Kerry Bashing

[JustDucky]

I find it interesting that Dick Cheney says "we might get hit again" if Kerry is president.

Who was in office when the WTC came down?

Does anyone notice a pattern that when there is a Bush in office (as well as a Republican president with Cheney somewhere lurking in the background) there is trouble in Iraq? Everyone I've talked to that is pro-Bush says that Clinton is the reason why 'we' are in this position and if Kerry is elected he'll fail to get bin Laden and all this babble babble that these die hard Republican's go off on that I talk to.

Funny how they don't say anything about what Bush has done (lost millions of jobs and driven the deficit to the moon - and for anyone who complains about it please feel free to send the US government a cheque to help the deficit) and hasn't done (this list is way too long).

Just an observation from something I heard on the news this evening. Of course, look at what Govenor Blanco is doing in Louisiana. It's amazing this state even exists.

More hurricanes.

[UAHparrothead]

what has Kerry done in 20 years in the Senate?
By the way, Kerry voted for the war in Iraq and then he voted not to fund it. He has voted for tax increases but against defense spending. He voted for NAFTA which has sent more jobs to Mexico than brought jobs here. He supports partial birth abortions. In 1988, Kerry voted against a 16-hour-per-week work requirement for welfare recipients.

In 1993 Kerry voted for President Clinton’s budget measure that included an increase in the top tax rate to 36 percent, a 4.3 cent-per-gallon increase in the gasoline tax and an increase in the amount of Social Security benefits subject to taxation.

But the following year Kerry voted against a bipartisan effort to cut spending by $94 billion over five years, and in 1995 Kerry opposed a Republican plan to cut projected spending by $900 billion over six years.

More spending and more taxes. That is the democratic mantra.

I could go on. I am not saying Bush has done everything right. But John Kerry is bad news. He has no morals, no backbone, and stands for only what will bring him popularity or money. Just my two cents. If you are gonna vote for someone at least know what they stand for

[sirgumby77]

If you belive any word Kerry or Bush says, Im sorry to say, you must think the gas is still 33 cents a gallon.


Neither of these canadiates are telling truths. They are both big phoneys---voting for them is just a vote for stupidity.

[Key Lime Lee]

By the way, Kerry voted for the war in Iraq

Actually that's not true. Do the research.

All politicians attempt to spin stuff in their favor. Best bet is to take it all with a grain of salt and do enough research to form your own opinions.

Unfortunately as long as the misleading sound bites continue to convince people of mistruths like "Kerry votes for the war in Iraq" then both sides are gonna keep on doing it.

We get the government and the politicians we deserve.

[bumper]

Karl Rove: "Kerry gave green light to Bush on Iraq". (Apr 2004)
No regrets on war vote-but regrets on Bush breaking promises. (Feb 2004)
Bush went to war the wrong way-I voted for the right way. (Jan 2004)
Maybe on $87B for Iraq-repeal Bush tax cut to pay it, if yes. (Sep 2003)
Vote for war was needed to push Saddam on inspectors. (Sep 2003)
Voted NO on $86.5 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Voted NO on allowing all necessary forces and other means in Kosovo. (May 1999)
Voted YES on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999)
Voted NO on ending the Bosnian arms embargo. (Jul 1995)
Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism. (Oct 2001)
Move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. (Nov 1995)

"The vote I cast was not a vote to go to war immediately," he said.

"We get the government and the politicians we deserve"

You are acknowleding our politcal leaders are simply a microcosm of the general cultural trend in society, that in essence they are a reflection of the general population's beliefs, ethics and norms.

[Key Lime Lee]

The problem with most Americans - as aptly demonstrated by your list of headlines - is that most folks don't read BEYOND the headlines.

HOW somebody voted on a bill is far less important than WHY they voted that way. Their explanations of why they voted that way is all a matter of public record for citizens who actually care enough to educate themselves before they head into the voting booth.

That goes both ways - it's not fair to judge Bush on sound bites or abstract statistics either.

Regardless, there is no bill in existance where John Kerry voted in favor of the Iraq war. If you think there is, you've really made NO effort to form your own opinion.

[Caribbean Soul Man]

I find it interesting that Dick Cheney says "we might get hit again" if Kerry is president.

Who was in office when the WTC came down?

Cheney's comment has been clarified many times but here goes again.

First of all, the Bush Cheney Administration both understands and communicates clearly (through the Dept. of Home Land Security) that we certainly could get hit again any day no matter who is in office.

In proper context, Cheney's comment addressed a dramatically different philosophical approach to the prosecution of the War on Terror. Kerry's approach (on the few occasions when he's reluctantly discussed his own plans) is very similar to the Clinton doctrine of handling terrorists and terrorist acts as criminal acts and the terrorists were prosecuted under civilian criminal codes (i.e., 1st Trade Center bombing).

We all know what the Bush Cheney doctrine is regarding terrorists and terrorist acts; we've seen it in action. We treat them as enemy combatants and we view their attacks as individual acts of war. I mean we all need to wake up here. We are at war. Not because we chose to be, not because a Bush is in the White House, and not because Clinton was there for 8 years either. This thing goes way beyond partisan politics. Anyone who thinks the terrorists make decisions on whether or not to attack us based on the personal politics of the President (any President) has their head in the sand. They want to kill all of us - period!

Think about it, doesn't it just make sense that we are ALL safer taking it to the terrorists from this perspective rather than the approach of waiting until the next attack and then go after them with attorneys? Or the cowaring, pandering, try not to offend them and cross you fingers approach of the French and Germans? Just ask the Saudis how well that works. It's just common sense.

No Bush has not been perfect in every decision every step of the way. There's no disputing that but then who would be? Kerry? What do we have to base that on?

When President Bush looked directly into the camera during his nomination speech and promised us all that he would do everything he could every day to protect our families and our country, "no matter what," I believe him and I believe he is absolutely sincere about this. I don't think Kerry has really ever made that statement although I could be wrong. I certainly have not seen him make a similar statement. I'm not saying Kerry would not actively protect the American People, I'm sure he would. But when it comes to the safety of my wife and children, I need a hell of better reason to switch out a war-time President than some 30 year old story about Bush in the Air National Guard.

Back to my original point (quickly) the differences between the philosophical approaches of each candidate regarding the prosecution of the War on Terror are KEY ISSUES. This is only a "personal attack" if taken out of context, mis-represented, or misunderstood. It's a legitimate point of difference.

[Caribbean Soul Man]

The problem with most Americans - as aptly demonstrated by your list of headlines - is that most folks don't read BEYOND the headlines.

HOW somebody voted on a bill is far less important than WHY they voted that way. Their explanations of why they voted that way is all a matter of public record for citizens who actually care enough to educate themselves before they head into the voting booth.

That goes both ways - it's not fair to judge Bush on sound bites or abstract statistics either.

Regardless, there is no bill in existance where John Kerry voted in favor of the Iraq war. If you think there is, you've really made NO effort to form your own opinion.

Lee,
I completely understand your point and I wish there was a law against tacking on completely unrelated amendments (or additional pork) to try and piggy-back legislation through the system. But I have heard Kerry in his own words basically say that he would have done the same thing in Iraq with exception to some of the tactical decisions. I don't have the quotes handy but as well informed as you are, I imagine you know what I'm referring to. Can we take the man at his word? You tell me. Wasn't this a major point of difference between Kerry and Dean earlier in the Primaries? The Kerry supporters who think Kerry would not have gone there or who think he's going to start pulling troops out if he gets elected seem to be misinformed according to what I've heard from his own mouth.

[Lightning Bolt]

We are at war. Not because we chose to be, not because a Bush is in the White House...

The war against bin Laden and terrorism was not by choice, but by absolute necessity. No argument there.
But, the war in Iraq was a war of choice, and by choosing to ignore all reports and intelligence that were contradictory, we are now in the middle of a unwinnable quagmire.
Roses for the liberators, my a$$... they're lobbing grenades and RPG's at us.
We need a leader who can instill international confidence in a multilateral solution and exit strategy (just like we did in Desert Storm)
Cut and run, you counter? If we had SMART about this in the first place, the question would not have to be asked.

It is not in so much I believe Kerry is the perfect solution, as much as I truly have proof that Bush is a perfect disaster!

[CaptainP]

George Bush wears army boots.


Oh wait, no he doesn't....






OK, I'm outta here....I hate politics.

[bumper]

The problem with most Americans - as aptly demonstrated by your list of headlines - is that most folks don't read BEYOND the headlines.

HOW somebody voted on a bill is far less important than WHY they voted that way. Their explanations of why they voted that way is all a matter of public record for citizens who actually care enough to educate themselves before they head into the voting booth.

That goes both ways - it's not fair to judge Bush on sound bites or abstract statistics either.

Regardless, there is no bill in existance where John Kerry voted in favor of the Iraq war. If you think there is, you've really made NO effort to form your own opinion.

That is the twist of all politics and politicians. Case in point, Kerry after returning from Nam admitted, acknowledged involvement in war crimes. There are links, audio the written word verify his comments time and time again. However I am willing to take him at his word rather to prove him wrong by offerring excuses to the contrary. Point again made by his above quote. There was no vote on the Iraq war but rather a vote for the president's option for war but here again Kerry is caught in quotes stating HE voted for the war. Misleading ya think? yet somehow many not so informed citizens will take he and Bush at their word and why should'nt they?

[Lastplaneout]

Well here's the p***. Usually candidates talk smack about each other...like VP would smack up the VP candidate. But Cheney is beatin' on Kerry and Edwards is getting spared right now. I think Kerry needs to throw some mud on that Draft Dodging, 5 college deferment, walking heart attack. Also I believe those who never served in the military especially those who got their daddies to keep them out of it have no room to talk.

Ok i'm done...no more politics for me today...I like to keep my firends

[RinglingRingling]

what has Kerry done in 20 years in the Senate?
By the way, Kerry voted for the war in Iraq and then he voted not to fund it. He has voted for tax increases but against defense spending. He voted for NAFTA which has sent more jobs to Mexico than brought jobs here. He supports partial birth abortions. In 1988, Kerry voted against a 16-hour-per-week work requirement for welfare recipients.

a) so if you see your initial belief or the basic premise of a policy is flawed, you should still stick with your original position...

b) perhaps he did, what was minimum wage in 1988? and what was the cost of child-care for 16 hours a week per kid? In that light, as now, welfare-to-work for minimum wage jobs is not really helping the situation either....
In 1993 Kerry voted for President Clinton’s budget measure that included an increase in the top tax rate to 36 percent, a 4.3 cent-per-gallon increase in the gasoline tax and an increase in the amount of Social Security benefits subject to taxation.

again.. so what? My heart doesn't really bleed all that much for someone making 8% less while earning a million a year... 80k in taxes... bfd. It's not like they are going to miss a meal or two with the 600k left, even if they don't have exemptions and deductions to apply against the initial tax bill.

As for 4.3 cents a gallon in gas taxes, those go to the Federal Highway Trust Fund, which is usually used as a tool to keep the deficit looking smaller than it actually is.

And tax-and-spend seems a bit more reasonable than spend-and-pay-more-later-via-bond-interest (credit card spending like the Repubs seem to enjoy...)

But the following year Kerry voted against a bipartisan effort to cut spending by $94 billion over five years, and in 1995 Kerry opposed a Republican plan to cut projected spending by $900 billion over six years.

depends on what was being proposed for cuts... nice soundbyte.. but ultimately worthless without points of reference and context.

More spending and more taxes. That is the democratic mantra.

"And tax-and-spend seems a bit more reasonable than spend-and-pay-more-later-via-bond-interest (credit card spending like the Repubs seem to enjoy...)"

I could go on. I am not saying Bush has done everything right. But John Kerry is bad news. He has no morals, no backbone, and stands for only what will bring him popularity or money. Just my two cents. If you are gonna vote for someone at least know what they stand for

Bush lies about his military service, his drug and alcohol history, the reasons for his invasion of Iraq, and does anything and everything he can to come across as a "strong leader". You don't think he is in it for the popularity and the campaign money as well? If you do, you really need to think a bit more.

[bumper]

what has Kerry done in 20 years in the Senate?
By the way, Kerry voted for the war in Iraq and then he voted not to fund it. He has voted for tax increases but against defense spending. He voted for NAFTA which has sent more jobs to Mexico than brought jobs here. He supports partial birth abortions. In 1988, Kerry voted against a 16-hour-per-week work requirement for welfare recipients.

a) so if you see your initial belief or the basic premise of a policy is flawed, you should still stick with your original position...

b) perhaps he did, what was minimum wage in 1988? and what was the cost of child-care for 16 hours a week per kid? In that light, as now, welfare-to-work for minimum wage jobs is not really helping the situation either....
In 1993 Kerry voted for President Clinton’s budget measure that included an increase in the top tax rate to 36 percent, a 4.3 cent-per-gallon increase in the gasoline tax and an increase in the amount of Social Security benefits subject to taxation.

again.. so what? My heart doesn't really bleed all that much for someone making 8% less while earning a million a year... 80k in taxes... bfd. It's not like they are going to miss a meal or two with the 600k left, even if they don't have exemptions and deductions to apply against the initial tax bill.

As for 4.3 cents a gallon in gas taxes, those go to the Federal Highway Trust Fund, which is usually used as a tool to keep the deficit looking smaller than it actually is.

And tax-and-spend seems a bit more reasonable than spend-and-pay-more-later-via-bond-interest (credit card spending like the Repubs seem to enjoy...)

But the following year Kerry voted against a bipartisan effort to cut spending by $94 billion over five years, and in 1995 Kerry opposed a Republican plan to cut projected spending by $900 billion over six years.

depends on what was being proposed for cuts... nice soundbyte.. but ultimately worthless without points of reference and context.

More spending and more taxes. That is the democratic mantra.

"And tax-and-spend seems a bit more reasonable than spend-and-pay-more-later-via-bond-interest (credit card spending like the Repubs seem to enjoy...)"

I could go on. I am not saying Bush has done everything right. But John Kerry is bad news. He has no morals, no backbone, and stands for only what will bring him popularity or money. Just my two cents. If you are gonna vote for someone at least know what they stand for

Bush lies about his military service, his drug and alcohol history, the reasons for his invasion of Iraq, and does anything and everything he can to come across as a "strong leader". You don't think he is in it for the popularity and the campaign money as well? If you do, you really need to think a bit more.

Current money line Bush................-200
Kerry...............+185

Translation, Bush a 2-1 favorite. Despite all the "lies". Speaks rather clearly about how the majority feels about Kerry.

[RinglingRingling]

Current money line Bush................-200
Kerry...............+185

Translation, Bush a 2-1 favorite. Despite all the "lies". Speaks rather clearly about how the majority feels about Kerry.

or how deeply the average voter has been brainwashed...

[Lightning Bolt]

what has Kerry done in 20 years in the Senate?
By the way, Kerry voted for the war in Iraq and then he voted not to fund it. He has voted for tax increases but against defense spending. He voted for NAFTA which has sent more jobs to Mexico than brought jobs here. He supports partial birth abortions. In 1988, Kerry voted against a 16-hour-per-week work requirement for welfare recipients.

a) so if you see your initial belief or the basic premise of a policy is flawed, you should still stick with your original position...

b) perhaps he did, what was minimum wage in 1988? and what was the cost of child-care for 16 hours a week per kid? In that light, as now, welfare-to-work for minimum wage jobs is not really helping the situation either....
In 1993 Kerry voted for President Clinton’s budget measure that included an increase in the top tax rate to 36 percent, a 4.3 cent-per-gallon increase in the gasoline tax and an increase in the amount of Social Security benefits subject to taxation.

again.. so what? My heart doesn't really bleed all that much for someone making 8% less while earning a million a year... 80k in taxes... bfd. It's not like they are going to miss a meal or two with the 600k left, even if they don't have exemptions and deductions to apply against the initial tax bill.

As for 4.3 cents a gallon in gas taxes, those go to the Federal Highway Trust Fund, which is usually used as a tool to keep the deficit looking smaller than it actually is.

And tax-and-spend seems a bit more reasonable than spend-and-pay-more-later-via-bond-interest (credit card spending like the Repubs seem to enjoy...)

But the following year Kerry voted against a bipartisan effort to cut spending by $94 billion over five years, and in 1995 Kerry opposed a Republican plan to cut projected spending by $900 billion over six years.

depends on what was being proposed for cuts... nice soundbyte.. but ultimately worthless without points of reference and context.

More spending and more taxes. That is the democratic mantra.

"And tax-and-spend seems a bit more reasonable than spend-and-pay-more-later-via-bond-interest (credit card spending like the Repubs seem to enjoy...)"

I could go on. I am not saying Bush has done everything right. But John Kerry is bad news. He has no morals, no backbone, and stands for only what will bring him popularity or money. Just my two cents. If you are gonna vote for someone at least know what they stand for

Bush lies about his military service, his drug and alcohol history, the reasons for his invasion of Iraq, and does anything and everything he can to come across as a "strong leader". You don't think he is in it for the popularity and the campaign money as well? If you do, you really need to think a bit more.

Current money line Bush................-200
Kerry...............+185

Translation, Bush a 2-1 favorite. Despite all the "lies". Speaks rather clearly about how the majority feels about Kerry.

I think it's kinda ridiculous to consider Las Vegas oddsmakers (and gamblers who would bet on this) as a sober judge of American sentiment.
By the way, that line will likely be different by tomorrow a.m.

If a simple majority was the standard for popularity (and electability), we wouldn't have Bush in the White House in the first place, would we?

[bumper]

Current money line Bush................-200
Kerry...............+185

Translation, Bush a 2-1 favorite. Despite all the "lies". Speaks rather clearly about how the majority feels about Kerry.

or how deeply the average voter has been brainwashed...

Credit where credit is due. Guess it depends on to what degree you consider your fellow citizens intelligent enough to make up their own minds or sheep to be led off a cliff.

[bumper]

what has Kerry done in 20 years in the Senate?
By the way, Kerry voted for the war in Iraq and then he voted not to fund it. He has voted for tax increases but against defense spending. He voted for NAFTA which has sent more jobs to Mexico than brought jobs here. He supports partial birth abortions. In 1988, Kerry voted against a 16-hour-per-week work requirement for welfare recipients.

a) so if you see your initial belief or the basic premise of a policy is flawed, you should still stick with your original position...

b) perhaps he did, what was minimum wage in 1988? and what was the cost of child-care for 16 hours a week per kid? In that light, as now, welfare-to-work for minimum wage jobs is not really helping the situation either....
In 1993 Kerry voted for President Clinton’s budget measure that included an increase in the top tax rate to 36 percent, a 4.3 cent-per-gallon increase in the gasoline tax and an increase in the amount of Social Security benefits subject to taxation.

again.. so what? My heart doesn't really bleed all that much for someone making 8% less while earning a million a year... 80k in taxes... bfd. It's not like they are going to miss a meal or two with the 600k left, even if they don't have exemptions and deductions to apply against the initial tax bill.

As for 4.3 cents a gallon in gas taxes, those go to the Federal Highway Trust Fund, which is usually used as a tool to keep the deficit looking smaller than it actually is.

And tax-and-spend seems a bit more reasonable than spend-and-pay-more-later-via-bond-interest (credit card spending like the Repubs seem to enjoy...)

But the following year Kerry voted against a bipartisan effort to cut spending by $94 billion over five years, and in 1995 Kerry opposed a Republican plan to cut projected spending by $900 billion over six years.

depends on what was being proposed for cuts... nice soundbyte.. but ultimately worthless without points of reference and context.

More spending and more taxes. That is the democratic mantra.

"And tax-and-spend seems a bit more reasonable than spend-and-pay-more-later-via-bond-interest (credit card spending like the Repubs seem to enjoy...)"

I could go on. I am not saying Bush has done everything right. But John Kerry is bad news. He has no morals, no backbone, and stands for only what will bring him popularity or money. Just my two cents. If you are gonna vote for someone at least know what they stand for

Bush lies about his military service, his drug and alcohol history, the reasons for his invasion of Iraq, and does anything and everything he can to come across as a "strong leader". You don't think he is in it for the popularity and the campaign money as well? If you do, you really need to think a bit more.

Current money line Bush................-200
Kerry...............+185

Translation, Bush a 2-1 favorite. Despite all the "lies". Speaks rather clearly about how the majority feels about Kerry.

I think it's kinda ridiculous to consider Las Vegas oddsmakers (and gamblers who would bet on this) as a sober judge of American sentiment.
By the way, that line will likely be different by tomorrow a.m.

If a simple majority was the standard for popularity (and electability), we wouldn't have Bush in the White House in the first place, would we?

Guess so if you consider the electoral vote insiginificant and the U.S. Supreme Ct. obsolete.

You clearly do not understand the money line and you are correct in the odds will change...since the DNC, Kerry as gone from even money to where he is now.

[Lightning Bolt]

My point was, I think it's kinda ridiculous to consider Las Vegas oddsmakers (and gamblers who would bet on this) as a sober judge of American sentiment.

[Caribbean Soul Man]

The war against bin Laden and terrorism was not by choice, but by absolute necessity. No argument there.
But, the war in Iraq was a war of choice, and by choosing to ignore all reports and intelligence that were contradictory, we are now in the middle of a unwinnable quagmire.
Roses for the liberators, my a$$... they're lobbing grenades and RPG's at us.
We need a leader who can instill international confidence in a multilateral solution and exit strategy (just like we did in Desert Storm)
Cut and run, you counter? If we had SMART about this in the first place, the question would not have to be asked.

It is not in so much I believe Kerry is the perfect solution, as much as I truly have proof that Bush is a perfect disaster!

The whole civilized world knew those weapons were there and we still have no proof of their disposition. The U.N., the French, the Germans, the British, the Russians, the Israelis, and yes, America. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle saw all the same intel reports, not just from the CIA but from British Intel, French, etc. Clinton believed they were there, Kerry believed they were there, Edwards believed they were there. They're all on record. The 9-11 comission even hinted that we had the evidence to take pre-emptive measures against Al Queda in Aphganistan. Many democrats in Congress were hesitant to support action in Aphganistan even AFTER 9-11, yet they sieze the opportunity to criticize Bush for not acting soon enough.

If Bush chose not to take Saddam out and he had used WMD, they'd be trying to impeach him. He has explained this clearly, it wasn't a gamble he was willing to take based on the intel he had which everyone else (yes even John F. Kerry) also believed to be accurate. Gee, I wonder why our intel on the ground in Iraq wasn't what it was back in the late 80's - early 90's? How quickly we forget.