Kerry's idea is many wasteful government programs, big government, high taxes to support the programs, and a balanced budget. As much as you want that term to apply to John Kerry it doesn't. The example you gave of Kerry cutting government spending was horrible. For one reason the program didn't already exist and it was for a war. Most democrats today don't support the military. Try to find an example of Kerry cutting spending for government social programs... you know like the ones where they take our money and give it to junkies to get clean needles. Don't waste you time because you will never find an example of it. Kerry is the most liberal senator in the United States.

it's obvious that bush is all about cutting taxes, but he created the biggest budget deficit in US history in order to do so.

You are again ignoring the cutting spending part of the equation. Kerry or most modern day democrats are not for cutting government spending. Also, one of the reasons for the deficit is we are at war.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

I do have to agree with this basically. The economy was starting to tank, and I would not blame the Bush or Clinton administration necessarily.

Again one of the reasons the economy got so bad was 9-11. The economy was tanking a little bit but after the attack went down the toilet. It is disingenuous to blame Bush for that.

What I would blame them for is not responding appropriately with fiscal policy (i.e tax cuts during a war....how brilliant). The economy is cyclical as said, but if the current administration does not respond with countering fiscal policy, they have not done their job, IMHO

How about cutting government programs in a time of war? Letting people keep more of their own money when times are hard....... what a silly concept that is.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

That is very sad IMO. The word "liberal" has been demonized and vilified by the right to such an extent that many people consider it an insult, but yet not the word "conservative". I have to applaud the right for this, they have done an extraordinary job at making anything remotely attached to this word seem bad or negative.

Is that why they want to change their name to progressive instead of liberal? The liberals did this to themselves. The fact is they have drifted too far to the left. Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller are really the only ones left that are moderates. Miller has been pretty vocal about his displeasure with the democratic party.
All their programs that have been implemented have failed. They keep calling themselves the party of ideas, yet any idea they have is growing government and increasing taxes.

BTW the hate is coming from both sides, let's not kid ourselves. I have to sometimes check myself because to me I see the exact opposite: the left not being quite as negative as the right. I think what we choose to see just shows our inherent political tendancies, objectivity can be a bitch sometimes

Lets go back to the 96 election. Did any one of the republicans in the primary say half the negative things that the democrats have said in 2004. They called bush a miserable failure, accusing him of lying to go to Iraq, accused him of conspiring to keep black voters out of the voting booth, accused him of having prior knowledge of the 9-11 attacks and doing nothing about it, our reason for going into Iraq was because of oil yet we still haven't taken any, he stole the 2000 election, and of planning the war from Crawford Texas. This is all coming from the democratic leadership. None of the hatred and anger coming modern day democrats even come close to how the republicans acted in 96. Did the republican leadership call Clinton a rapist or a failure, accuse him of treason, or bring up many of the other scandals in any of their debates? No. In fact they stayed away from that even when they could have hammered him with it.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

really if you look up the word liberal in the original meaning it mean someone that was working against the established norm of doing things.. working for change inside a society and conservative was just the defenders of the status quo

Now it pretty much means a socialist. Look at democrats like JFK. He stood for a strong military, stood up to Russia and was for tax cuts. By today's standard JFK would be a moderate republican. There are not really any old school democrats left. Now all the modern day democrats want to do is grow government and to do that they have to take more of your money.

 

[Matthew D]

actually there are a few old school democrats left.. most are at the lower levels of the party and some times get into some good internal disagreements with national party..

 

[VanillaGorilla]

So far, he's gained traction by just being "not Bush" among core Democrats and among swing voters who are against the war. I don't know if he's going to get away with this going forward or not.

The things that allot of people don't know is that Kerry is for the war. He will not pull out of Iraq. If you look on his web site his plan for Iraq is pretty close to what Bush is currently doing. The only difference is he claims he can get support the UN and countries that didn't support us who were all getting paid of by Sadam but won't say how he will do this.

One strategy I heard this AM, from Chuck Scarborough on Imus, that I thought was very plausible, is that he can defend his liberal voting record as a senator simply by saying he represented a VERY LIBERAL state in Massachusetts. That's what he was elected to do, represent his constituency. And as president, he'll represent the greater interests of all the US.
To the degree republicans seem to go negative, they do by invoking the "L" word in Kerry's case........ calling him an eliteist Massachusetts Liberal.

Liberal is a very unpleasant term, causing at least some physical discomfort to be sure. But I wouldn't characterize that as "hateful".

It's probably not likely seeing how they run away from the word liberal. Ted Kennedy was asked if he and Kerry were liberals. Ted totally dodged and ran away from the question.

. Democrats GO OFF on speeches against Bush. Gore has become a pollitical arsonist, "HE LIED TO US".

That was pretty funny though. He sounded like he was doing a Jesse Jackson impression. It is also ironic seeing that he went to a fund raiser sponsored by the Chinese government. Maybe you can refresh my memory did Gore tell the truth on that one?

 

[PC1]

actually there are a few old school democrats left.. most are at the lower levels of the party and some times get into some good internal disagreements with national party..

I will agree with this. But where are they? Moderate to conservative democrats like Joe Lieberman or even Dick Gephardt, where are they?

During the primary season, it seems that in order to WIN the primary democrats have to be as far LEFT and LIBERAL as possible. If you're a moderate, or God forbid are conservative, you're toast.

And once the Democrat nomination is in hand, that candidate needs to go through a pollitical "extreme makeover" to try to appear moderate in order to capture the swing vote.

The socially moderate/conservative democrat doesn't stand a chance during a presidential primary. Which is a shame really, because in the eyes of most moderates-conservatives, the nominated democrat is just too far to the left to be trusted.

Compared to the Republican party right now, the democrats are a very splintered and diverse group. They only have ONE unifying theme............. they HATE Bush, and ANY democrat is better than Bush.

THAT is what explains the hate and vitriol of this campaign. One doesn't hear hate speech coming from republican candidates, although I will agree some things being said by conservative talk shows about liberal democrats are borderline.

Nonetheless, we DON'T hear hateful/disrespectful remarks coming from Republican candidates. We DO hear them pretty regularly from Democrat candidates, starting at the top with Al Gore and trickling down right through delegates and congressmen.

And THAT'S what's truly sad about this election, IMHO.

Forget about whether LIBERAL or CONSERVATIVE is a more "evil" term amongst the populace at large. That pales in comparison to the recent HATE speeches given by Al Gore and other democrats.

Name ONE republican candidate for office, either a new candidate or a sitting pollitician, who has said anything REMOTELY as hateful as Al Gore, who up until this election, was among the top Democrats in this country?!

 

[VanillaGorilla]

actually there are a few old school democrats left.. most are at the lower levels of the party and some times get into some good internal disagreements with national party..

Lieberman and Miller are really the only two that most people know. There might be a hand full of others. There are no old school dems in the deomocratic leadership of the party.

 

[jjjd]

kerry's voting record is abysmal.

look at his votes on trident, on intelligence, etc.

he is an admitted internationalist, he never saw a bill for intelligence outlays or military spending that he liked, and he should be sponsored by Eggo Waffles for some of his ridiculous position changes

i have a LOT more respect for Howard Dean (despite the fact that kerry at least voted for the Iraq invasion and dean's war position is ridiculous), because at least dean is intellectually honest, consistent, and fiscally responsible

 

[VanillaGorilla]

kerry's voting record is abysmal.

look at his votes on trident, on intelligence, etc.

The guys a walking hypocrite. He wants to be president but out of 45 meeting while on the intelligence committee he went to something like 11 meetings. He is talking allot about out sourcing of jobs but he voted for NAFTA and a good chunk of the Heinz corporation is over seas.

have a LOT more respect for Howard Dean (despite the fact that Kerry at least voted for the Iraq invasion and dean's war position is ridiculous), because at least dean is intellectually honest, consistent, and fiscally responsible

While I do not agree with anything Dean stands for he was more honest than most of the candidates. He wasn't out there promising something for every one. I think he might have some anger management problems though.

 

[CEDeoudes59]

Deans a far-left wacko who admits it
Kerrys a far-left wacko who doesn't admit it

 

[Number 5]

You are giving an example of Kerry voting for a war then not sending the funding to back the war and our troops as an example of cutting government funding? That is a really bad example. It is also the subject he said one of the most ridiculous things he ever said......."I voted for it before I voted against it".

my example just shows that kerry cares more about keeping the budget balanced than bush.

by the way, your quote is a perfect example of a negative republican ad. it's a sound bite out of context.

Number 5 you can't change the definition of fiscally conservative. As I have already said some one who is fiscally conservative is for small government, low taxes, and a balanced budget. You keep trying to say that because Kerry wants a balanced budget makes him a fiscal conservative. Kerry's idea is many wasteful government programs, big government, high taxes to support the programs, and a balanced budget."

i'm not disputing your definition of a fiscal conservative. i just believe that kerry fits it better than bush.

even if kerry wanted to spend a lot on social programs (which may or may not be wasteful), i do not believe he will do so because he is forced by the huge budget deficit to forgo any major spending.

-5

 

[VanillaGorilla]

my example just shows that kerry cares more about keeping the budget balanced than bush.

by the way, your quote is a perfect example of a negative republican ad. it's a sound bite out of context.

Kerry votes for the war but than votes against funding for the war then complains that our troops can't get all the equipment they need and you think that proves he cares about a balanced budget?

i'm not disputing your definition of a fiscal conservative. i just believe that kerry fits it better than bush.

Lets look at the definition again. Fiscally Conservative = low taxes....... is Kerry for this? No he will raise taxes....... Small government ... How about this? No he's the most liberal senator in the United States........ and Finally a balanced Budget... he says he can cut the deficit in half in 4 years......... In order to do that you need to cut government spending and/ or increase taxes. Will Kerry cut government spending? No ...Will he increase taxes? Yes.... He said he will only increase taxes on wealthy people and cut taxes on the middle class but then again Clinton said the same thing.

even if kerry wanted to spend a lot on social programs (which may or may not be wasteful), i do not believe he will do so because he is forced by the huge budget deficit to forgo any major spending.

If you really believe that I have an invisible house with ocean front property in Arizona that's for sale. Government programs are wasteful. We already do spend quite a bit on "entitlement programs". Kerry will not cut them or any other program unless it has to do with the military. He has already been talking about socialized medicine which will have an astronomical cost. Kerry is for taking our money and redistributing it. He is a socialist. If he wants to get rid of the deficit he will simply take more of your money.

 

[Number 5]

VanillaGorilla, your view of Kerry is extreme and therefore hardly credible. You try to paint him as a socialist, yet he is most likely to govern as a centrist if elected in order to represent the people and to win a second term.

Surely you agree that Kerry is a smart politician who wants to remain in power if elected, so you cannot expect him to blow his chances for a second term by spending like a socialist and fucking up the economy.

Kerry has only proposed modest spending, which his tax repeals should cover and i believe he will cut back on some of bush's pet spending programs to balance the budget. in general Kerry espouses economic policies similar to those of clinton, who did balance the budget. most people, myself included, were very happy with how clinton handled the economy.

-5

 

[jjjd]

Vg's view is not extreme. it is realistic, based on kerry's VOTING record, and also his statements. kerry has already played into the soak the rich ideology, in terms of his proposed taxation strategies.

kerry is, as his VOTING RECORD shows, one of the most liberal senators there ever was. his record shows a complete disdain for national security, for intelligence issues, shows a love of internationalism. this is a guy who opposed GW I for pete's sake

 

[jweave23]

Just some defense on Kerry's voting:

John Kerry's Defense Defense
Setting his voting record straight.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2004, at 3:41 PM PT



Before George W. Bush's political operatives started pounding on John Kerry for voting against certain weapons systems during his years in the Senate, they should have taken a look at this quotation:

After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. … The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office.

The speaker was President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 1992.

They should also have looked up some testimony by Dick Cheney, the first President Bush's secretary of defense (and now vice president), three days later, boasting of similar slashings before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. … And now we're adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend.

Cheney proceeded to lay into the then-Democratically controlled Congress for refusing to cut more weapons systems.

Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them.

The Republican operatives might also have noticed Gen. Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the same hearings, testifying about plans to cut Army divisions by one-third, Navy aircraft carriers by one-fifth, and active armed forces by half a million men and women, to say noting of "major reductions" in fighter wings and strategic bombers.

Granted, these reductions were made in the wake of the Soviet Union's dissolution and the Cold War's demise. But that's just the point: Proposed cuts must be examined in context. A vote against a particular weapons system doesn't necessarily indicate indifference toward national defense.

Looking at the weapons that the RNC says Kerry voted to cut, a good case could be made, certainly at the time, that some of them (the B-2 bomber and President Reagan's "Star Wars" missile-defense program) should have been cut. As for the others (the M-1 tank and the F-14, F-15, and F-16 fighter planes, among others), Kerry didn't really vote to cut them.

The claim about these votes was made in the Republican National Committee "Research Briefing" of Feb. 22. The report lists 13 weapons systems that Kerry voted to cut—the ones cited above, as well as Patriot air-defense missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and AH64 Apache helicopters, among others.

It is instructive, however, to look at the footnotes. Almost all of them cite Kerry's vote on Senate bill S. 3189 (CQ Vote No. 273) on Oct. 15, 1990. Do a Google search, and you will learn that S. 3189 was the Fiscal Year 1991 Defense Appropriations Act, and CQ Vote No. 273 was a vote on the entire bill. There was no vote on those weapons systems specifically.

On a couple of the weapons, the RNC report cites H.R. 5803 and H.R. 2126. Look those up. They turn out to be votes on the House-Senate conference committee reports for the defense appropriations bills in October 1990 (the same year as S. 3189) and September 1995.

In other words, Kerry was one of 16 senators (including five Republicans) to vote against a defense appropriations bill 14 years ago. He was also one of an unspecified number of senators to vote against a conference report on a defense bill nine years ago. The RNC takes these facts and extrapolates from them that he voted against a dozen weapons systems that were in those bills. The Republicans could have claimed, with equal logic, that Kerry voted to abolish the entire U.S. armed forces, but that might have raised suspicions. Claiming that he opposed a list of specific weapons systems has an air of plausibility. On close examination, though, it reeks of rank dishonesty.

Another bit of dishonesty is RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie's claim, at a news conference today, that in 1995, Kerry voted to cut $1.5 billion from the intelligence budget. John Pike, who runs the invaluable globalsecurity.org Web site, told me what that cut was about: The Air Force's National Reconnaissance Office had appropriated that much money to operate a spy satellite that, as things turned out, it never launched. So the Senate passed an amendment rescinding the money—not to cancel a program, but to get a refund on a program that the NRO had canceled. Kerry voted for the amendment, as did a majority of his colleagues.

An examination of Kerry's real voting record during his 20 years in the Senate indicates that he did vote to restrict or cut certain weapons systems. From 1989-92, he supported amendments to halt production of the B-2 stealth bomber. (In 1992, George H.W. Bush halted it himself.) It is true that the B-2 came in handy during the recent war in Iraq—but for reasons having nothing to do with its original rationale.

The B-2 came into being as an airplane that would drop nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union. The program was very controversial at the time. It was extremely expensive. Its stealth technology had serious technical bugs. More to the point, a grand debate was raging in defense circles at the time over whether, in an age of intercontinental ballistic missiles and long-range cruise missiles, the United States needed any new bomber that would fly into the Soviet Union's heavily defended airspace. The debate was not just between hawks and doves; advocates and critics could be found among both.

In the latest war, B-2s—modified to carry conventional munitions—were among the planes that dropped smart bombs on Iraq. But that was like hopping in the Lincoln stretch limo to drop Grandma off at church. As for the other stealth plane used in both Iraq wars—the F-117, which was designed for non-nuclear missions—there is no indication that Kerry ever opposed it.

The RNC doesn't mention it, but Kerry also supported amendments to limit (but not kill) funding for President Reagan's fanciful (and eventually much-altered) "Star Wars" missile-defense system. Kerry sponsored amendments to ban tests of anti-satellite weapons, as long as the Soviet Union also refrained from testing. In retrospect, trying to limit the vulnerability of satellites was a very good idea since many of our smart bombs are guided to their targets by signals from satellites.

Kerry also voted for amendments to restrict the deployment of the MX missile (Reagan changed its deployment plan several times, and Bush finally stopped the program altogether) and to ban the production of nerve-gas weapons.

At the same time, in 1991, Kerry opposed an amendment to impose an arbitrary 2 percent cut in the military budget. In 1992, he opposed an amendment to cut Pentagon intelligence programs by $1 billion. In 1994, he voted against a motion to cut $30.5 billion from the defense budget over the next five years and to redistribute the money to programs for education and the disabled. That same year, he opposed an amendment to postpone construction of a new aircraft carrier. In 1996, he opposed a motion to cut six F-18 jet fighters from the budget. In 1999, he voted against a motion to terminate the Trident II missile. (Interestingly, the F-18 and Trident II are among the weapons systems that the RNC claims Kerry opposed.)

Are there votes in Kerry's 20-year record as a senator that might look embarrassing in retrospect? Probably. But these are not the ones.

Not my words, but to say that his voting record is inarguably against all defense or intelligence is simply incorrect or slanted it seems.

 

[jweave23]

Regarding tax increases:
Invalid Link Removed

Bush Campaign Lies
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Bush Campaign Lie #11: Kerry Voted for Higher Taxes Over 350 Times
Unfortunately, I came late to the party on this one. At first I thought that Michael Kinsley had it all covered, but when I went to GOP.com to check it out, they already had a rebuttal to Kinsley. So I had to roll up my sleeves and wade in to the 87 pages of documentation which the GOP provides to verify this claim.

There is one subtle point to make here. Kinsley claims in his article that certain votes are listed multiple times, suggesting shades of lie #3; the GOP says that is not so. The GOP is technically correct; each vote they reference is a unique vote in the Congressional Record. But Kinsley is right in spirit. For procedural reasons, the Senate sometimes takes multiple distinct votes on essentially the same legislation, and an honest accounting wouldn't list these as separate votes. But that's the whole point; the GOP is not providing an honest accounting of Kerry's record.

Another cool trick the GOP uses is to pile on Kerry for voting on legislation which redistributes the tax burden. This is great for the GOP and bad for Kerry, because no matter whether he voted for or against the legislation, he either supported a tax increase for one group or opposed a tax reduction for another.

I'll just tick some examples off the list, because I don't have time to analyze the whole steaming pile of --- votes --- the GOP has provided. When a link to the vote in question is available, I provide it. If not (record of Senate votes is only available online from 1989 forward), I provide legislation, vote date, and vote number.



(S. Con. Res. 32, CQ Vote #43, 5/7/85) The second vote referenced on the list supported a motion which, if passed, would not have altered the tax law one iota. Rather it was a touchy-feely resolution 'expressing the sense of the Senate' that Congress should enact a certain kind of tax legislation. Moreover, the tax legislation it supported would have decreased the amount of farm losses which could be deducted from non-farm income (ah-ha! A tax increase!), with the additional revenues used to 'reduce income tax rates for individuals'. Boy, they really nailed Kerry with that one. And at least 24 of the listed votes were on these 'express the sense of the Senate' resolutions, which have no direct effect on taxes.


(S. Con. Res. 32, CQ Vote #66, 5/9/85) The third item would have maintained cigarette taxes at 16 cents per pack, rather than allowing them to drop to 8 cents a pack, and used the extra revenue to 'offset Medicare premiums increases'. Of course, had Kerry voted the other way, the GOP would have nailed him for allowing those Medicare premiums to go up.


Similarly, Senate vote 54 in 1992 created the $300 per child tax credit, and the $2000 per year tax-free IRA contribution, and paid for it by increasing taxes on the wealthy. Kerry voted for it. Had he voted against it, the GOP would nail him for voting against the child tax credit.

By the way, every single Republican senator voted against it.


(S. Con. Res. 120, CQ Vote #78, 4/24/86) At least one item was a vote in support of increased funding 'provided that separate authorizing and revenue-raising legislation is passed'. So Kerry didn't vote for a tax increase, he voted in support of allocating tax revenue in a certain way if the taxes were increased.


(S. 1127, CQ Vote #352, 10/27/87) It's hard to believe, but according the GOP, Kerry voted to table a resolution which would 'express the sense of the Senate that federal taxes should not be increased either directly or indirectly.' Kerry didn't vote for a tax increase, he just refused to close the door on them altogether. Not the same as voting for higher taxes. Another time he voted against an amendment which would require a 60-vote majority in the Senate to increase taxes. So he didn't vote for a tax increase, he just thought tax legislation should be passed by a simple majority like everything else.

Three of the votes were allowing certain amendments into the Fiscal 1991 budget, even though they violated a 'non-germane' prohibition on amendments. Each of the amendments would have increased taxes in one way or another. However, Kerry merely voted to allow the amendments to be considered, which is not the same thing as voting for them.


Similarly, Kerry voted against the introduction of a tax-cutting amendment on procedural grounds, because it violated the Constitution, a view which the full Senate ultimately upheld.
All of this is in the first sixth of the GOP document. It's clear that they don't expect many people to give the document much scrutiny --- who's going to research every item in an 87-page document in excruciating detail? Kinsley is right; the main reason the GOP is making this charge is in the hopes of focusing attention on Kerry's voting record, rather than Bush's record in office.

There's no doubt that there are valid instances of Kerry voting for tax increases/against tax cuts/whatever in there, too. If you follow the GOP argument to its logical conclusion, the only way Kerry avoids criticism is if he values low taxes over everything else, including education, the COPS program, health care, counterterrorism, the military, etc. Not even the most anti-government Republican does this

 

[jweave23]

There is plenty more that is similar, but it seems like Democrats aren't stepping up to the plate publicly to defend his record as it may be so difficult to go through exactly what the right is pushing, considering the obvious time they have spent on compiling it against him. The broad blanket statements some are making may not always be deserved though, IMO.

 

[CEDeoudes59]

Here it is folks:
Invalid Link Removed

Swiftboat servicemen on Kerry
It may turn this election up-side down.
Check it out -- released mainstream next week.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

VanillaGorilla, your view of Kerry is extreme and therefore hardly credible. You try to paint him as a socialist

I am not trying to paint him as a socialist he is a socialist. Socialism means to take money and redistribute it. That's what Kerry and the democratic leadership stands for. I know because I live in the peoples republic of Massachusetts.

yet he is most likely to govern as a centrist if elected in order to represent the people and to win a second term

What exactly are you basing this on? All we have to go on is his voting record. Based on his voting record a non partisan group who democrats often use to describe some one as too conservative has Kerry as the number one liberal senator in the country. So John Kerry has absolutely no previous history of being a moderate.

Kerry has only proposed modest spending, which his tax repeals should cover and i believe he will cut back on some of bush's pet spending programs to balance the budget

You want John Kerry to be something he is not. You continually tried to refer to him as fiscally conservative which he is clearly not. You honestly believe that he would be for modest spending.Do you think trying to implement socialized medicine again will be modest spending? The fact is John Kerry is a tax and spend liberal. He is a classic A typical politician who talks out of both sides of his mouth and thinks he can have his cake and eat it too. He is out there promising every thing to every body which is imposable. What Bush "pet" programs would he cut exactly?

in general Kerry espouses economic policies similar to those of Clinton, who did balance the budget. most people, myself included, were very happy with how clinton handled the economy

Clinton was responsible for one of the highest tax increases in the history of the United States. Had there not been an internet boom going on in the 1990's Clinton's tax hike would have probably been disastrous. If you try that now things are going to get allot worse.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Here it is folks:
http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesu..._video_wmv.html

Swiftboat servicemen on Kerry
It may turn this election up-side down.
Check it out -- released mainstream next week.

That says allot. It's pretty bad when of all the guys who served with him only one supports him.

 

[jjjd]

iirc, it was national journal (but regardless, a non-partisan org) that declared kerry the most liberal senator in the congress, based on his voting record.

put simply, his voting record SUX

 

[CEDeoudes59]

Here it is folks:
Invalid Link Removed

Swiftboat servicemen on Kerry
It may turn this election up-side down.
Check it out -- released mainstream next week.

for all to see.......

 

[Dwight Schrute]

OUCH!

 

[toastynoodles]

Bush won my vote,and i'm poor white trash!!!!!!!thaxs for the vid clip!!!!

 

[VanillaGorilla]

I just read the first chapter of the book. It's pretty brutal.

 

[willieman]

Whats really a shame about all of this is those are our only 2 choices (that is of course if you vote), Nader is basically giving a vote away.Most people find themselves not voting for the canidate they want, just not voting for they guy they don't want.

peace

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Whats really a shame about all of this is those are our only 2 choices (that is of course if you vote), Nader is basically giving a vote away.Most people find themselves not voting for the canidate they want, just not voting for they guy they don't want.

I'll agree with that. If you can have 5 or 6 people in a primary there is no reason that 5 or 6 can't run for president. I also think that if you are on the ballot you should be included in the debates.

 

[Number 5]

iirc, it was national journal (but regardless, a non-partisan org) that declared kerry the most liberal senator in the congress, based on his voting record.

put simply, his voting record SUX

as i said before, the journal just looked at one year of Kerry's voting record during which he missed most of the votes because he was out campaigning. the votes he didn't miss were mostly anti-tax cuts because he wanted a balanced budget. the journal scored those as "liberal," but they might just as well have been scored as fiscally conservative. this analysis comes from last weeks Economist, which is a high quality magazine and to my knowledge is not partisan (they are critical of both sides).

Kerry's record is of course left of center because he was representing a liberal state, but the number one rule of presidential politics is to govern from the center when elected in order to win a second term and kerry knows this so it is logical to expect him to move to the center if elected.

i see little point in debating this further because those who want to see Kerry as the most liberal senator ever, unfit to command and so forth will do so and nothing will change their mind, but the truth is a lot more complicated.

i'm curious to see what happens with that ad Deoudes posted. it's one of those things that is hard to defend whether the accusations are true or not. i think the success of the ad will depend mainly on the response to it from the mainstream press. i think it marks a new low though i terms of attack attack ads.

just remember that even Max Cleland, the democrat who lost 3 limbs in vietnam, was critized for for his service record. there was some suggestion last time he ran that he himself was somehow responsible for his wounds, so i do not put much weight on these smear campaigns. 35 years ago the navy decided to give kerry those medals - of course he took them, who wouldn't have. it's now easy to go back and say that he didn't really deserve them - maybe he didn't, but those guys should have spoken out about it back then and the navy should then not have awarded them - we'll see if these accusations stick.

-5