Thank you for proving my point. Placing [sic] after my typos makes you so much better a person! As long as people like you vote Democrat, I will vote something else.
Wisconsin … just in … Bush 47% , Kerry 41%. Maybe a landslide with Bush winning 47 states is too pessimistic, now probably a 48 state landslide!
Since the OP is asking “what will it take…”, I believe it is unreasonable to expect conservative voters to say: “That Kerry sure is liberal, but heck, he can’t govern as a liberal, so I’ll vote for him”. In the context of this thread, your statement really doesn’t hold water.
The only way to objectively determine that is to look at how he is rated, and he consistently gets rated as one of the more liberal Senators by every group I’ve seen so far. Do you have some data from a respected politcal analysis group that rates Kerry as a moderate? If so, let’s see it.
Im a conservative who would rather have a republican congress wno will stop Kerry from spending too much, stop kerry from engaging in needless foreign wars, etc, instead of a republican congress who rubber stamps every misadventure by the liberal bush.
Although I do understand the idea of exaggerating to make a point, I seem to have missed altogether the rest of the thrust of your post. This only goes to show that not only does no one need me to defend them, I’m also obviously not the person that should be called upon to take another poster to task. 
My apologies.
I can relate, to a certain degree. In the 2000 election, I saw a center-right against a center-left. As you may already know, my politics are on the conservative wing of the extreme left. So I preferred the lefty guy, but wasn’t much excited, being excited about Gore would be like having an orgasm about cottage cheese.
But Bush fooled me as well. I took the stance you illumine, that he wasn’t that radical, and the Congresss could keep in check.
But the Bushiviks managed to convince themselves that they won the election, hands down, mandate city. I think if Gore had “won”, he might have been more conciliartory, he would have said something like “This election reveals our polarity, I will govern with an eye towards the middle. I recognize that I cannot honestly put forth an agenda of change without a mandate for change.”
Did you hear GeeDubya make any such speech?
From the git-go, he has presided as though he won in a landslide. Further, I get the impression that he believes it, as though the vote count were a technicality that can be overlooked. (Or maybe, the outpouring of emotion aftert 9/11 was like a “second election”, that annointed him). In GeeDubya we have a decisive leader who does not suffer doubt.
That is precisely the problem.
No sweat.
I think there are other reasons why Kerry is not liked on the right, other than how he might vote the issues. Some of those reasons are:
-
Many conservatives remember the Vietnam war, and remember the outrage they felt when people like Fonda and Kerry were calling the soldiers war criminals and baby killers. There is still a ton of resentment towards this attitude, and Kerry didn’t help dispel it on Meet the Press last week when he tried to straddle the issue.
-
The same people are offended that the guy who once portrayed the military as a bunch of scumbags is now heavily playing on his military career as a sign of great character.
2a) Speaking of which… He would help himself a lot if he would stop working Vietnam anecdotes into every freaking thing he says. We get it - you were in Vietnam. You did a good job. Way to go. Now shut up about it. It’s now at the point of self-parody.
-
The charge that Kerry is a waffler is sticking. In tough times, Americans don’t want a president who holds his finger up to the wind before he can make a decision. Kerry strikes me as someone who is indecisive - and that’s not a good quality in a wartime President.
-
You know how George Bush does things that you think are signs of bad character or stupidity, and you wonder why those on the right don’t see them? Same thing applies here. Let me give you an example: When John Kerry went skiing, he refused to allow the cameras to follow him down the course the first time. When someone asked him if he was afraid of being photographed falling down, he replied snottily, “I NEVER fall down.” So then, on his second run (with cameras rolling) he ran into a secret service agent and fell down. His response? He got up and pointed at the agent and said, “That son of a bitch cut in front of me.” Now, this offends conservatives in many ways. First, it’s a sign that he won’t take responsibilty for his own actions. Second, he publically trashed a secret service agent who was doing his job, just so he could save face. Third, he felt the need to prop up his skiing ability in the first place. I’ve known guys like this, and I’ve never liked them. I also don’t trust them.
This may be a trivial thing, but so is, say, Bush cleaning his glasses on the coattail of Letterman’s producer. But when you already dislike the guy, these episodes stand out. Remember how offended some of you were at that?
- Kerry refuses to accept responsibility for his actions. For example, yesterday he was asked if he owned an SUV. His response? “No, I don’t. My family owns one.” His ‘family’ being he and his wife. Again, it seems like a small thing, but for people who a predisposed to disliking the man, little episodes like this push them farther away. Come on, Kerry! You own a damned SUV. Admit it. If you’re too afraid of your ‘base’ to come clean on driving an SUV, that doesn’t say much about how you’ll handle tough decisions when you’ve got France and Russia threatening you with diplomatic problems unless you toe the line, and people marching in front of the White House.
None of these are hugely important in and of themselves, but they help to paint a picture, and in the mind of someone already predisposed to disliking the man, it’s not helping.
All of this would be moot if Kerry had some serious proposals we could discuss. But he doesn’t. The sum total of his Iraq plan, for instance, is “I’d get the U.N. more involved.” That is not a serious plan, and even if that were a useful idea, that’s still pretty thin. What are Kerry’s opinions on how to quell the violence? What are his opinions on controlling importing of terrorists from Iran and Syria? What are his positions on Libya? Or Iran? Or Pakistan? Who knows?
On the war on terror, all he’s said is that it’s primarily a law-enforcement problem - which is horribly naive in my opinion and would represent a disastrous roll-back to the Clinton anti-terror policy. What is Kerry’s policy on Guantanamo bay? (His wife has a position - she thinks they should be turned into prisoners of war and accorded all the rights of the Geneva Convention. Kerry’s reponse is typically vague. He mumbled something about how they are ‘combatants’, which seems to be Bush’s position, and that they should be locked up as long as the U.S. is at war with al-Qaida (how do you tell when it’s over?)) How about the military incursions into Syria?
On economics and government policy, Kerry totally fails. He policy plans are a mixture of old-style industrial policy, more progressive taxation, and government ‘job creation’. His spending plans and supposed fiscal conservatism don’t add up. He wants to create myriad new tax loopholes to ‘push’ business in directions HE thinks are good. But of course, the other tax loopholes that are already there (put in place by politicians like him for similar reasons) are “corporate welfare” and must be eliminated. The man is an economic illiterate.
So, getting back to the OP - what would it take to give up on Bush? If I were an American and voting, it would take a Democrat with a strong record on defense, and a moderate-to-conservative background on economic issues. Liberal on social issues is fine. If ‘Scoop’ Jackson were alive and running, he’d get my vote. If Zell Miller or John Breaux were running, they might get it too. If the Libertarians would get their heads out of their asses on the war on terror, I’ve vote for them in a heartbeat.
But given that the choice is Kerry, Bush would have have to do something incredibly egregious. Nothing he’s done so far qualifies. In fact, the things most of you are so outraged about (Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, Iraq) I agree with, and I don’t think he lied about. I’m mad at him for his pushing his religious views into government policy (stem cell compromises, etc), and for his gross overspending on domestic issues. I don’t see a Democrat being any better on these issues, and substantially worse for security and defense.
Dear anti american:
proven to be false
that are biased and treasonist
caused by the former admin, when the Clinton buble burst, and also extended by te attacks on DC and NYC
the ONLY company who can do the job required, excpet maybe one French company, but they were in bed w/ the terrorists
you forgot white and blue, the true Reds are the opposit side
I don’t know, he has done many thing I like, He lowered my taxes 1000’s of dollars (confirmed), and has actually done somethign about he attacks on our cuntrry, got our country out of a deap rescession caused by the Clinton Admin, he is a leader not a poll watcher, and to top it all off he elimitated telemarketers and spam. I guess if he tryed t appoint himself king or run for a 3rd term I would oppose him, but there is no evidence of that. Also I would vote for John F Kennedy um I mean John F*$%en Kerry if it garenteed Hillary would not be elected again
What flak, Iraq is free, my taxes are lower (did I mention it’s comfiremd), the Clinton recession is finally corrected, Spam is on it’s way out and we have a national do not call list. You must be getting your news from a biased souce.
No
Any thinging man who ever played any RTS game knows that the defeat of Iraq was a defeat of terrorism, also any feeling person is happy to get the bastart SH out of power.
We have one each and every year, if you mean another attack against our country then that would re-affirm my vote for W
Would be somewhat suprised, but wouldn’t detue my vote.
No
Kerry is no leader, he is a flip-flop. He tells members of the UAW how many American made SUV’s he has, while telling people during Earth Day that he does nto own a SUV (His family does however :rolleyes: ). This is just one of many exapmles, he will say anything to get elected. He is BAD for our country and bad for the middle class.
To be honest it’s a no-brainer W in 2004
Uh…didn’t GWB campaign on a platform for the 2000 elections that he was a “compassionate conservative”? Have you stopped to consider that this is an admission by GWB whereby he admits that conservatives are not perceived by the public at large to be as “caring”? Why else would he have brought it up? How is it condescending when others place the label on you?
And let’s see, religious fanatics tend not to be condescending?? That’s not even worthy of a response other than :rolleyes:.
If you were a little more correct, you’d be wrong. As it is, though, you’re not even wrong.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Dear anti american:
proven to be false that are biased and treasonist caused by the former admin, when the Clinton buble burst, and also extended by te attacks on DC and NYC the ONLY company who can do the job required, excpet maybe one French company, but they were in bed w/ the terrorists
[quote]
, the ongoing Iraq quagmire and no post war plans
[/quote[ in NO WAY is this a quagmire, we are on our way to a victory, There is simply NO compairson to Vietiam, this shows your bias or you drinking the liberals koolaid. you forgot white and blue, the true Reds are the opposit side I don’t know, he has done many thing I like, He lowered my taxes 1000’s of dollars (confirmed), and has actually done somethign about he attacks on our cuntrry, got our country out of a deap rescession caused by the Clinton Admin, he is a leader not a poll watcher, and to top it all off he elimitated telemarketers and spam. I guess if he tryed t appoint himself king or run for a 3rd term I would oppose him, but there is no evidence of that. Also I would vote for John F Kennedy um I mean John F*$%en Kerry if it garenteed Hillary would not be elected again What flak, Iraq is free, my taxes are lower (did I mention it’s comfiremd), the Clinton recession is finally corrected, Spam is on it’s way out and we have a national do not call list. You must be getting your news from a biased souce.
No Any thinging man who ever played any RTS game knows that the defeat of Iraq was a defeat of terrorism, also any feeling person is happy to get the bastart SH out of power. We have one each and every year, if you mean another attack against our country then that would re-affirm my vote for W Would be somewhat suprised, but wouldn’t detue my vote. No
Kerry is no leader, he is a flip-flop. He tells members of the UAW how many American made SUV’s he has, while telling people during Earth Day that he does nto own a SUV (His family does however :rolleyes: ). This is just one of many exapmles, he will say anything to get elected. He is BAD for our country and bad for the middle class.
To be honest it’s a no-brainer W in 2004[/QUOTE]
Is there a point to asking for citations for any of these?
I’m particularly surpirsed to learn the GWB eliminated spam.
Damn liberal conspiracy thwarted my coding
I think you know this is bullshit. It’s a documented fact that war crimes were committed, and the point Kerry was making was not meant to denigrate the soldiers themselves - he was critisising the leadership that encouraged those actions - he’s made that clear, then and now. I know you’re not that stupid, so it’s obvious you’re just into continuing the smear.
Be honest - it rankles you that a Democrat has the advantage in this particular race when it comes to personal military experience - nothing more to say here, unless you’re willing to admit that it says quite a bit about character (or lack of, when you compare it to G. Bush’s record).
I’ll note you say “sticking” rather than “accurate”. This impression (and the kind of bullshit that follows) is really all you’ve got to smear him with, and the impression itself doesn’t hold up when you compare it to the “waffles” that can be dug up re George Bush. Anyway, are you really trying to argue that you’d prefer a leader who refuses to change his mind/rethink his position when changing facts/reality dictate otherwise???
Is that your best shot? An indication of your desperation to smear (and perhaps some personal bias). The secret service agent was “doing his job” by cutting into and knocking down someone he was hired to protect??? Calling him an SOB is so far-fetched??? Is Kerry an egotistical, competitive alpha-male? Probably. Are you, Sam? Your posting style and standing here highly suggest that you are. I don’t wonder that the behavioural similarity might aggravate you, coming from an ideological competitor. 
This I agree with - people with no brains will vote for W in 2004.
I am unable to recall the liberal masses throwing their support behind Bob Dole, a decorated combat vet, when he was running against Bill Clinton. Hmmm.
This was not intended to be my ‘best shot’. I was pointing out the SMALL things he does that piss off the people you want to cross over the aisle. Just like Bush’s cleaning his glasses on Letterman’s producer’s coat is a small thing, but when you’re predisposed to disliking someone, stuff like this sticks in your memory.
Kerry smeared the entire institution, including the men slogging it out in the rice paddies. He said that they committed atrocities, with the full knowledge and encouragement of their superiors. He implied that it was a systemic problem throughout the military culture, and this is total bullshit. Many of the ‘atrocities’ that he said were ‘documented’ have turned out to be made up by the anti-war movement of the time. Of the few atrocities that did occur, like Mai-Lai, occured without the knowledge or approval of the chain of command beyond Calley (who was charged for his crimes).
In any war you’ll get occasional atrocities by individuals who lose their cool, or who are just assholes. A measure of the quality and morality of the military is how it responds to these acts. Kerry basically claimed that atrocities were standard operating procedure widespread, and carried out with the full knowledge and tacit approval of superior officers up and down the line. This is simply not true.
What if you found out that Bush had trusted known felons, defrauders of Congress, terrorist fundraisers, and those who have illegally passed classified national security secrets to agents of foreign governments, with our national security and with access to classified national security information and gave them influence over our foreign policy?
What if one of the people appointed by GWB tried to use their influence as a chairman of the PotUSA’s defense advisory board to arrange for a front for China’s military intelligence to buy the phone company that handles the Federal government’s and the Army’s phone lines despite the objections of the FBI and the NSA?
Would anyone think that GWB’s decision to continue trusting people like this was a sign of poor judgement?
Would you believe him if he said he wasn’t aware of these histories?
Would all of these things unfortunate things taken together be enough to dissuade anyone from voting for GWB?
I admit, I haven’t read all the posts. Got tired of the back and forth, and besides, the OP asks for each one’s opinion, so here goes.
I withdraw my support for Bush (yes, I supported him, naturally) despite my serious objections against Kerry, on the following grounds:
Many coworkers and friends see Bush as a return to morality after Clinton. This is a fantasy. At least Clinton isn’t pretending to have done his military service.
GWB surrounds himself with “true believers”. When he allowed Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to hang Shinseki out to dry for giving honest testimony regarding necessary troop strength… that’s when I began to reconsider my position. The term “chickenhawk” stings because it’s accurate. Like Bartlett, I’m concerned by the revelations in the Suskind/O’Neill book which demonstrate that GWB from the beginning was more interested in redeeming his father’s apparent (not actual, I believe) failures re Iraq and taxes than in responding responsibly to the real situation on the ground, both at home and abroad. It may be argued that his reversal on CO2 was justified, but he allowed Whitman to take the fall, and continued to press the notion that he was immune to reversal. This type of thinking is dangerous in a world leader.
Similarly, he pushes the simplistic “for me or against me” rhetoric, while turning a blind eye to Pakistan and giving the wink to Saudi Arabia. Clearly, the Saudi situation is delicate, as is Pakistan, and I would not want to approach it in a for-or-against manner, but his rhetoric is condescending, insulting, and transparently false in the face of the actual situation.
He treats American citizens like whores. The letter I received with my tax refund check was self-serving drivel.
The real break, however, came during the recent Rice testimony debacle. Until then, I was still ready to support W despite my very serious misgivings. But then he lied with a straight face to the American public, to me, saying that Rice could not testify before a Congressional body. He knows it’s not a Congressional body, but he also knows that most people will assume it is. When I heard that, I had the same reaction as when Clinton’s “I want you to listen to me… I never had sex with that woman” speech was shown for what it was. Only this time, it was my man who was lying to my face, and snickering to boot. That was the final straw.
The man is not a statesman. He is not particularly intelligent. He certainly is not well spoken. Yes, I believe all of these traits are vital in a President. But most importantly, I do not trust him to make informed, balanced decisions. I’m willing to risk a change. I will not vote for the frat-boy-in-chief with his “y’see” mannerisms and blindness to political pragmatism. He is not a true conservative, certainly not fiscally, nor Constitutionally, and he has not earned my respect or my vote – and I am not prepared to grant it to him simply because I support the GOP. In fact, my party owes me better, and the leadership needs to understand that. I’m willing to bear a short-term loss if it will improve high-level decision making in the long run.
I’m certainly not saying that I wish I’d voted for Al Gore. But GWB has betrayed his father’s legacy and my trust. The Party will have to do without me this year.
Sam, I must disagree, and there are documented facts (not “made up”) that back me up. It wasn’t just Mai-Lai, and the definition of “few” and “occasional” is debatable in this instance. I don’t want to hijack this thread with this subject, but the broader point that Kerry was trying to make (then and now) is still pertinant. And has nothing to do with denigrating the troops. I still call total bullshit on that point. What you termed “straddle the issue on MTP” was his way of dealing with the debatable issues about war crimes that are still unanswered re Vietnam. Don’t take advantage of a complex issue by feigning ignorance, okay?
BTW, there’s no accounting for the “small stuff” that makes someone like/dislike a candidate. I don’t think that was the issue here, so I questioned your inclusion of it as a salient point.
Simon X: From the recent polls, it seems most people are aware (however dimly) that G. Bush and co. engaged in dubious actions. Unfortunately, none of them involved anything as “interesting” as a “blow job” or “pussy”. So of course it isn’t outrageous or actionable. Sad but true… unless you’ve got a better explanation…
Well, if I had $200 million, raised primarily from wealthy donors, I would probably be able to make some charges stick on people too. Nobody claimed the Republican smear machine was ineffective (nor that Kerry is not a politician, as Bush is too, and thus tries to appeal to people by tailoring what he says to his audience).
More to the point on the waffler stuff, here is an article from The Nation I linked to before that documents times when Kerry took some tough stands or ran tough investigation…including ones that pissed off the Democratic establishment. Of course, I know you will think The Nation is a biased source but the question is whether the facts in this article are wrong. (At any rate, your posts on Kerry seem to pretty much tow the RNC line without actually citing them, although I dug up one of the cites one time for all to see where the stuff was at least indirectly coming from.)
As for what the American people want, I would hope that they also don’t want a President who puts ideology ahead of facts, distorts or cherry-picks scientific and intelligence information to suit his purposes (e.g, Iraq or here), and who comes up with his positions first (e.g., his tax cuts or invasion of Iraq) and the rationalizations to sell them second.
Do you have cites to support your view? Here is a link to the 2004 Pulitzer Prize award for articles documenting some atrocities in Vietnam, with links to the actual articles. I admit that I haven’t actually read the articles so I don’t know if they claim it was a systemic problem or isolated incidents.