That may be accurate. 
OTOH, it’s also not a very ringing endorsement of Kerry, either. And it assumes that the Republicans will retain/regain control of the Senate. I’m still trying to find a third party candidate I can vote for in good conscience. :rolleyes:
To me, the question isn’t some much “how much Kerry must undo,” but what. I muddled through the Bush I presidency without much serious complaint (apart from Clarence Thomas), so it’s not like I’m just insanely anti-Republican by nature. My elemental detest for Bush II is attributed to a relatively small set of policies he has implemented, particularly the botched War on Iraq, the rhetoric-first War on Terrorism, and the undeclared War on Fiscal Reality. Take care of those three items and I’m a happy camper.
On the other, other hand: 
This current congress launched virtually toothless investigations, and even then, they drew blood from THIS president. I do wonder what could have happened had congress had been in democratic hands.
A while ago, there was a discussion if Bush was among the worst presidents, for that IMO, it will take Bush to be elected and then get a democratic congress. Then I foresee the resignation of Cheney and Bush due well-investigated scandals, and then it will be officially the worse administration.
More seriously: The lack of balance due the largesse congress is giving to this president… did I say largesse? I mean they virtually look the other way when monumental errors like Chalavi appear!
I know that in my good conscience, I would not allow this president to receive any more of this asinine generosity.
There’s the judge issue, and as I said, he reinstated the global gag rule. And while I’ve heard mixed things on the Justice Department looking for new cases on abortion, I think they’d be more likely to go for it during a second term.
I’d prefer to vote for someone who agrees with me on issues that matter to me.
You didn’t read the rest of the thread, did you?
And you know what - report me, instead of throwing around thinly veiled accusations. I’m perfectly aware what I wrote. And considering how debates here and in the Pit are going (Saddamites, Bushco, whatever) I think it’s perfectly valid to use a short hand way of asking a question.
But since I was called on it early in the thread, I expanded the question.
And the reason for the OP is simple. When checking out Kerry’s homepage, I get the impression that he’s either playing it safe for the sake of winning the election, which I think is cowardly, or he’s actually not all that radical. And I wonder if he would win by design or by default, i.e. - Is the hate/distaste/mistrust of GWB the main thing that would put him in office. And if that’s the case, how will Dems react if they wake up and realize that there is little or no change.
The tax cut for the wealthiest 1% makes for nice rethoric, but my gut feeling (I’m to lazy to look it up and do the math) says that it won’t really effect the economy.
He’s not that radical. While I’m sure he’s playing it safe some of the time, he’s not that far out.
We’ve heard people say that over and over again
If Kerry isn’t a radical, in at least some respects the Bush administration has proven that it is. A moderate Democrat vs. a conservative Republican doesn’t add up to “little or no change.”
Reversing the tax cut is a pretty popular issue with some people. I don’t think Kerry has promised to be radically different, he’s said he has a better approach and can take the country in a better direction. There are areas where his policies and Bush’s aren’t very different, but that’s not all of them.
Sorry. Should read “We’ve heard people say that over and over again, but I don’t think he’d be even in the polls with Bush if he was only relying on an anti-Bush vote. He’s laid out his own ideas at this point.”
I can certainly understand that. And because of where I live, I have the freedom of knowing that however I choose to vote all of NY’s Electoral College votes will go to Kerry - so I can make a protest vote in good conscience.
But I question any assertation that because Bush is corrupt, Kerry must be better. Kerry is a Massachusetts Democrat - which means, among other things, he’s proven himself willing to kowtow to the Kennedy clan. In my mind that translates to being willing, at least, to turn the other eye to corruption when it is in his interest. I’m not trying to convince anyone to my own views here - just explaining where I’m coming from.
I’m also very upset that because his ‘environmental principles’ Kerry has made a promise that if he is elected NOTHING will be done about the Yucca Flats nuclear waste storage facility. While I can understand the local reaction to that facility - I do believe that there has been a careful, scientific study about where the best place to put the spent fuel has been accomplished. And any environmental risks associated with transportation and storage of nuclear waste in a single long term facility is going to be orders of magnitude less than the current situation where decades of spent fuel is sitting in temporary pools often inside metropolitan borders.
So far this is the election that I would most like to have a ‘None of the Above’ choice on the ballot. I don’t trust Shrub. I don’t trust Kerry. And the minor parties I’ve looked at all have party planks that leave me with no way to justify voting for them. (Not the whole platform of any party, mind you. Just a few planks that are so wrong to my mind, that I will NOT vote for them while they have those planks.)
I’m glad, because that’s a very weak attempt at guilt-by-association.
As several have said- I am a Dem, and so far Kerry hasn’t done anything I’d ask him to undo, and I am not disappointed in him. Your OP premise is that every Democrat is somehow unhappy with Kerry, and he’d have to “undo” at least something to make us satisfied (and that the GOP is going to accuse him of Treason sooner or later). :rolleyes: When both rjung and John Mace (not to mention me) calls you on your “have you stopped beating your wife?” premise- then there is something wrong. At the very least - the OP is inflammitory. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt based on “English as a second language”. :dubious: That’s not a “short hand way” it’s deliberately inflammitory.
This isn’t the PIT, either.
How is it an attempt at guilt by association? I already defined, in my post, that it worked for me.
If I were trying convince anyone I’d build a case with cites. But, the Kennedys, pro or con, are such an emotional icon that you can’t convince anyone of a position they are not already pre-disposed to accept. T’ain’t worth the hassle. I think, however, that most observers of Massachusetts politics will admit that any Democrat who publically criticizes the Kennedys in any way, shape, or form, will not be re-elected.
The fact that you’re saying it in public makes it an attempt to use it as a strike against Kerry for other people.
For all I know, that’s true, but he’s been such a vocal admirer of John F. Kennedy for so long that I don’t think any charges of kowtowing to corruption are warranted. Nevermind the question of whether or not they make sense.
So I should just shut up about my reasons and be a good little house boy? The fact I said I wasn’t trying to convince anyone of anything means nothing. Gosh, I thought that I the right to speak my mind, now that I’m out of the Navy. Silly me.
And could you explain to me, in words of one syllable, please, just what relation John F. Kennedy has had to politics in Massachusetts from, oh, let’s be generous, 1980 on? Or to the Kennedy family, for that matter?
And do you really want an example of Kennedy corruption?
Consider Michael Skakel, a member of the extended Kennedy clan. For 20 years he was considered a suspect in a particularly gruesome murder. The investigation had gone cold. Then he spoke out against a Kennedy clan member, and against Senator Ted Kennedy, in particular. And, while not suddenly, but a short time after that the investigation is re-opened, charges are laid, and he is tried.
From: This source
To my nose this stinks at least as bad as anything that Shrub has done. And, if Kerry were concerned about things like, say, due process, or equality before the law, or even simple justice for Martha Moxley, he could have said at any time that the Kennedys might want to use their leverage to explain why the murder investigation stalled for so long, or why it seemed to restart after the man who has been convicted of the crime happened to say something uncomplimentary about the Kennedy Machine. Just one example off the top of my head.
That is how I would go about beginning to build a guilt by association case. Do you see the difference, now?
I’m not looking for Kerry to win, but if he does…
If the Senate Democrats are, as I fear, weak-willed enough to confirm Porter Goss, I would hope like hell that Kerry fires him Day One. Goss was against investigating the Valerie Plame case, Abu Ghraib and Chalabi, among many other black marks. Democrats who are making cowardly “let’s not make a stink” noises need to realize that they’ll look like hypocrites crowing about the country needing change, yet accepting such a slimeball for such an important post. Argh! (sorry, Goss is a pet political peeve of mine)
I’d like Kerry to launch investigations in all kinds of things, from 9/11 (the Comission really dropped the ball in many areas), to Abu Ghraib, to the outing of covert agents.
You’d have done a lot better to provide some, you know, *examples * of this alleged kowtowing.
Ah, so that’s it. Okay, we needn’t bother with facts; you already *know * the “truth”.
Au contraire. The hassle is absolutely *necessary * here. Simply asserting lightweight opinions is the province of MPSIMS. But this is GD - not the place to be if you don’t want to convince anyone else and aren’t interested in being convinced to the contrary, either.
I’m one, as a very longtime resident though not a native. What are your qualifications?
Not true; there’s a strong resentment of them as well that is simply outnumbered. Any candidate who challenges Ted Kennedy for the Senate is guaranteed a 40% base right from the get-go, for instance. As for “any Democrat’s criticism”, do you have any examples of any who might have thought it was politically helpful to offer it?
And obviously, so do you. :rolleyes:
Ah, so I can only comment on Massachusetts politics if I am or was a resident? Well, I’m afraid I have to disappoint you: From 1973 to 1989 I was legal resident of Massachusetts. Not always in state, mind you, but a resident and doing my best to keep up with local politics. If your 40% figure is right, and I’m not saying it’s wrong, then in the past fifteen years things have changed. I certainly remember Joe Kennedy (whichever Mk is the one, now) moving to Middlesex County to run for the House - approximately a week before the deadline for residency, and running in an election some months later. And he won that by a landslide. The impression I’d had was that even with the various staunch Kennedy bashers, there was a guaranteed 60-70% majority that felt that the Kennedys were the royal family of Massachusetts and could do no wrong.
So, criticism is only expected when it advances the politician’s career? Well, thank you so much for clearing all the bad feelings I’ve been getting about Shrub, then. It certainly wouldn’t be in his short term best interests to have done anything about Haliburton or several other things people are holding him (Rightly, mind you.) accountable for.
By the way, why is it that you chose to focus so much on this one aspect of my dislike of Kerry? Rather than anything that I mentioned with specifics already in the post?
I never said that every Democrat is unhappy with Kerry. If you can find such a quote, I’ll be happy to wthdraw that assertion.
But after reading his webpage and after thinking about what might change and what might not, I started thinking. What if he doesn’t change all that much? How much has he got to roll back things done by the GWB administration for a democrat to be happy. There are enough political threads for me to realize than “anyone but Bush” is a somewhat common theme. But what if that anyone doesn’t change very much. Bring in France and Germany to deal with Iraq, change the tax cut, re-institute partial birth abortions (as it so misleadingly is called).
There are a number of controversial issues and I wonder how much he must do, for democrats not to be disappointed. I have a nagging feeling that he won’t do enough, at least not during his first term. American kids are still going to die in Iraq. DHS will still have legal possibilities which conflict with personal privacy. Bio-metric passports will be a requirement to enter the US. There is surely some point where a die hard Democrat will say: “Hey, I didn’t expect this when I voted for this guy.” And my question is where that line is drawn.
As for the GOPers. I have a feeling that dopers gopers prefer GWB to any Democrat in the Oval Office, but that many would prefer another Republican there.
I’ll check my e-mail to see if I have a message from a mod. If not - your accusations fly right by me. As does your drive-by.
Ahem. Only one of us is expressing *pride * in lack of command of the facts. Clear now?
No, but you have less credibility if you aren’t, right
Those numbers are approximate, but not far off. Kennedy’s vote totals
Surely you can conceive of people voting for other reasons, can’t you? Like a long record of commitment to public service and effective performance in office, for instance? Joe II was no exception, and note that he’s withdrawn from public office to return to his company providing low-cost heating oil to low-income families.
Normally, yes, when it’s publicly stated. What did you think?
Not to disagree with your “bad feelings”, but otherwise that statement was incoherent.
Because that topic is the bulk of your posts in both quantity and passion. The only other things you have mentioned are the Patriot Act and Yucca Flats. Okay, here goes: Kerry was one of most of the Senate who did vote for the Act, under the same misimpression they had for the Iraq war backup authorization vote, that Bush would use it wisely. There is no good basis to believe he’d actually make it worse. I do agree about Yucca Flats being necessary, that disappointingly few pols have been willing to annoy Nevadans to make it happen, and that Kerry won’t either - but we’ll see what happens after the election, won’t we? No, he doesn’t perfectly match my ideals for what a President should do, but no real person does.
I’m not a registered Democrat per se, but I usually vote that way. And I’m definitely not voting for Bush or anyone else who supports his foreign policy platform, such as it is; I’m a foreign policy voter to a much greater extent than most Americans, and I realize that pretty much makes me a mutant. I can’t recall such incompetent diplomacy from a U.S. President in my lifetime, and that includes multiple Republicans. To be clear, I’m not at all crazy about Kerry for a variety of reasons, but will most likely hold my nose and vote for him.
In my line of work, I’ve found quite a number of things to be disgusted about with the current administration, and that doesn’t even touch on my mom-work-related political beliefs. I haven’t seen much of anything resembling an immigration platform from Kerry, but so many aspects of immigration policy change have been so botched over the past few years that I find it difficult to believe he would be worse. For purposes of this thread, I’ll restrict myself primarily to immigration-related issues.
In re: the driver’s license/Social Security number issue: officially U.S. and Canadian citizens need proof of identity and citizenship to cross the U.S./Canada border; a driver’s license is considered proof of the former, but not the latter. (For that you need a birth certificate, naturalization certificate, and/or passport.)
The Social Security Administration has tightened up quite a bit in the past few years on issuing numbers; it used to be that anyone legally present in the U.S. was eligible for one, although for those not authorized for U.S. employment the card was endorsed as such (dependents of people on work visas, etc.), and sometimes the cards were endorsed “employment only with INS authorization” (as with students in authorized post-degree completion training, or people on work visas tied to a specific employer). And a number of states, mine (Illinois) included, are now refusing to issue driver’s licenses to people without employment authorization, even if they are here legally (dependents of people on work visas, people here as long-term visitors for work or for pleasure, etc.), or will issue them valid only for the term of the person’s current work authorization, although they are eligible to remain and work here legally for an additional 180 days after the expiration of current status as long as an extension of status has been timely filed (and extensions are taking anywhere from 30 days to 10 months to be adjudicated). It’s a huge pain in the neck for my firm’s clients.
More info: http://www.aila.org/fileViewer.aspx?docID=9843
An example of the dislocation this has caused: http://www.nilc.org/immspbs/DLs/DL007.htm
More later, perhaps, but there has been some mighty boneheaded policy implementation during the current administration, of which your OP lists a number of examples. Search on my name and “immigration,” and you’ll find a few more.
Eva Luna, U.S. Immigration Paralegal
Not to hijack this thread, but I suspect the Senate Democrats aren’t officially opposing Goss’ nomination to avoid falling into the Republican trap of ppearing obstructionist – they’ll simply ask him some very embarassing questions in his confirmation hearings, and let the man hang himself by his own words and records.
Me too, especially since I think a fact-finding effort on the shady dealings of the last four years will show this to be the most corrupt Administration in the history of the nation (Cheney’s energy meetings? Halliburton’s no-bid contracts? Selling California down the river for Enron?).
But I also believe any effort by Kerry to launch such investigations would be immediately met by Republicansshouting “partisan politics” without a touch of irony…