Why Kerry doesn't deserve your vote

[raphy]

The 'American Empire' as an entity? I've been saying that it exists for a good long while now. I've also been saying that it's starting to implode on itself, to suffocate under the weight of its own political decadance.

 

[Couture]

It still really saddens me that Edwards is out of the race.

It seems to me that you hold one side to a much lower standard than the other. However, the above quote is something we can agree 100% on.

 

[Dirt Man]

Okay, so the thing we need to do here is ask ourselves this one simple question: "Are we as a nation of people better off since George Bush the second took office?"

If we are better off then we need to keep him in office, right?

If we aren't, then we need to vote him out of office. That means that we can't vote for him in any way, shape, or form. (Voting for an alternative other than to his main competitor Kerry in this election is the same as voting for Bush in this kind of an election, and to say otherwise is just bullshit at best, and an outright lie regardless of your point of view.)

Now Bush is going to go on the age old premise that Americans don't change their Commander's In Chief in the middle of a war. And he's been calling this a War on Terroism since 9/11. He either needs an outright victory in Iraq, or an escalation of this war to scare Americans into voting for him this November.

As for good, or bad Colleen, I suppose it depends on your point of view. Nobody is perfect, I myself am an Independant, but the last President in office when we actually won a war was a Democrat, as was the President whose place he took at death. And as far as contesting the Vietnam War is concerned just about ever man who actually fought in it like John Kerry, myself included, has protested against it. Something for which the records plainly show also is that George Bush II never fought in anything more strenuous, or dangerous to himself or his country other than an argument with his parents over which college to attend. And no man has earned the right to protest against any war more than those who have actually fought in it, risked their lives in battle during it, to the point where they were wounded, and more than once. Every citizen has the right to protest what their government is doing here in the USA, and many civilians did that during the Vietnam conflict. Those same people who spit on me when I returned to the world. They were the ones who called us; "baby killers," but it was their right as Americans to do so. And after the Mai Lie insident who could really blame them. No Colleen, you have to walk a mile in our jungle before you attack a proven war veteran with such a wimpy excuse as that he protested the war he fought in. It just doesn't wash.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[Wildcard Ky]

It seems to me that you hold one side to a much lower standard than the other. However, the above quote is something we can agree 100% on.

Please explain that one to me. I like to think that I have my own ideas and standards that I apply to everyone in the same manner. I freely admit that I am anti Kerry based on my personal beliefs, but I don't think I have a double standard. I am being sincere when I ask you to show me how I'm using a double standard. I try not to be so arrogant as to think that my actions or lines of thought are perfect. If someone sees something that I'm doing wrong, or being hypocritical about, I need to be told about it. They could be right, and I may need to correct the things I'm wrong about. I handle constructive criticism quite well as long as it's done in a civil manner.

 

[shereads]

Purely by his record, GWB can offer me only his solid if possibly misguided attacks on America's enemies.

Solid but possibly misguided?

I do believe however, that the Democrats sold themselves on the idea of anyone but Bush being sufficient to get a Democrat elected this year. While it must tickle them to believe this, I assure you that anyone but Bush isn't playing that well.

Colly, you're making some assumptions about Democrats that are just not true. Specifically, the two above. That we/I don't know about our party's history, and that we are "tickled" about how easily we're going to get Bush out of office. Quite the opposite.

First of all, I'm not only aware of my party's history, I'm proud of it.

Democrats as a group don't complain as much about paying taxes to support social services, even when those services will never benefit us personally. Democrats, even wealthy ones, tend to believe that taxes should be based on the ability to pay without suffering very much, which is why we objected so strongly to the Bush tax cuts. We look at it this way: a $450,000 per year tax cut for a multimillionaire (that's Dick Cheney's cut, which is why I thought of that amount as my example) will not substantially improve that person's chances of paying the rent, educating his children, or providing for his parents in their old age.

What that $400,000 could have done, multiplied by all the people whose annual income is close to Mr. Cheney's, would have prevented a lot of suffering this winter by people who can't pay their heating bills; it would have helped make life a little easier for some of the long-term unemployed that Republicans said we could not afford to help. Democrats are bothered by that kind of inequity. As a party if not as individual people, we're nicer.

Democrats fought to extend the unemployment benefit in answer to this sustained period of unemployment. Republicans said we couldn't afford it, just as we could not afford so many other social programs. The one social program they said we could afford, the Medicare bill that will not help my mom one bit but will be enormously profitable to the pharmaceutical industry and insurance companies, it now turns out we can't afford after all, but it's too late.

Democrats look at the defense budget, which dwarfs every one of the social programs that Republicans find so wasteful, and wonder why it has to be a dozen times larger than the military budgets of Russia, China or any potential enemy of the U.S. We ask why the Pentagon can't spend its money more efficiently, so that veterans and soldiers can benefit a little more, and the defense industries can benefit just a little less.

Democrats see a healthy environment as essential, and view clean air and water, toxic dump cleanups and wilderness protection as an obligation one generation has to the next. Democrats tend to be the ones who risk being called alarmists when we warn about global warming and try to stop it before it's too late. We tend to fail miserably at getting people to listen, but we try.

Democrats are against government intrusion into the private lives of indivisuals, and are in favor of regulating polluters and of oversight on corporate corruption. Republicans are against government intrusion in their business affairs, but seem to favor government intervention in our moral and sexual lives, for which there are so many recent examples that it seems almost to go without saying.

Democrats are constantly accused of being anti-military, when in fact if you look at the alternative spending proposals of those who opposed the most recent Republican budget, it simply tries to impose some efficiencies.

Democrats as a group tend to be better educated and more interested in current events, and we tend to look for that our candidates to a somewhat greater extent. I'm not making that up, it's just something that's been shown in polls and studies over the years that I remembered because it made me proud.

Democrats tend to view the rest of the world with more respect than Republicans do. Democrats are often accused of Intellectual Elitism. That always makes me proud. It did the first time I heard it, from Spiro Agnew.

Democrats tend to be the ones who demand "sunshine laws" at the state level, and were the ones who fought for the federal Freedom of Information Act, in an attempt to discourage back-room deals regarding public policy.

In brief - - I'm proud of my party's history and not so thrilled with your party's history. But don't accuse me of being ignorant of either one. I was raised in a Republican household. I know that a big part of the reason my conservative Southern Baptist relatives were staunch Republicans is that they perceived Democrats as being too willing to mingle whites with other races, too eager to encourage women and minorities to fight for their rights, and too resistant to God's presence in the schools and in government.

To your second point, that Democrats are "tickled" with how easy it's going to be to beat George W. Bush, I don't think you've talked to a lot of Democrats about this issue. I do all the time; I go on their message boards. I find that many people feel as pessimistic about our chances of defeating GWB as I do. I don't think it can be done.

There was a time a few months ago, when the WMD business turned out to be a scam pulled on us by Chalabi, when I did feel a bit optimistic. I thought lots of people - most people - would be terribly angry about the deception and would insist on seeing someone held accountable for the enormity of the mistake. I began to lose faith when I realized how few people even know there was a mistake, and how few have questioned the fact that the president has never once mentioned the Saudis in connection with 9/ll despite the nationality of the hijackers. Moreover, nobody seems to care that Chalabi is being rewarded for his deception.

I think I lost hope altogether yesterday when I participated in a telephone poll and the interviewer told me that "lots of people got it wrong" when she asked, "Which candidate is a decorated Vietnam veteran."

I imagine that most of what America thinks it knows about John Kerry is based on the non-stop barrage of GWB campaign commercials. We can't possibly compete with his fundraising machine, so we don't stand much of a chance if there are still people who watch so little news that they think he's a veteran.

FYI, "we" selected Kerry the way you selected George W. Bush. It's a flawed process that makes about as much sense as the silly conventions do. But with all due respect to you personally, and to the few other well informed Republicans I know, I don't see how we can possibly produce a more disastrous result than your guys did.

Solid? Possibly misguided?

Whoa. Don't be so hard on Dubya, girl!

 

[shereads]

deleted

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Okay, so the thing we need to do here is ask ourselves this one simple question: "Are we as a nation of people better off since George Bush the second took office?"

If we are better off then we need to keep him in office, right?

If we aren't, then we need to vote him out of office. That means that we can't vote for him in any way, shape, or form. (Voting for an alternative other than to his main competitor Kerry in this election is the same as voting for Bush in this kind of an election, and to say otherwise is just bullshit at best, and an outright lie regardless of your point of view.)

Now Bush is going to go on the age old premise that Americans don't change their Commander's In Chief in the middle of a war. And he's been calling this a War on Terroism since 9/11. He either needs an outright victory in Iraq, or an escalation of this war to scare Americans into voting for him this November.

As for good, or bad Colleen, I suppose it depends on your point of view. Nobody is perfect, I myself am an Independant, but the last President in office when we actually won a war was a Democrat, as was the President whose place he took at death. And as far as contesting the Vietnam War is concerned just about ever man who actually fought in it like John Kerry, myself included, has protested against it. Something for which the records plainly show also is that George Bush II never fought in anything more strenuous, or dangerous to himself or his country other than an argument with his parents over which college to attend. And no man has earned the right to protest against any war more than those who have actually fought in it, risked their lives in battle during it, to the point where they were wounded, and more than once. Every citizen has the right to protest what their government is doing here in the USA, and many civilians did that during the Vietnam conflict. Those same people who spit on me when I returned to the world. They were the ones who called us; "baby killers," but it was their right as Americans to do so. And after the Mai Lie insident who could really blame them. No Colleen, you have to walk a mile in our jungle before you attack a proven war veteran with such a wimpy excuse as that he protested the war he fought in. It just doesn't wash.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

You were there Dirt. Your opinion has much weight. I was born and raised in a very traditional southern household. Protestors are traitors. That simple. I got out on my own, I have learned a lot of what I took for granted to be the truth isn't. Not lies really, just a very one sided presentation of the issue. Still, many of those values are valuse I still hold dear.

You are the only Veteran of that conflict, thus far, who has said you support Kerry. The rest of my vet friends hold him in anything from true disdain to simply being uncomfortable supporting him.

I can never walk a mile in your jungle. Nor could I ever vote for Kerry. It dosen't mean I respect you one Iota less than I do, it's simply the way I feel. When he tossed his ribbons he as much as spit on the country that awarded them to him, IMHO. You, and many other's here see it differently, but that's the view from your position. I wouldn't feel comfortable giving my vote to him.

A third party vote, is a vote for Bush, only if you assume that he is winning and Kerry has no chance without every vote he can get. Otherwise it's a vote of no confidence in either of them. For me, neither is an acceptable option.

-Colly

Edited because I screwed up Dm's name. I was flying last night. My apologies.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Solid but possibly misguided?





Colly, you're making some assumptions about Democrats that are just not true. Specifically, the two above. That we/I don't know about our party's history, and that we are "tickled" about how easily we're going to get Bush out of office. Quite the opposite.

First of all, I'm not only aware of my party's history, I'm proud of it.

Democrats as a group don't complain as much about paying taxes to support social services, even when those services will never benefit us personally. Democrats, even wealthy ones, tend to believe that taxes should be based on the ability to pay without suffering very much, which is why we objected so strongly to the Bush tax cuts. We look at it this way: a $450,000 per year tax cut for a multimillionaire (that's Dick Cheney's cut, which is why I thought of that amount as my example) will not substantially improve that person's chances of paying the rent, educating his children, or providing for his parents in their old age.

What that $400,000 could have done, multiplied by all the people whose annual income is close to Mr. Cheney's, would have prevented a lot of suffering this winter by people who can't pay their heating bills; it would have helped make life a little easier for some of the long-term unemployed that Republicans said we could not afford to help. Democrats are bothered by that kind of inequity. As a party if not as individual people, we're nicer.

Democrats fought to extend the unemployment benefit in answer to this sustained period of unemployment. Republicans said we couldn't afford it, just as we could not afford so many other social programs. The one social program they said we could afford, the Medicare bill that will not help my mom one bit but will be enormously profitable to the pharmaceutical industry and insurance companies, it now turns out we can't afford after all, but it's too late.

Democrats look at the defense budget, which dwarfs every one of the social programs that Republicans find so wasteful, and wonder why it has to be a dozen times larger than the military budgets of Russia, China or any potential enemy of the U.S. We ask why the Pentagon can't spend its money more efficiently, so that veterans and soldiers can benefit a little more, and the defense industries can benefit just a little less.

Democrats see a healthy environment as essential, and view clean air and water, toxic dump cleanups and wilderness protection as an obligation one generation has to the next. Democrats tend to be the ones who risk being called alarmists when we warn about global warming and try to stop it before it's too late. We tend to fail miserably at getting people to listen, but we try.

Democrats are against government intrusion into the private lives of indivisuals, and are in favor of regulating polluters and of oversight on corporate corruption. Republicans are against government intrusion in their business affairs, but seem to favor government intervention in our moral and sexual lives, for which there are so many recent examples that it seems almost to go without saying.

Democrats are constantly accused of being anti-military, when in fact if you look at the alternative spending proposals of those who opposed the most recent Republican budget, it simply tries to impose some efficiencies.

Democrats as a group tend to be better educated and more interested in current events, and we tend to look for that our candidates to a somewhat greater extent. I'm not making that up, it's just something that's been shown in polls and studies over the years that I remembered because it made me proud.

Democrats tend to view the rest of the world with more respect than Republicans do. Democrats are often accused of Intellectual Elitism. That always makes me proud. It did the first time I heard it, from Spiro Agnew.

Democrats tend to be the ones who demand "sunshine laws" at the state level, and were the ones who fought for the federal Freedom of Information Act, in an attempt to discourage back-room deals regarding public policy.

In brief - - I'm proud of my party's history and not so thrilled with your party's history. But don't accuse me of being ignorant of either one. I was raised in a Republican household. I know that a big part of the reason my conservative Southern Baptist relatives were staunch Republicans is that they perceived Democrats as being too willing to mingle whites with other races, too eager to encourage women and minorities to fight for their rights, and too resistant to God's presence in the schools and in government.

To your second point, that Democrats are "tickled" with how easy it's going to be to beat George W. Bush, I don't think you've talked to a lot of Democrats about this issue. I do all the time; I go on their message boards. I find that many people feel as pessimistic about our chances of defeating GWB as I do. I don't think it can be done.

There was a time a few months ago, when the WMD business turned out to be a scam pulled on us by Chalabi, when I did feel a bit optimistic. I thought lots of people - most people - would be terribly angry about the deception and would insist on seeing someone held accountable for the enormity of the mistake. I began to lose faith when I realized how few people even know there was a mistake, and how few have questioned the fact that the president has never once mentioned the Saudis in connection with 9/ll despite the nationality of the hijackers. Moreover, nobody seems to care that Chalabi is being rewarded for his deception.

I think I lost hope altogether yesterday when I participated in a telephone poll and the interviewer told me that "lots of people got it wrong" when she asked, "Which candidate is a decorated Vietnam veteran."

I imagine that most of what America thinks it knows about John Kerry is based on the non-stop barrage of GWB campaign commercials. We can't possibly compete with his fundraising machine, so we don't stand much of a chance if there are still people who watch so little news that they think he's a veteran.

FYI, "we" selected Kerry the way you selected George W. Bush. It's a flawed process that makes about as much sense as the silly conventions do. But with all due respect to you personally, and to the few other well informed Republicans I know, I don't see how we can possibly produce a more disastrous result than your guys did.

Solid? Possibly misguided?

Whoa. Don't be so hard on Dubya, girl!

Solid, if possibly misguided.

Afghanistan is no longer terrorist central. Suspected terrorists and terrorist groups no longer have a country, whose government will shield them from the repercussions of their acts. They may no longer openly train & plot their henious acts with a friendly if not supportive government in place to give them virtual impunity to international attempts to try them for their crimes. Are we safer because of that? I believe so.

Iraq, while not defintely linked to AQ was also supportive of terrorist groups. The mastermind behind the Akili Laru hijacking & subsequnt murder of an american passenger was captured in Baghdad. Hammas, Islamic Jihad & the Al Quska Martyrs Brigades were recieving direct financial support from Iraq. They don't now and according to one article I recently read they, as well as the Palestinian authority are starting to feel the financial crunch. Only Lybia & Saudi Arabia continue to openly, openly being the operative word, send money to the PAL Authority. This drying up of financial support may in the end prove more powerful than all of isreal's troops in getting the Authority to crack down on the terrorists in their midst. Right now, supporting terror is not in favor and for financial reasons, rather than any sense of decency or rightness, they may be forced to conceed that supporting Haamas & Islamic Jihad is no longer worth the financail penalties they are incurring.

I think I am being fair when I say that's pretty solid for part of a term as president.

There is a large and vocal group who argue that rather than using military force, with so much of the world showing sympathy it would have been the perfect time to put diplomatic pressure on the taliban and, in concert with interpol and other allied nation's police forces we should have sought AQ in a strictly criminal sense. The argument runs that by using military force against them, you give their claims to fighting a jihad legitimacy. I do not particularly subscribe to this view, but it does have some merits that are undeinable. Since I cannot refute it sufficiently to dismiss it, I must accept the possiblility that it was a better way to approach things. Ergo, GWB's military approach is possibly misguided.

Solid, if possibly misguided. I think it's an objective and fair assessment. He has been neither spectacularly successful, nor totally ineffective. His use of the military was perhaps the wrong way to approach it, but perhaps not. If we remove partisan venom, patriotic flag waving, and discuss his success and failures in fighting terrorism, I believe that assessment is within reason.

I am not going to get too deeply into partisan squables. When I said democrats didn't have an appreciation of their party's history, I did not mean to imply you couldn't tell me all about your party. I meant to imply you are incapable of seeing your party in the same light a vast number of americans do. Your very biased and lovingly rendered defense of your knowledge of your party bears that out.

Yes, your party is quite generous, with working & middle class folk's money. One might even compare it to Robin Hood, robbing from the rich, to give to the poor. Except the definition of rich for your party seems to be anyone drawing a paycheck. While supporting a plethora of soical welfare programs may be a feel good thing to you, to a lot of folks it isn't feel good, it hurts them financially by higher taxes (which I might add your party loves to impose) while showing them no gain, unless they happen to be altruistic. Interestingly, the most generous states, in terms of personal commitment to charities are almost uniformly GOP strong holds, while the least are almost all Democratic strongholds. Simply put people in the GOP are not less genorous, they simply wish to decide which charities they fund as opposed to the government mandating they support them.

I don't know who said your party is intellectually elite. I'll tell you I have been a republican all my life and no conservitive or republican I have ever spoken to has ever uttered such a sentiment to me. The general description is something more along the lines of you need to be a communist, have had a lobotomy, or be a welfare bum to vote Democrat. Probably no closer to the mark, which is somewhere in between, but it is a very interesting difference in perception.

Your party is anti military. It consistantly votes against military spending. This dosen't just anger people in the military, it angers and threatens people who have jobs in defense related industries.

Enough of the partisan politics. The point to the statement was simply that you refuse to recognize that GWB's bungling in Iraq isn't nearly as close to home as a lot of the issues your party stands for.

Succinctly: Most people who pay taxes, don't want more. Most people who work in the defense industry or are in the military don't want budget cuts. Most people who own guns, don't want them taken away. Most people who fear crime, don't want criminals being given a slap on the wrist. The list goes on and on. What people consider important to themselves varries greatly and while you are outraged at most of the current administration's actions, the majority is angry with at least some of them. But when it gets down to nuts & bolts you party has a history and a program, and if someone dosen't buy into that program, then they vote republican reguardless of what mistakes the GOP has made. Democrats, even those who didn't like Clinton, did not turn on him. Expecting Republicans to turn on their President for his transgressions is a little ridiculous. Your core assumption there seems to be that Republicans are less loyal to tehir party than Democrats. I really don't think that's the case, although as a former Republican it is the case with me.

You may fear getting Bush out of office is not going to happen. A lot of people in your party may feel the same. But it seems to me the top end of your parties decision makers don't share that view. Or else they have written off this election and are looking at 2008. I am not the only one who has voiced the opinion they seem to be just going through the motions. Yes, I understand the primary system dosen't always give the best candidate. Yes, I understand too that many of the best potential challngers chose not to run because Bush was incumbant, percieved as a military leader in time of war and had a whooping war chest already at his disposal. Be that as it may. You lost the last election because Gore couldn't carry any state in the heartland, including his home state. These are places where traditional values and patriotism are very stong. What appeal does Kerry have there? None. Unless you subscribe to the theory his appeal is that he isn't Bush.

I have said much more here than I intended to. I didn't wish to start a fresh argument, in fact I grow weary of them. But your well spoken response desserved a reply. Even if it is nothing you want to hear.

-Colly

 

[Couture]

Kerry has long been a vocal proponent of extending unemployment benefits. The vote to actually extend the benefits was taken in the senate today. It was defeated by one vote. There was one senator absent for this vote, John Kerry.

Had Kerry been there, a cause that he claims to support would have passed. Since he was absent, it failed. When asked why he missed the vote, Kerry responded "we were told that no matter what would happen, [the Republicans] would change a vote in the Senate and they were not going to let it happen."

Where to begin?? So if you don't think you can win, you just don't bother voting? How were the Republicans going to change a public vote within the Senate? How can the man claim to be for or against anything when he won't even bother to vote on it? Then when confronted about a vote, he tries to blame it on the Republicans.

According to Congressional data, Kerry participated in only 35% of the votes in the Senate through March 5 of 2004. He is supposed to representing the people of Mass., yet he doesn't even bother to vote in their interest 65% of the time. Now he wants to be my President? Maybe he should try fulfilling his role as Senator and represent the people that elected him before taking on a bigger role. It seems that he's interested in his current role only 35% of the time.

The reason Kerry was absent from this vote is that he was campaigning and fund raising in my state of Ky. He raised $750k for his campaign. He thought that was more important than being present for a vote in which he would have made THE difference in how it turned out. He was more concerned with John Kerry than any people, or any cause. That is why he will never get my vote for president, nor does he deserve your vote.

First of all, about the absent for the vote thing. I had several disagreements with my fellow Carolinians about John Edwards back in the primaries. They were saying that they wouldn't support him because he wasn't doing a very good job of representing us in the Senate this year.

I said that was bull. A nominee can't run half a campaign. They have to run with everything they've got. Are you going to worry about a few senate votes where democrats are in the minority in both house and senate? The people saying these things are just waging a propaganda campaign. They have an agenda. I would rather Edwards or Kerry miss votes if it either could be president and *really* make a difference. It's an investment.

But this is standard smear tactics from the neo-cons right now. The fact that we're arguing over Kerry missing the vote, when its the repugs that voted themselves a raise in the middle of a recession, meanwhile letting good honest Americans who want a decent job, have to take one somewhere that doesn't pay a living wage. That's what we should be talking about.

If I remember correctly, you were still in college, which is great. I paid my own way through college quite a few years ago and have since moved into the workforce. I can tell you honestly, I can't compete against someone who's willing to work for $1 an hour. I can't do it. There's no way I could do it, unless I lived in hut and ate only rice.

We Americans built some of the finest products and corporations in the world. We were the ones who put in the blood, sweat, and years. But, now they think they don't need us anymore. They want our money, but they don't want to invest in us anymore. I think Kerry calls them Benedict Arnold corporations, I think a better description would be to compare them to the 'short sellers' of the stock market collapse before the great depression.

That's why I believe the media has us arguing about the wrong things. They barely talk about the root cause of our problems.

 

[Pure]

Couture said,

But this is standard smear tactics from the neo-cons right now. The fact that we're arguing over Kerry missing the vote, when its the repugs that voted themselves a raise in the middle of a recession, meanwhile letting good honest Americans who want a decent job, have to take one somewhere that doesn't pay a living wage. That's what we should be talking about.

If I remember correctly, you were still in college, which is great. I paid my own way through college quite a few years ago and have since moved into the workforce. I can tell you honestly, I can't compete against someone who's willing to work for $1 an hour. I can't do it. There's no way I could do it, unless I lived in hut and ate only rice.

We Americans built some of the finest products and corporations in the world. We were the ones who put in the blood, sweat, and years. But, now they think they don't need us anymore. They want our money, but they don't want to invest in us anymore. I think Kerry calls them Benedict Arnold corporations, I think a better description would be to compare them to the 'short sellers' of the stock market collapse before the great depression.

That's why I believe the media has us arguing about the wrong things. They barely talk about the root cause of our problems.
---

Oddly, CNN has been crusading on this 'jobs' hemorrhage.

Is there any reason to think Kerry and folks can and would stop it, (despite his picking it up lately as a campaign theme)?

This, like immigration and border control (i.e, lax, at the south) are probably areas of no significant difference between candidates.

IMO

 

[Couture]

Is there any reason to think Kerry and folks can and would stop it, (despite his picking it up lately as a campaign theme)?

[/B]

I would settle for them job losses being slowed at this point. Can he kill Nafta and close the tax loopholes corporations are taking advantage of? We'll have to see, but from the previous four years, we have a good damned guess to what the next four years will be like at this rate.

 

[Pure]

in Canada, there was some campaigning around (opposing) NAFTA, and the liberals picked it up for a bit, but, in office, dropped the idea of opposing it.

in truth, no mainstream party can oppose the major corporations--listed on CNN every night--who are cutting costs.

the is benevolent corporate world goverment, my friend:

most consumers are NOT ready to give up Walmart.

our new fancy computer and moniter from Dell arrived; under $1000. "made in China". i don't hear any protests.

is there ANY history of Kerry making efforts to change the jobs export situation?

I think, like 'closing the southern border', it's a third or fringe party issue.

 

[Pure]

Colly said,

Succinctly: Most people who pay taxes, don't want more. Most people who work in the defense industry or are in the military don't want budget cuts. Most people who own guns, don't want them taken away. Most people who fear crime, don't want criminals being given a slap on the wrist.

i don't buy this at all.

the truth is that Republicans are somewhat more friendly to businesses, and to a slightly different collection of them (e.g., at present, Texas oil).

So. To vote Republican, you must either 1) be in a position to benefit (upper manager or stockholder), or

2) a) believe that somehow your 'values' are being preserved (because of how piously the leaders talk) or

b)believe that your interests are linked to those of the 'big guys'--that you can, through the self help most of them (like GWB) never exercized, achieve the 'American dream' somewhat as they did (in the official bios).

guns, crime, etc. are all smokescreen issues. dems are as happy to throw people in jail, as repubs are happy to let 'illegals' slip in from Mexico.

even 'welfare' is now smokescreen, since liberals like Clinton made many cuts.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly said,

Succinctly: Most people who pay taxes, don't want more. Most people who work in the defense industry or are in the military don't want budget cuts. Most people who own guns, don't want them taken away. Most people who fear crime, don't want criminals being given a slap on the wrist.

i don't buy this at all.

the truth is that Republicans are somewhat more friendly to businesses, and to a slightly different collection of them (e.g., at present, Texas oil).

So. To vote Republican, you must either 1) be in a position to benefit (upper manager or stockholder), or

2) a) believe that somehow your 'values' are being preserved (because of how piously the leaders talk) or

b)believe that your interests are linked to those of the 'big guys'--that you can, through the self help most of them (like GWB) never exercized, achieve the 'American dream' somewhat as they did (in the official bios).

guns, crime, etc. are all smokescreen issues. dems are as happy to throw people in jail, as repubs are happy to let 'illegals' slip in from Mexico.

even 'welfare' is now smokescreen, since liberals like Clinton made many cuts.

Whether you buy it or not, is immaterial. I worked from the time I was 16 until pretty recently. I resented the hell out of the money coming out of my checks and most everyone I know did as well. And everytime taxes came up as an issue the Democrats I did know were awfully quiet. I happen to be drawing disability now, a drain on the system rather than a productive member of society. The only comfort I can draw is that my disability is based on how much I earned and indirectly on how much I paid into the system. Perhaps it's just a southern thing. Or just myself and the friends I have had. If the rest of you are all so happy to pony up more of your checks for taxes and don't resent it. I did. My freinds still do. As do my family members. So perhaps I am just warped and everyone loves paying taxes. I suppose I just didn't get the memo that having my hard earned money taken from me was supposed to bring joy not resentment.

Gun control, Welfare, Being soft or tough on crime, etc. etc. ad infinitum. These may be smokescreens to you J, but they are very real issues to some of us. Enough of us, in enough states, so that GWB is president and has a good chance of being so for another four years. My parents aren't rich, they never were, and while we never lacked for neccisities there were a lot of things they would have loved to give us that were simply out of reach. Yet they are republicans and have been since I was old enough to remember. Every attempt to portray the GOP as only concerned with Big bussiness is a grossly inaccurate over simplification. If their appeal was only to big bussinessowners they would be a third party. Their platform appeals to a wide demographic. As does the Dem's. It's the only way to win elections. And the GOP of late has been winning more than their fair share on all levels from the school board to the presidency of late.

A mid term gain in seats, something nearly unheard of. The GOP is appealing to more and more people, and if liberals and the Democratic party fail to grasp that they are loosing support on every level from local to national, the trend will continue. That trend is based a lot on such somoke screens as welfare, Gun control, Crime, etc.

It is a trend that those of you who really care, ignore at your own peril.

-Colly

 

[KarenAM]

Some things to consider.

I don't think we can define "Democrat" or "Republican" as simply as we have here. Both are massive parties, made up of members and groups who often don't agree with one another. Both have, at various times in their histories, done good and done bad. Both are currently run by professional politicians who serve their own interests first, and who listen to the wealthy and powerful over those who are not. Large corporations often contribute to each major presidential candidate to cover their bases and incur favors no matter who wins the election.

As to the military option against terrorism: Contrary to what the administration tells us, it is possible to favor the military actions taken against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and yet oppose the war in Iraq. The drying up of financial aid from Saddam's regime is coming at a high long term price; the Arab world is ready to explode and the American invasion of the Arab heartland, along with its support of Arab dictatorships (particularly Egypt and Saudi Arabia), has put us in a no win position there, and don't think our inability to pacify Iraq is lost on angry Arabs everywhere. No matter what happens, it is clear that our powerful military has its limits, and those limits are being exposed. This, along with the largely accurate assessment that the USA is hostile to Islam and Arab culture while insatiably hungry for middle-eastern oil, as well as being hypocritical about human rights and political freedom outside (and increasingly, inside) its own borders, are actually encouraging opposition to the West and all things associated with it, and since terrorism is a proven, low-cost way to strike out (even though it is ultimately always counterproductive for the terrorist and those associated with them), I think the assessment that the invasion of Iraq is making more terrorists is correct.

I'd like to be wrong, but that's how it's looking to me. As to Kerry and Bush on this, my cynical side tells me that both are owned by special interests. What swings me to Kerry despite this is the fact that Bush has screwed up so badly as president (I haven't even talked about his borrow and spend insanity or his embracing of social conservatism) that I believe that only Ralph Nader could do a poorer job than he has.

I vote for what I see as best for my country, even when that "best" isn't very good at all.

 

[Couture]

I resented the hell out of the money coming out of my checks and most everyone I know did as well. And everytime taxes came up as an issue the Democrats I did know were awfully quiet. I happen to be drawing disability now, a drain on the system rather than a productive member of society. The only comfort I can draw is that my disability is based on how much I earned and indirectly on how much I paid into the system. -Colly

Maybe I'm strange, but I'm one of those people who doesn't mind taxes. I also give to the United Way, the Salvation Army, and NPR. Yeah, I think they are too high, but I would think that about anything.

I think it's amazing how no one feels the same amount of antipathy when they make their car payment or housepayment. You want cable? You gotta pay for it. You want streets, sewer, water, police, social security, armed services....all these things cost money and we have to pay for it.

Like I said, I don't mind paying my fair share. But, I work hard for my money and I don't like seeing $500 hammers, $2 million dollar studies on how cardinals mate, welfare mothers that make more than I do, millionaires trying to get out of paying their fair share, and corporations who live on the public dime while sending our jobs overseas.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Karen,

My assessment of Solid, if possibly misguided was directed only at his actions against terrorism. While not ignoring the failings of the Iraq war, I didn't take the whole of that issue into consideration, just its impact in fighting terrorism. In that context, and only that context it has removed a substantial finanacial supporter of terrorism in the Middle East. By doing so it is possible, not probable, but possible, that it may help bring a softening of the PAL's position in the conflict that seems to be the most contentious in that region. If that comes to pass, then I would say his performance has been better than solid. If the result is even more terrorism directed at americans then his performance may have been less than solid. Since those repercussions are too far in the future to see, one way or another, It would be mere speculation, so I concentrated only on the immediate tangible effects.

I am not championing Bush, the Neo-cons, or their agenda. It was a simple assessment of his performance in fighting terrorism. It has been neither spectacularly effective, nor spectacularly ineffective. It has been, in my opinion, solid. Significantly better than his predesscessors, but probably less effective than it could have been had a more adroit statesman been in charge.

The hatred of the Arab world is not something I would factor into his actions. For as long as I can remember the majority of the Arab world has hated the U.S. Since my memory does not extend back to a time before Israel was formed that is perhaps understandable. Also, since my memory does not extend back to the Vietnam war, I don't have the instant shock and horror of its paralles to the Iraq war that many who do remember seem to have. All are of course free to disagree with my asessment, but it is an assessment I think I can defend fairly well. objectively, this administration has scored some success and recorded some failures, chief among them getting Bin Ladin. Still, his successes are more than his failures in the strict context of fighting terrorism since 9/11. Chief among his successes is the fact that there has been no other devestating terrorist attack in the U.S.

I am of course not taking into consideration other political events, fall out and actions that are linked to his presidency. My original statement was directed at what he was offering me as a voter.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

Colly said,
//I resented the hell out of the money coming out of my checks and most everyone I know did as well.//

I don't doubt the resentment or the perception, simply the reality.
The poorer and less populous states, in terms of the 'fed' (federal taxes) are net gainers. Partly this is because of the Senate. Their common anti-fed position is hard to understand, except as a result of manipulation "the fed is going to have race mixing, and sodomite teachers and God out of the schools."

I didn't say only business types voted Republican. Obviously a small % of R voters are really gaining. The vast majority are voting on 'values' espoused by the R leaders; and believe they aren't espoused by the Dems (i.e., 'protect the family' 'fight evil at home and abroad.') Or, as many polls have shown, they believe they'll eventually own a house, and have savings etc., and that the 'rising tide floats all boats' (as it used to, to some extent.).

From a favorite right wing site:

INSIGHT


"From Hitler’s vision for a Thousand Year Reich and Lenin’s promise to use the dictatorship of the proletariat to build a workers' paradise, to abortion depicted as a 'women’s health issue' and homosexual behavior justified as an 'alternative lifestyle,' evil always comes to humanity disguised as good. The results are just as invariably consistent -- destruction, suffering and death. Beware the Serpent’s promises." --Dr. Earl H. Tilford

 

[Pure]

Colly {Iraq war} "it has removed a substantial finanacial supporter of terrorism in the Middle East."

An evidence of this?

How about evidence re terrorist acts?

Stats on terrorist acts, including al qaeda, are greatly UP in the last couple years. That's the fact. Imminence of 'victory' or even 'gains' in the 'war' are pure smoke at this point. The situation has been interpreted as 'night is darkest before the dawn' but that's just hope.

Iraq, to the contrary, is now a vast recruiting ground for terrorists, like the fellow who cut off Berg's head (al Marqawi?).

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly said,
//I resented the hell out of the money coming out of my checks and most everyone I know did as well.//

I don't doubt the resentment or the perception, simply the reality.
The poorer and less populous states, in terms of the 'fed' (federal taxes) are net gainers. Partly this is because of the Senate. Their common anti-fed position is hard to understand, except as a result of manipulation "the fed is going to have race mixing, and sodomite teachers and God out of the schools."

I didn't say only business types voted Republican. Obviously a small % of R voters are really gaining. The vast majority are voting on 'values' espoused by the R leaders; and believe they aren't espoused by the Dems (i.e., 'protect the family' 'fight evil at home and abroad.') Or, as many polls have shown, they believe they'll eventually own a house, and have savings etc., and that the 'rising tide floats all boats' (as it used to, to some extent.).

From a favorite right wing site:

INSIGHT


"From Hitler’s vision for a Thousand Year Reich and Lenin’s promise to use the dictatorship of the proletariat to build a workers' paradise, to abortion depicted as a 'women’s health issue' and homosexual behavior justified as an 'alternative lifestyle,' evil always comes to humanity disguised as good. The results are just as invariably consistent -- destruction, suffering and death. Beware the Serpent’s promises." --Dr. Earl H. Tilford

In most cases there is a gap between perception and reality. I think it effects all of us to some degree. On the other hand, the perception of what the Democrats hope to achieve and their record when they held the majority may not be so far from the mark. In any case, they have let the Republicans seize upon these perceptions to paint themselves as the party of traditional values, the family, tough on crime, anti-gun control, anti-abortion etc.etc.etc.

Once entrenched that is a pretty strong position from which to call to voters in districts, counties, and states where a conservative, traditional values menu is appealing. That is going to play very well in the south east, the mid west and most rural localities.

A question for you then. If you feel the perception of the Dem's is so off the mark, why have they not done anything to substantially alter thaperception? Particularly in the middle of the country where they are loosing ground. Do you think they fear trying to embrace traditional values because their core constituency would disapprove or do they simply not care that they are being portrayed the way they are?

-Colly

Edited to add: That's a serious question, not meant to be snide or provoke a fight. I am just curious as to why they allow the perception to exist without trying to fight it, if it is so off the mark?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly {Iraq war} "it has removed a substantial finanacial supporter of terrorism in the Middle East."

An evidence of this?

How about evidence re terrorist acts?

Stats on terrorist acts, including al qaeda, are greatly UP in the last couple years. That's the fact. Imminence of 'victory' or even 'gains' in the 'war' are pure smoke at this point. The situation has been interpreted as 'night is darkest before the dawn' but that's just hope.

Iraq, to the contrary, is now a vast recruiting ground for terrorists, like the fellow who cut off Berg's head (al Marqawi?).

The fellow who cut off Berg's head was a terrorist long before the Iraq invasion. His presence there actually gives some substance to the administration's claims that the insurgents in Iraq aren't in fact dissaffected Iraqi's, but are foerign terrorists who kill as many Iraqis as they do coalition troops.

To my knowledge the idea of Iraq being a "vast recruiting area" is purely suppositional. I know of no study that has shown a huge rise in the number of Iraqis who are terrorists. If the current insurgency is in fact not a home grown uprising, but instead a movement of outsiders that is even more true.

Since this is a continuing issue of what Bush offers me as a voter, I will take an extremely American-centic view here. We are talking about my safety as an american, not about world terrorism. If terrorism is up 500% in Shagrala and no more attacks have been made in the U.S., then I must still consider the president's actions against terrorism a success. He can't control the government in Shangrala, their postion, their preparedness, their intelligence gathering capabilities & concentration. He can only control ours.

I have some things I need to do today, I will dig up the article on Saddam's financial support & the residual effect on the Palestinian Authority and it's terrorist groups tomorow if I can find it. It was an AP article so it should still be avialable somewhere.

-Colly

 

[Ms_Kat]

Ok, where do I start?

Lets start with the original post and reason for this thread.

Find one member of Congress who makes every single vote. To my memory, there was only one in the entire history of the US and he died several years ago (forgive me, the name escapes me). Most of the time, the results of a vote are known before they occur. Therefore, a single Senator's presence may not be necessary. Quite often, they are in committee meetings or fulfilling other requirements of their job. Sometimes they chair investigative committees, which Kerry did a lot of, and that takes a lot of their time away from other duties. This criticism, to me, shows a lack of understanding for the political reality of our government. It's the same argument that is leveled at Bush for being away from the White House. (If nothing else, I'm sure they have call-forwarding so he doesn't miss phone calls). The real question is not how much time they spend away from the floor votes or White House, but what are they doing when they miss this time? On this, I have no information either way.

It seems silly to determine who will be President on the basis of one missed vote. What about all the work he has done for the unemployed over his entire career? Are we to base everyone only on the last behavior seen? It is, however, your vote and you can use it anyway you want, for any reason you want.

I really wonder when people will stop trying to make Clinton equal Satan. Lets put blame where it belongs.

Under President Nixon, we sent US personel to teach the Shah of Iran how to run the Savak - his secret police that specialized in midnight "disappearing" of political enemies, torture, and basically was one of the biggest reasons why the Shah faced a revolution and lost. Yeah, they hated Americans, too. We provided safety for the Shah when he fled with a big chunk of his country's wealth. We taught his son to fly a US Air Force fighter. Yeah, it's definitely Carter's fault that they attacked our embassy. We should have pulled our people out long before that.

After we discovered how much Iran hated us, we began arming Iraq. This was done mainly under President Reagan. It was at this time that we also began arming bin Laden and the Taliban to resist the Soviet army. It was also at this time that we stuck our nose into Lebanon and got blown up. Quickly, we invaded the strongest country in the world - Grenada. And let us not forget the USS Stark was attacked by Iraqi exocet missiles, killing 37 sailors and injuring 21 others. Actions taken - none. This was in May of 1987. Do we want to bring up Latin America, too?

So, Reagan is at least as much to blame as Clinton for the current standing of Al Qaeda. Furthermore, Clinton was also faced with a hostile Congress hell-bent on making him look as bad as possible at every turn, regardless of how stupid it made the country look (unfortunately, Clinton made it easy for them in some cases).But impeaching a President for lying about a blowjob seems a bit petty to me.

As far as the current Administration is concerned, I've yet to see any evidence that they can govern effectively. We've got troops deployed in two countries with no real goal and no way to withdraw without cutting our losses and running and no end in sight. We have destabilized Iraq for many years in the future. With the lack of reporting from Afghanistan, there isn't much good news, but I suppose the best news is that there isn't much bad news. Just a lot of nothing.

I still don't believe that Iraq posed an immediate threat to the US. Perhaps Bush was misled, perhaps he lied outright, either way the Iraqi government turned out to be a threat only to the Iraqi population. This accounts for a lot of our problems now.

The scariest thing about Bush is that he says over and over again how he invokes the name of God as if he has a direct line to the Old Man in the Sky. This reminds me a lot of what the priests used to say to me. Just trust the Church, we know what God wants. I don't trust that line of thinking, but I can understand why a priest would say it. It's a scary thing to hear coming from the government.

Hugs,



Kat

 

[Pure]

Colly said,

In any case, they[Dems] have let the Republicans seize upon these perceptions to paint themselves as the party of traditional values, the family, tough on crime, anti-gun control, anti-abortion etc.etc.etc.

Once entrenched that is a pretty strong position from which to call to voters in districts, counties, and states where a conservative, traditional values menu is appealing. That is going to play very well in the south east, the mid west and most rural localities.

A question for you then. If you feel the perception of the Dem's is so off the mark, why have they not done anything to substantially alter thaperception? Particularly in the middle of the country where they are loosing ground. Do you think they fear trying to embrace traditional values because their core constituency would disapprove or do they simply not care that they are being portrayed the way they are?

It's always complicated to explain erosion of a party's support.
But one thing is that the Dem's can't just go 'alter the perception.'
The Rep's are (as with Kerry, for 'indecisiveness') working to 'frame' the Dems, to determine a perception, as say, 'soft of crime.'

But you do raise good points. Why cant Dems be more 'traditional' sounding. Well, Clinton carried the South. So did Carter. SOME dems have carried off the right wing, traditional, religious thing. Indeed, Clinton carried the Black people as well.

There's one source of the problem: The dems have been reluctant to appeal to the 'white' vote as such; to use code words for racist practices.

But the point has been made: the Black vote can't go anywhere else, why not a bit of pandering to the whites? I guess dems hate doing that. Only Clinton managed southern white and black, without white-pandering, so that's probably why he had to be targeted for immobilization, impeachment, etc.

Why can't the dems run police chiefs, and generals, and self made millionaires. Well, they're catching the message: Look at the flirtation with Wesley Clark. They did choose a decorated veteran, but not one impregnable to assault (though who would have thought it would get to disputing purple hearts).

The best I can do, Colly, is remind you of Germany in the 1930s.
The Nazis got more and more support; war got more and more support. The 'left' and in particular, the socialists, couldn't stop it with 'internationalism' and 'peace' talk. Look at the period also when Thatcher invaded the Falklands. IOW, the liberal or left are in one helluva bind when the voters get bellicose, cranky, and fixated on some alleged evil. (And when the other party is madly stirring that pot.) Note how long it took the German left and the British left to recover from those periods.

Also, remember it's not just 'be traditional' or 'patriotic': it's, as stated above, resist the slanderous labels, 'hate tradition' and 'unpatriotic.'

FURTHER, the people are being shifted (to the right). Hence, even when a left or liberal says "I'm patriotic", the ground has shifted. "HOW patriotic are you?" asks the right. "We're MORE patriotic, as shown by our tough this and that."

So the problem of a fascist leaning electorate is remotely like dealing with a lynch mob. It's damn hard to get out in front, without losing any distinction from the other side.

As another example. The Clinton appear to be methodists, which are hardly like unitarians. But the populace are told "You must declare yourself 'born again', and Bible based." The GWB mixture of sham and piety is going to outsell Kerry's laid back Catholicism, and even the Clintons would have a hard fight.

So I don't know if the Dems can do what needs to be done, esp. since that's changing. When the drums of war-- in this case, an unending one-- beat, it's very hard for liberals and left to have an impact. The populace have to go through the orgy, the destruction, in Thatcher's England, the destruction of public services, schools, etc. Then in 10-20 years the populace will listen to someone not enveloped in right wing nostrums.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly said,

In any case, they[Dems] have let the Republicans seize upon these perceptions to paint themselves as the party of traditional values, the family, tough on crime, anti-gun control, anti-abortion etc.etc.etc.

Once entrenched that is a pretty strong position from which to call to voters in districts, counties, and states where a conservative, traditional values menu is appealing. That is going to play very well in the south east, the mid west and most rural localities.

A question for you then. If you feel the perception of the Dem's is so off the mark, why have they not done anything to substantially alter thaperception? Particularly in the middle of the country where they are loosing ground. Do you think they fear trying to embrace traditional values because their core constituency would disapprove or do they simply not care that they are being portrayed the way they are?

It's always complicated to explain erosion of a party's support.
But one thing is that the Dem's can't just go 'alter the perception.'
The Rep's are (as with Kerry, for 'indecisiveness') working to 'frame' the Dems, to determine a perception, as say, 'soft of crime.'

But you do raise good points. Why cant Dems be more 'traditional' sounding. Well, Clinton carried the South. So did Carter. SOME dems have carried off the right wing, traditional, religious thing. Indeed, Clinton carried the Black people as well.

There's one source of the problem: The dems have been reluctant to appeal to the 'white' vote as such; to use code words for racist practices.

But the point has been made: the Black vote can't go anywhere else, why not a bit of pandering to the whites? I guess dems hate doing that. Only Clinton managed southern white and black, without white-pandering, so that's probably why he had to be targeted for immobilization, impeachment, etc.

Why can't the dems run police chiefs, and generals, and self made millionaires. Well, they're catching the message: Look at the flirtation with Wesley Clark. They did choose a decorated veteran, but not one impregnable to assault (though who would have thought it would get to disputing purple hearts).

The best I can do, Colly, is remind you of Germany in the 1930s.
The Nazis got more and more support; war got more and more support. The 'left' and in particular, the socialists, couldn't stop it with 'internationalism' and 'peace' talk. Look at the period also when Thatcher invaded the Falklands. IOW, the liberal or left are in one helluva bind when the voters get bellicose, cranky, and fixated on some alleged evil. (And when the other party is madly stirring that pot.) Note how long it took the German left and the British left to recover from those periods.

Also, remember it's not just 'be traditional' or 'patriotic': it's, as stated above, resist the slanderous labels, 'hate tradition' and 'unpatriotic.'

FURTHER, the people are being shifted (to the right). Hence, even when a left or liberal says "I'm patriotic", the ground has shifted. "HOW patriotic are you?" asks the right. "We're MORE patriotic, as shown by our tough this and that."

So the problem of a fascist leaning electorate is remotely like dealing with a lynch mob. It's damn hard to get out in front, without losing any distinction from the other side.

As another example. The Clinton appear to be methodists, which are hardly like unitarians. But the populace are told "You must declare yourself 'born again', and Bible based." The GWB mixture of sham and piety is going to outsell Kerry's laid back Catholicism, and even the Clintons would have a hard fight.

So I don't know if the Dems can do what needs to be done, esp. since that's changing. When the drums of war-- in this case, an unending one-- beat, it's very hard for liberals and left to have an impact. The populace have to go through the orgy, the destruction, in Thatcher's England, the destruction of public services, schools, etc. Then in 10-20 years the populace will listen to someone not enveloped in right wing nostrums.

Clinton and Carter were both from the south and Carter had the advantage of running against Ford, who if I remember correctly is the only man to serve as President who wasn't elected to either the Pres or Vp spots. Clinton had great Chraisma, at least for many folks he did. Kerry has neither the Charisma nor the birthplace so I think it will be exceptionally hard for him to win in the south. I am thinking he won't play well in the mid west wither, but since I am not from there I could be dead wrong.

In Germany in the thirties the Fascists had armed mobs, the Freigerkorps and the Brown shirts to physically intimidate and or kill socialists, Communists and Social Democrats. While it is true more and more people moved towards the nazi's it is also true they lost seats in the Reichstag in the election before the Reichstag fire. I think the comparrison falls down a little there, but I see the point.

I suppose it would be important too, to note that even the definitions of the words are malleable. I noted I would never vote for Kerry because of his anti-war protesting, but Min, Doc M, Sher and others immidiatly opined that protest was patriotic. It has never been something I remotely assocciate with partiotism nor would I ever do so. With such divergent ideas of what constitutes "patriotism", "Family values" and "Tradional Values" I suppose removing the perception becomes even more difficult. If a liberal were to claim he or she was patriotic back home and then admit to marching in anti-war protests, to that person there might be no qualm, but to most listeners there would be a good deal of scoffing if not outright accusations of being a liar or worse a traitor.

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

-Colly

 

[KenJames]

I've seen several people on this thread make the assertion that Gore absolutely positively wouldn't have done anything about terrorism after 09/11. Would you kindly explain exactly how you know that with such certainty. While you're at it, would you please give me some stock market quotes for the next month?

Unlike Gore, Bush was kicking asses and taking names on terrorism from the get-go. We were bombing Afghanistan and Iraq the day after he took office, the Twin Towers never fell and Bush personally captured Osama Bin Laden. Oh, wait a minute. That's not quite true.

The fact is, there was no political will or public support for a massive attack on terrorism until after 09/11.

Clinton got slapped with the tag "political opportunist" any time he tried to do anything about terrorism.

Bush obviously didn't feel defending us against terrorism was as high a priority as constructing an astronomically expensive system which wouldn't really defend us against enemy missiles.

You can blame Clinton, Bush or even the hypothetical Gore presidency but, given the reality of United States politics, 09/11 was probably inevitable. So was much of our response to it.