Will the real John Kerry please stand up?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Guest, Mar 18, 2004.

Loading...
  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

  2. chris

    chris New Member

    How about the Kerry

    whose office received a video tape 3 months before 9/11 on lax security at Boston's Logan airport and responded with a letter that he would investigate it. Needless to say nothing happened and 2 of the planes on 9/11 took off from Logan. He doesn't know what his story is before he says it.
     
  3. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Re: How about the Kerry

    He's even backtracked on his (Perhaps alleged, I'll state.) statement foreign leaders specifically told him they wanted him in the White House.

    He does have a record of changing his positions.

    Changing postions is not all that bad if not done only for political expediency.
     
  4. tcnixon

    tcnixon Active Member

    Re: Re: How about the Kerry


    All politicians change positions for political expediency. President Bush is in increasing trouble with some Republican governors and Republican-held legislatures over No Child Left Behind legislation (because they, like some Democrats believe it's unworkable). The Bush administration is now back-peddling so fast it could make your head spin.

    Why? Because they need the good graces of certain folks come November.

    And, no, I don't believe that this is different than any other politicians. They're all pretty much the same in that regard.



    Tom Nixon
     
  5. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    In any election where the President is running for a second term, the election swings entirely on whether the voting public feels he has done a good job. In other words, it is a referendum on the presidency. John Kerry could be the second coming of Christ (provocative reference fully intended) but if the people believe that Bush is doing a good job then Bush will be re-elected. IMHO this comes down to the war in Iraq (not the economy, not gay marriage, not the environment, not gas prices, just Iraq)
    Jack
     
  6. Guest

    Guest Guest

    :) Ah, the mantle has passed! :)

    I agree with your post completely. The War in Iraq will be the deciding factor in the minds of the voters.
     
  7. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Re: Re: Re: How about the Kerry

    I respectfully disagree.

    I cite Jimmy Carter and George Ryan as examples.

    I am not even sure Herbert Hoover fits your bill based on the book, THE HOOVER PRESIDENCY, by Fausold and Mazuzan.
     
  8. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Him who live in glass house, mon...
     
  9. AV8R

    AV8R Active Member

    Cal Thomas wonders...is politics inherently dishonest? His example?..John Kerry

    The high-minded definition of politics is: "the art or science of government; the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy." It is only when you keep reading in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary that you get closer to the truth: "political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices."

    Many politicians change their minds or flat out lie in order to win or stay in office. Some announce their work is "not finished" and run again after pledging to limit their terms in office; others promise not to raise taxes and do; still others claim to be pro-life and then switch to the other side as a strategy to protect their political lives. Flip-flopping, shading the truth and denying that he said what he is on the record as having said are also expected in politics. It seems the one you want in office is the one who does these things less frequently than his opponent and on issues of less concern to you.

    This brings us to John Kerry, whose sole attraction appears to be that he is the candidate the Bush-haters have settled on to limit the president to a single term. Not many seem enthusiastic about Kerry, the man. He is merely a tool, and an elitist one at that. If he were a hammer, he would be made of sterling silver. He'd be Tiffany & Co. to President Bush's Wal-Mart. Like an intern in the Clinton White House, Kerry is to be used for the pleasure and purpose of the Bush-haters. He inspires no commitment, no loyalty. He is just a ticket-to-ride.

    What should concern principled Democrats is Kerry's record. He has a long history of changing positions on almost any issue, and so fast that he is on the other side of where he previously stood before most people notice.

    The Washington Post took notice of Kerry's dangerous and constant shifts in a March 11 editorial. After observing that President Bush has shifted his positions on some issues such as nation-building and that "flip-flops aren't always bad," the Post got to the heart of the Kerry problem: "It's not always clear what, if anything, he's committed to.. Where are the bedrock principles that would guide him in office?"

    A few days ago, a grinning Howard Dean appeared with Kerry; Dean reportedly is close to endorsing his former rival. The former Vermont governor now says the things that unite Kerry and himself are more important than the things that divide them. Does Dean mean that, or is he simply playing the cynical political game? As recently as Feb. 1, Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press" reminded Dean what he had told the New York Times the previous week: "This is what you said.'(Dean) defined the nomination battle as a choice between (himself)' and 'a Washington insider who shifts back and forth with every poll.' Who is that?" "That's John Kerry," responded Dean. Asked "On what issues?" Dean responded, "Iraq, for one. He couldn't make up his mind whether he was for Iraq or not for the longest time. No Child Left Behind, he voted for that, didn't have the nerve to stand up against that when I did a long, long time ago."

    One wonders what "important" things Dean has in mind - other than defeating President Bush - because he has criticized Kerry's positions and behavior on so many issues, from taking special interest money to talking about health care but doing nothing, trade and "whining" when asked about his positions.

    The two issues about which Kerry seems "convicted" rather than conflicted are higher taxes and more spending. Don't look for him to flip on these because they define a modern liberal Democrat. That's why the president's reelection team is running commercials hitting the only non-moving target Kerry has presented. It's difficult to attack someone who, as the Post editorial noted, engages in "campaign-trail straddles on a wide range of issues."

    That may be politics as usual for Kerry, but is it politics the way the voters want it?
     
  10. If it comes down to Iraq for Bush

    Well, if it comes down to just the war in Iraq for Bush as a deciding factor, he's toast. The lying to the public about the WMD and the complete underestimation of what he was getting us into in terms of a lengthy and bloody occupation period is enough to tell us all we need to know about whether he's done a good job in this area or not.
     
  11. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Re: If it comes down to Iraq for Bush

    Carl, Carl, Carl, the latest polls show most Americans could care less about the WMD situation.

    The polls still show support for America having gone into Iraq and the polls also show support for America having toppled Saddist Insane.

    There is absolutely no evidence, whatsoever, President Bush lied. He relied on the SAME intelligence Kerry, Clinton, and other Democrats did when they said Iraq had these weapons.

    The most principled Democrat in American politics, Joe Lieberman, said Iraq had these weapons. I still believe they will be found.

    The "Bush bashers" are running out of genuine ideas. They keep stooping to tired, old worn out cliches and trite soundbites.

    They are at a loss because one of their issues, that we went to Iraq for the oil, has gushed in their faces. Been to the gas pump lately?

    I think I speak as a very objective person. I did not vote for Bush, thought he was not smart enough to be President and didn't and still don't like his father.

    But he has proven himself to me and I am most impressed with him as a leader.

    But, Carl, you have your opinions and I have mine. You may be right and I may be wrong.

    This is the essence of freedom and democracy and I love it!

    I would surmise if we tried hard enough we could find some political issues where we have common ground.

    Thanks for challenging us and provoking us to thought.
     
  12. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Re: Re: If it comes down to Iraq for Bush

    Speaking of tired, old worn-out cliches....that's the king of them all.

    Can someone please explain to me how a person with a A.B. from Yale, M.B.A. from Harvard, that is fluent in two languages and used to fly a jet fighter is dumb?

    Oh, and please spare me how his name got him through two Ivy League schools. My sister-in-law is a Harvard Business School graduate who hates Bush, and even she admitted that while your name would help you be admitted, it won't help you graduate. One of her classmates was Abigail Johnson (her father founded Fidelity Investments), and she was cut no slack at all.
     
  13. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Re: Re: Re: If it comes down to Iraq for Bush

    Bruce,

    This is, for some reason, a perception that still prevails today in many circles.

    I admit I fell for the media's description of him. I usually am more objective when it comes to politicians but for some reason, perhaps because I just did not like his father, I accepted without investigation.

    But, as I said, he has more than shown me his an able and capable leader and, I think, the best President in my lifetime.

    Actually, at times, Clinton looked dumb and dumbfounded. He had that Nancy Pelosi look at times.


     
  14. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Re: Re: Re: Re: If it comes down to Iraq for Bush

    I don't know how old you are, but in my lifetime, Ronald Reagan wins that contest, hands-down.

    As much as I despise Bill Clinton, he is not dumb by any stretch of the imagination. Quite the opposite, and that's one of the things that made him dangerous as President.
     
  15. Clinton dangerous???

    Well now. Apparently having intelligent presidents with experience at Oxford is somehow undesirable? Even dangerous! (Unless they're Republicans of course).

    Wow. The conservative "Coulter-mind" at work - amazing!

    I can hear it now, as I press the "speak button" on the Ann Coulter talking doll - "Liberals are dangerous because they are just so smart! Who wants them running the country, when we can get members of the Bush family to take public office?"
     
  16. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Re: Clinton dangerous???

    No, it's just very undesirable to have an adulterer and perjurer as President.
     
  17. Re: Re: Clinton dangerous???

    If we took a close look at history, I think we'd find many of our past Presidents, Republican and Democrat alike, in one or both of those categories....

    However, you're not going to get me into a defense of adultery and perjury - well, not perjury anyway. ;)
     
  18. AV8R

    AV8R Active Member

    KERRY IS NOW REJECTING FOREIGN ENDORSEMENTS

    It was okay when John sKerry could say that foreign leaders supported him over President Bush, because it suited his political purpose. Now that one of these "foreign leaders" have stepped forward, Senator Flip-Flop is singing a different tune. Sounds like a familiar refrain, doesn't it? What a phony.

    Yesterday, the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad, an avowed anti-Semite, said that he was endorsing John Kerry for president of the United States. It took all of the three seconds for the Kerry campaign to issue a statement rejecting the endorsement, and saying this: "It is simply not appropriate for any foreign leader to endorse a candidate in America's presidential election. John Kerry does not seek, and will not accept, any such endorsements." Excuse me? Oh really...well how about just a while ago when Kerry was saying that leaders of other countries had said they supported him? You see, when it comes to sKerry and his crew, the truth is only useful if it serves a purpose.
     
  19. AV8R

    AV8R Active Member

    Do Democrats now have buyers' remorse?

    David Limbaugh wonders....


    Have you been hearing the increasingly bizarre pronouncements erupting from Senator Kerry's amply angry mouth? In their haste to throw Howard Dean overboard, have the Democrats made a real blunder anointing this pig in a poke?

    I was nearly dumbfounded as I watched Kerry launch a cynically brazen attack against President Bush for breaking his promise to increase funding for our soldiers and veterans and failing to provide them with the best available weapons systems. What? Is Kerry banking on the possibility that his supporters are ignorant of his own record and President Bush's?

    Or could it be he figures that most of his backers don't care what he has to say to win -- anything to beat Bush?

    Either way, for Senator Kerry to misrepresent Bush as being soft on defense and promote himself as the caretaker of our national security is like Walter Mondale running as a tax-cutter and depicting Ronald Reagan as a tax-raiser. Perhaps Kerry's strategy is that if you say something preposterous enough, a significant portion of the people will believe it.

    Just as I had concluded that Kerry would have a tough time topping that statement, I saw another clip of him critiquing the president's record on Iraq. Kerry said, "What we have seen is a steady loss of life with no end in sight." How I wish someone in the major media would follow up with questions, such as the following, exploring the logical implications of Kerry's charges:

    Senator Kerry: On those days you are against the war in Iraq, could you tell us how you reconcile your support of President Clinton's bombing of Serbia? Are we supposed to forget that you supported the resolution authorizing the attack on Iraq having access to the same intelligence data that Bush had?

    As for your record compared to the president's in supporting the troops, how do you explain that Mr. Bush has increased spending on veterans by some 8 percent per year and defense spending by 10 percent per year? And do you expect us to overlook that you, Senator, voted against the $87 billion supplemental appropriation to support our soldiers and finance the rebuilding and democratization of Iraq? (I know you said you voted both for it and against it.)

    As for your complaint about the loss of life with no end in sight, Senator, are you unaware that it is a time-consuming enterprise to rebuild a war-torn nation, and by post-World War II standards it is still early in the game? Do you refuse to acknowledge that international terrorists committed to disrupting democracies and the general advance of civilization have converged on Iraq hellbent on preventing its transition to democracy?

    Are you really saying that our troops in Iraq would sustain fewer casualties if you were in office or that you could bring them home more quickly without jeopardizing the stability of the new regime?

    No, please don't tell us again that you would have voted against the war resolution in the first place if you hadn't been misled. Despite being untrue, it is completely irrelevant because our troops are there now, and even you have stated that if we withdraw too soon, it will create an unstable state in Iraq and represent a setback in our War on Terror. And you've also urged Spain's prime minister-elect, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, to stay the course.

    What magic wand, then, would you use to insulate our troops from injury and bring them home faster? Maybe you would take away the body armor and weapons systems you defiantly voted against? Or treat the terrorist attacks in Iraq as a law enforcement matter? Or talk your other dovish European leader friends into undovishly committing their troops?

    The truth is that Senator Kerry has no idea how we could possibly sustain fewer casualties and still accomplish our military goals in Iraq. His criticisms are manufactured and bogus because he knows President Bush is pursuing the only responsible course of action for the Iraqis, for the world and for the security interests of the United States. But that won't keep Kerry from trotting out the same old antiwar hymnal he sang from on his return from Vietnam, because that seems to be the only way he can make himself relevant to this debate.

    With every passing day Kerry's endless criticisms of the president's foreign policy seem more desperate, hysterical and indefensible. I just can't help but wonder whether a substantial number of Democratic honchos and voters aren't beginning to feel an eerie sensation of buyers' remorse. How could they not?
     
  20. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Re: Clinton dangerous???

    I am not sure I am in complete agreement here with Bruce. Jimmy Carter, in my opinion, was the most intelligent President we've had and I don't think he was dangerous.

    He was not a good President but he was not dangerous, in my opinion.

    I think some, not speaking here for Bruce, believe Clinton's intelligence was a danger to his Presidency because rather than taking a realistic and practical view of the world. he took an academic perspective.
     

Share This Page