What leads you to this conclusion? I believe your conclusion is false.
Well, that was a silly attack. Until last night, Kerry wasn’t even officially the Democratic candidate. And … [on preview I see AvhHines beat me to my second point.]
Call it a silly attack if you want to. I’ll stand by it.
Bush receives an intel beiefing every single day. Kerry has been offered similar briefings, and has turned them down. I don’t regard this as a responsible action for a presidential candidate to take.
by Mr. Moto
Precisely. The fact that Kerry is a veteran, in and of itself, is not that important to me. However, I think he has demonstrated strong character in his life and incidentally, evidence of his character occurred while he was in service. But I’m even more impressed that after his service, he had the balls to speak out against the Vietnam war, which again points to integrity, political awareness, and courageousness. Contrast that with Bush, who does not have any street cred with respect to vallor and bravery, and yet, has pushed us into war with an unjustifiable rashness and arrogance.
At least Kerry has a story that he can pull out and say “See, I pulled a fellow soldier out of the water, in a war I volunteered for, when my life was on the line; this is substantiated by the testimony of my crew and the several metals I accrued.” What can Bush say? Where is the proof of his character? Is it on his missing military records? His reports cards from Harvard? Is it in the footage of him sitting in the classroom on 9/11, when clearly told that “America is under attack”, continues to sit there and read a children’s book, when most people in their right mind would have asked, “What you say, Willis?” or at least scratched their heads real thoughtful like?
Mr. Moto, you’re holding Kerry to a higher standard than Bush. A much higher standard. I’d be right with you if Bush had somehow, someway demonstrated what you believe Kerry has not. But the fact is, Bush pales in comparison to Kerry. In fact, at this point, Bush looks like freakin’ Powder when compared to Kerry. All Bush has is words, his image as a good ole boy on the range, and the genes and connections of his more credible father.
And before I forget: Bush is not comparable to Lincoln or FDR, if only because the wars they led us into are not even remotely comparable to the Iraq war. So let’s not even continue down that road.
But you don’t have doubts about Bush??? What good has Bush done for our military? Just why do you have doubts about Kerry?
Horsehockey. If he isn’t reading the briefings needed to do his job *as a United States Senator, * then he’s neglecting his job. After he wins the election, he has 2 1/2 months to get up to speed on the intelligence reports that he needs to read as President. There is a difference between being the candidate and the president-elect.
You get this from him being unavailable for one security briefing for one afternoon no less than seven months before he could be called to take office? Once again, colour me confused. Your powers of extrapolation are strong indeed.
Again, are you getting this from this single incident? I find it hard to believe that you’ve been able to attend every appointment in your life, ever, without once having to ask for a different date. Could this be the case?
Are you talking about Janet Reno? I hate her too.
Well then, perhaps the good people of Massachusetts need a new United States Senator. He should resign forthwith and let someone with time enough to do the job properly take over.
He’s clearly neglecting duties somewhere.
Mr. Moto,
Others have answered on my behalf in my absence, but I shall respond any way.
I think that Clinton’s not having served in a war made him a President more willing to send people to battle than he would have been if he had served. This was a failing of his. One of quite a list of failings that were offset by quite a list of strengths. On the balance I voted for him twice and would again. I have no litmus test; I have no single issue that is a must meet item. Being a vet doesn’t inform about a host of other issues that are variably important depending on what point in history we reside.
Right now, understanding what war is about is higher on the list than it was when there was no war in the offing.
BTW, I liked Bob Dole, and if his political views were not so pandered to the far right, I could have voted for him. Part of what I liked about him was his war record. It just wasn’t enough.
I like Kerry. I like that he appreciates what he is asking our sons and daughters to do and is asking for nothing more than he was willing to give himself. I like that he resists the temptation to oversimplify. I am afraid that his relative lack of rhetorical skill will not let him pull that off … Clinton did it but many others who try to present the complexities, who try to explain the grays, end up looking wishy-washy (think of Carter as President). I like his position on science. I like his stance on gay marriage. I like his take on energy independence. I like that he understands that we must lead by having the respect of our partners in the world, rather than telling the world that “you are with us or against us.” I like his character. No doubt, if I did not like any of these things, his military record would not be enough by itself.
Certainly, such will be the case for many Bush supporters. They like Bush’s stance against gays. They like his take against abortion rights. They like that he puts pandering to a religious right view above research into cures for Alzheimer’s and diabetes and Parkinson’s and … They are thrilled that he will get a chance to pick conservative judges at all levels. They are attracted to his saying screw it to the rest of the world and the consequences of that imperialistic unilateralism doesn’t bother them. Anything else is beneath our rightful place in the world order. They like simple declarations of truth, even if they turn out to be false. They like someone who says we should trust him to decide who should have civil rights and who should have them suspended on his say so. And understanding what he is asking our sons and daughters to do, having been willing to do it himself, just isn’t as high on the list as all of those. His blundering of Iraq from word go just isn’t high enough on the list to offset those percieved positives.
So in November we will see. Are there more like me or more like them?
Nonsense. His staff and Ted Kennedy will hold things up just fine between now and the election. If (God Forbid) he were to lose, he can get back on track before congress comes back to season. Besides, resigning now, with a Republican as governor to chose his successor, would be a slap in the face of MA voters who prefer a liberal in congress and a betrayal of his party who need every edge they can get in congress should Bush win. If Bush can campaign as president, Kerry can campaign as senator.
The fact that he didn’t yet read a brand new briefing doesn’t startle me, and I’m impressed that he admitted it, rather than BS a boiler plate anti-terror/anti-Bush position.
Those same Massachusetts voters who preferred a Republican governor last time around? Why would it be such a slap in the face?
It’s not like Democrats have some God-given right to that seat.
BTW, I do not like Edwards or that he is to be “a heartbeat away.” And Bush serves my selfish interests better than Kerry-Edwards on several issues of importance to me. They are very supportive of Israel. My upper income taxes are better off under them. I’ll benefit from estate tax reform. Prospects for medical mal reform are less improbable under them than under a Kerry Edwards administration.
None of which is enough to offset that I think that what he does is often evil, and very often cloddish with devastating results. Bush’s positives are far offset by his negatives to me; Kerry’s strengths far offset his negatives. Each of us will balance that out for ourselves coupled with what we think is needed for our time.
Well, of course not! It was all these rather ordinary people, en masse referred to as citizens, who trundle down to certain specified locations to perform a function known as “voting”.
Despite emphatic statements to the contrary, I remain confident that God Almighty has not directly revealed His political agenda. (Except, perhaps, for the 10,000 “Jews for Buchanan” who so faithfully reflected His will in Florida…)
Because that’s not the guy they elected?
I have to give you credit here, you’re parroting the ads Bush has spent so much money to put on TV. What important debates and legislation is Kerry not taking part in right now? Since you were asking about Dole earlier, were you calling for him to step down in '96?
He did.
Could you give an example or two of what you would consider both meaty and appropriate to the occasion?
[QUOTE= Even Nader tells people exactly what he’d do as President. Kerry? No. He said nothing new tonight, nada. Rich people should be taxed more, Bush lied, etc. etc.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, Nader blows his fantasy smoke. If he had a real shot, his declarations of what he would do would freak you out (or should) because they are so off the wall. Also flat out impossible, since Presidents are not kings, Bush’s best efforts notwithstanding.
Which is something Kerry understands thoroughly, having been part of the federal governing triumverate for 20 years. It would be a giant lie to stand up there and make ground pronouncements of what he’s going to do as though he would be king. He gave a realistic presentation of what really counts in a president: the direction he would follow.
I think some of you who want to “hear what he’d do” want to hear a laundry list of presidential decrees making radical changes designed to alter reality itself, and if you don’t get that, well, then, he hasn’t said anything.
Be realistic.
Not for Senate, we didn’t. FTR, we’re on our fourth straight Republican governor. The last 3 quit out of frustration or boredom, and there are rumblings that Romney has a case of Potomac fever now.
Please understand, the major fault line here isn’t Rep/Dem or even Lib/Con, it’s insider/outsider. Given long-term total domination of the legislature by one party, it’s effectively partyless in operation. Further, MA Governor is a weak position legally (thanks to the Goo-Goos’ efforts to restrict Curley’s power generations ago). That lets the small group that controls the state legislature control the whole thing, and reward or punish others for their level of compliance. The Speaker really runs the show, not the governor.
Knowing the situation is undemocratic, we like to vote for anyone who promises to break or fight that power, as another form of checks and balances. We’ll vote for the outsider pretty consistently as long as there’s a presentable one running, whether that’s in the Dem primary or the general election (there’s almost never a race in the Rep primary), and no matter the office. But, once in office, they get shut out, they’re ineffective, and they either sell out or quit. Romney won against a Democrat who promoted her insiderness as effectiveness, the usual approach they take. Against a Dem outsider, it isn’t clear who’d have won, or that an outsider could have taken the nomination anyway.
The Legislature is on break right now, but as soon as they get back they’ll gavel through a bill requiring that any Senate seat be left open until a special election, just to thwart Romney, who’s clearly been following Rove’s “requests” increasingly often since Kerry clinched.
Guess what. I voted for Bush 1 in 1988 (I was fed up with him in '92) and Dole in '96. They are both well qualified leaders, and brave men. Just like Kerry. Unlike our current Prexy, who jumped the line into the guard so he wouldn’t get his pretty boy face shot at, and couldn’t even stick around for that.
Hell Bush 1 was one of the best qualified presidents we’ve had for some time. Any doubts, just look at the way he conducted his war vs. the way his son did.
As pointed out, Dole did step down in 1996 when his run overwhelmed his Senate duties. This was a move, BTW, almost universally praised for its integrity.
As of June 22nd, John Kerry had missed 89 percent of the Senate’s votes this year, and 64 percent last year, according to the Washington Post. This does not take into account, also, missed committee meetings and constituent services.
This is not a man committed right now to his Senate duties. Any honest appraisal of this record would show John Kerry totally consumed with his quest for the presidency.
I agree with you about Guiliani.
But I must have missed the times when Bush read well. He stumbles over a lot of words in even the simplest speeches.