Kerry or Bush?

LIMOUSINE LIBERALS: THEY'RE NOT JUST LIKE YOU

Senators Kerry and Edwards are both going around trumpeting phony populism and claiming to be for the working man...and be just like you...the average everyday American. Only they can know your pain. But lets look at the facts here. This normally wouldn't matter, but since liberals are eating it up, here's a reality check.

Both John Kerry and John Edwards own mansions in the exclusive Georgetown area of Washington D.C. On one street lives Edwards, whose 13-room home is worth $3.8 million. About a block away is where Kerry lives..in a four story home with 23 rooms that is estimated to be worth $4.3 million. Oh...well, Kerry is roughing it a bit. His home is owned by his wife, Teresa Heinz.

The point? The next time you hear a Democrat bring up that "Republicans are for the wealthy" and that President Bush comes from a privileged background, you can take them to school.

 

Re: Safer?

Okay, that's a pretty strong statement. I'm willing to be very objective and listen as you itemize and present all of your conclusive evidence that will back this up.

 

Strong feelings on both sides.

I submit that on foreign policy, Bush has laid the ground work that Kerry would probably mostly follow.

The difference between them will not even be as much in the economy as in the judges. Bush will add, potentially, several conservative judges to the Supreme Court to replace, I think it was Rhenquist and O'Connor that were thinking of retiring???

Kerry will appoint judges that will have very different perspectives on the Constitution, same sex marriage, choice/life, and so on.

The key is, this won't be a "voting issue." It will be safety vs. pocketbook, perhaps. The result will largely be in the courts.

Chris

 

With very few exceptions (Thomas being one) most Supreme Court Justices are not the idealogues they were prior to the court appointment.

Look at Warren, Black, and Rhinquest. Some of the Justices, past and present, appointed by Republican presidents, have been moderate to liberal most of the time. O'Connor is an example.

 

Yikes. I'm no big fan of Kerry, but he looks like Franklin Roosevelt compared to Bush. Three minor wounds in VN? Compared to the wounds Bush received? Let’s see, there was the hangnail that got infected, and the bruised toe he received while running away from service.

Bush is so amazingly mediocre it’s mind-boggling. He has no vision. He’s really just a lackey of his father’s cronies. Everything has been handed to him on a silver platter: cushy service in the National Guard (see above), Yale and Harvard educations (could any of us get into HBS with a C average? Not a chance!), his “job” in Harken Energy (after being bailed out twice for running companies into the ground), and then as owner of the Texas Rangers. And of course now the biggest gift of them all: leader of the free world. Absolutely frightening! There should be a picture of Bush next to the definition of sinecure.

He had (has) no vision for Iraq. Yes, we “won” the military conflict, but as most of the smart people in this country pointed out beforehand, what’s the plan for afterwards? Here he has failed miserably, because it’s clear that neither he nor anyone else in his cabinet figured that part out. Service men and women are dying every day, not to mention hundreds of Iraqi’s. The list goes on and on.

What do you get from a populace that’s doped up on television and has forgotten how to think for themselves? You get politicians like George Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger. When the populace gets its news from Entertainment Tonight instead of the NY Times or Washington Post, and its idea of reality is "reality TV" (what a concept, fantasy embedded in fantasy), you get ridiculous jokes in public office.

As Noam Chomsky once said (I’m paraphrasing), a dictatorship controls the population with the threat of violence; a democracy controls the population with propaganda.

Our politicians should be the smartest and most capable people our country can produce. Instead politics has become a job that no sane and smart person wants any part of. As a result, we have to live with the likes of Bush, while most of the rest of the world just laughs and thinks "Is that the best you can do?"

Is there someone running who has a brain and who knows how to think on his feet and see through the BS. Yep, only one:

Ralph Nader

 

1. I wouldn't get my info from a socialist.

2. Do you think Afganistan and Iraq are asking this question?

3. Ralph Nader is too much like Adlai Stevenson to win the Presidency even if he ran as a Democrat.

4. Have you read the POST lately? They are not that hot on Kerry and have some pretty reviews of Bush's administration.

 

1. Are you talking about Chomsky or Nader? I guess it doesn't matter, for in either case I would say, better a smart socialist than a colossal capitalist dimwit.

2. What question?

3. In other words he's too smart/too intellectual. I agree. Sad but true. His sister (Laura) is maybe smarter.

4. My point is that there are very few places that you can get insightful reporting and stories that make you think. Regardless of their views, the Post and the Times are generally such places.

 

Our politicians should be the smartest and most capable people our country can produce. Instead politics has become a job that no sane and smart person wants any part of. As a result, we have to live with the likes of Bush, while most of the rest of the world just laughs and thinks "Is that the best you can do?"

I agree that our politicians should be the best and the brightest, but as importantly, should possess the leadership skills to pull the job off. Just being smart doesn’t qualify someone to be the leader of the free world. As to the rest of the world laughing at us (ok, we deserved to be made fun of for Bill and his Cigar) for our current crop of leaders, I say who cares? It’s not as if they are much better off. They face the same problems as we do, they just don’t have the size or resources to be as damaging (or helpful) to the rest of the world as we do. Most liberal friends of mine cry about how much better off the rest of the world is, but can’t provide any details as to why that is? The reality is, that other leaders in the world are not any better worse than ours. Other civilized societies face the same morally bankrupt politicians that we do. I believe that there are good men and women from all political views out there who are trying their best, but are loosing the battle.

You hit on the big problem when you spoke about our society being doped out on TV. It’s true, we elect our leader based far too much on the most effective one-liner we saw on a TV add rather than actual research. And for any objective reasonable person to claim that there is no liberal bias in the Post or Times is just as inconceivable as accepting that there is no conservative bias on Fox News. Most all media outlets tilt one way or the other.

I’m voting for Bush this time around. I voted for him last time because I couldn’t stand the thought of having to listen to Gore talk about the internet for 4 years. I’ll vote for Bush this time because I don’t trust Kerry. I don’t like either of them, but I’m voting for the lesser of the two evils. (it seems like it’s been forever since I voted from someone I wanted to win vs. voting against the candidate I wanted lose).

For the record however, I seriously doubt that anything has changed much over the years. History has well documented that power and politics corrupt and all of us average mortals will manage to move along despite it.

 

The best and the brightest don't want the job.

I don't see anyone from degreeinfo running and I am sure we are among the best and brightest.

 

JOHN KERRY STILL THINKS HIS VOTING RECORD IS OFF-LIMITS

Senator John Kerry continues to whine about the Republicans "attacking his patriotism" just because they question the votes he made in the Senate on national security. What a hypocrite....at the same time he is attacking the Bush record, he is saying that attacking his own record is an attack on his patriotism because "that's the game they play." What game are you playing, Senator?

Kerry says he will not allow questions about his commitment to defense to be raised by Republicans who never fought in a war. Oh..I get it. If you didn't fight in a war, specifically the Vietnam war, you have no right to question Kerry's voting record. What a complete load of BS. This seems to be the Democrats' strategy this year: Vietnam, Vietnam, Vietnam. It's all Kerry talks about. Doesn't the Kerry campaign realize that Americans are more concerned about the war we're currently fighting than the one that ended 30 years ago? Apparently not.

Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot shot back: "Every time we have brought to light his voting record, he has responded by saying we have attacked his patriotism. We have praised repeatedly his patriotism." Kerry was asked for examples of the Bush administration attacking his patriotism, and he said that the Bush campaign plans to question his outspoken opposition to the war after he returned. "That reflects on the service." No, it doesn't. Kerry didn't serve in Vietnam on The Mall in Washington with Jane Fonda.

If I were John Edwards, I would definitely stay in the race.

 

John Kerry voted against most of the weapons programs that are being used by our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq today. Do you want a list? Of course you do. So ... here we go with a list of some of the weapons programs that John Kerry opposed while serving in the U.S. Senate: (Remember now ... John Kerry says that this review of his voting record in the Senate is "attacking his patriotism.")

The B-1 bomber.
The B-2 bomber.
The F-15 Eagle tactical fighter
The F-14D Tomcat fighter
The AH-64 Apache Helicopter
The AV-8B Harrier "jump" jet
The Patriot Missile
The Aegis air-defense system
The Trident missile

Kerry also sought to reduce the funding for procurement of the following:

The M1 Abrams tank
The Bradley Fighting Vehicle
The Tomahawk cruise missile
The F-16 Falcon fighter/attack jet


Now ... don't you wonder just how our military would have handled things in Kuwait, Bosnia, Afghanistan and now Iraq without these weapons programs?

 

This one you had in your post:

So, again I ask, Do you think the Iraquis and Afghans are asking this question?

Well, new course has arrived. See you all in a few months or so.

 

Pee Wee Herman

Gina, the press would have a field day with his candidacy. I'd really enjoy seeing his press conferences and reading his interviews - especially as he discusses "adult entertainment". It would introduce needed comic relief into the campaign.

Strangers things have happened, we have a former body builder in Sacramento.

 

DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES SQUARE OFF AT "DEBATE"

10 states go to the polls on Tuesday for the "Super Tuesday" primary, so that means we got treated to yet another debate last night. In addition to it just being the same old same old, it was outright boring. The Democrats really need to do a better job keeping their audiences awake.

John Edwards made his pitch that he was the better candidate because of his blue-collar roots. Apparently only he can know the pain of poor people. Yeah --- right.

John Kerry? He seems like he is running for the President of Vietnam. Kerry tells us that he has the background to serve in office because--why else, you guessed it--he served in Vietnam. Kerry is also running ads in Tuesday's primary states that start out with a picture of a young Lt. Kerry in Vietnam. I guess he's hoping people will forget his 20-year voting record afterward.

Edwards again said that he would not go negative in the debate, but there was an interesting moment when the candidates were pressed on the issue of the death penalty. Kerry said that he opposed the death penalty except for terrorists, then went on to say that the death penalty has compromised America's civility as a nation. That's interesting...will we be compromising our civility when we execute Osama Bin Laden? Nobody asked that one. Edwards supports the death penalty.

Kerry was asked why he now says that gay marriage should be up to the states, but voted against the 1996 Defense of Marriage act that would have done that very thing. He said his views on the law's constitutionality were "incorrect." This is an interesting new tactic we'll probably hear more about as Kerry's record is examined. Essentially he is saying "I was wrong then, but I'm right now." He really could debate himself.

Oh..and no Democratic debate would be complete without a funny line from Al Sharpton...so here it is. About gay marriage, Sharpton said: "The issue is not who you go to bed with. The issue is whether either of you have a job when you get up in the morning."

 

Here 's something for almost everybody. Regardless of whom you plan to vote for, at some point listen to either Ralph Nader or Alan Keyes talk about maintaining civil discourse and civic participation in an age of big money politics. You need not agree with either fellow on policies to profit from their strikingly similar and well-argued pleas for transparency and accountability in the political process. Pick the one on your side of the spectrum--that way you'll spend less time hollering "kook" and more time listening to them on this specific area of concern.

 

I have the greatest respect for Alan Keyes (Ph.D. Harvard, BTW). I watched him debate Alan Dershowitz on TV, and Keyes totally dismantled him.

Nothing terrifies liberals more than conservative blacks like Alan Keyes, Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, and J.C. Watts.

 

Alan Keyes is brillant and an excellent debater. I always suspected had he been white he could have either won or come close to having won the GOP presidential nomination.

The only thing I don't like about him is that he is somewhat of an egoist, in my opinion. His book MASTERS OF THE DREAM is superb.

The nation lost a true statesman when J. C. Watts retired from the U. S. Congress.

As far as conservative blacks, these sites are good:

1. http://www.acrc1.org

2. http://www.acri.org

3. http://www.armstrongwilliams.com

4. http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21Index.html

I used to get a magazine called Headway that was a conservative black magazine but I am not sure it's still available. It was very, very good.

 

Except possibly the notion that holding up a few, albeit brilliant, examples as representative of a message of adopting policies that are harmful to 99% of the rest of the race seems to be a tested strategy used by oppressors that still works in the world. Brings to mind past examples, like Quisling, Skoropadsky, Petain, and Pu Yi.

 

The brilliant Star Parker has appeared on a number of talk, news, and debate format shows with statistics "blowing away" those with your premise.