-
Kerry will allow the use of new lines for stem-cell research. (RIP, Christopher Reeve!)
-
Kerry is not likely to award no-bid sweetheart contracts to corporate cronies. (Not even those in the ketchup, sauces and canned-soup industries.)
-
Kerry is a Catholic, but too intelligent to take it seriously. Bush is Methodist and takes it more seriously than most Baptists – hell, most Pentecostals. He actually seems to think he’s doing God’s will in his foreign policy. This is extremely dangerous (and all the more so if he happens to be right).
-
Kerry is against gay marriage but amenable to a “civil unions” compromise; at any rate he won’t back the anti-gay-marriage amendment.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
I haven’t really made my contribution yet. You should vote for Kerry because:
[quote=2. Kerry is not a unilateralist. He can mend fences with all the foreign countries Bush has alienated.[/quote]
Any idea just how he’s going to accomplish wonderful feat? He certainly hasn’t told us anything more than that he’s gonna it.
The interests of countries around the world are varied and complex. I’d be (and have been all along) very interested in just how he’s going to accomplish all the wonderful harmony he claims between the U.S. and everyone else in the world – and he makes it sound so easy and cut-and-dried, too.
Surely then he could tell us just how he’s gonna do it. Talk is cheap and he’s given us absolutely no idea just what he will say, what he will give in on, what he will sacrifice or pay out, and which U.S. interests he will sublimate in order to be all things to all countries such as he claims.
Being a Senator is in no way equivalent to being President. This is like saying a department head will, ipso-facto, know how to do an excellent job as CEO just by virtue of having been a department head.
I wasn’t aware that it was within the power of the president to “give us” this. Isn’t this a most expensive proposition and doesn’t it require some congressional activity as well as popular acceptance and willingness to foot the bill?
Again, is he going to do this single-handedly with the mere swipe of a pen?
So you’re coming right out now and stating you favor activist judges who are appointed for their political beliefs? No, thanks. To me, this means just another reason to vote against Kerry. Such decisions should be made by the people and by the Congress. If judges were supposed to be making law based on their own personal beliefs the founding fathers would have made provisions for it in the Constitution.
Again, you make it sound like all that’s needed to accomplish these wonderful acts you so laudingly espouse is the mere swipe of a pen. The fact that both you and Kerry make it seem like such a slam-dunk simply illustrates the fact that neither of you has any idea of what’s really doable and/or how difficult it may be to accomplish these things once he’s in office.
Carter did this during his first campaign. Then, when all his bright, shining promises withered and died on the vine, he lamely (like he did almost everything) posited that once you’re in a position to try to acheive these things you find out there are reasons why it can’t be done that you didn’t know about before.
Well, I knew about it then and I know about it now. Kerry’s promises are hot air. There is absolutely no way to know at this point what he might be able to accomplish or what he can’t.
Maybe/maybe not. Who knows what the hell he’ll do. He’s never given us anything but pie-in-the-sky generalities about the wonderful things he’ll do if elected.
I’m heartened by the fact that at least you aren’t serious about this part. 
But seriously, you haven’t really listed reasons to vote for Kerry based on what he’ll do because no one knows. You’ve listed things you think he’ll do or that you wish he would do and presented them as though they’re good as done if only he’s elected, and that simply isn’t so.
Just not being Bush helps immensely. He can dissociate himself from the previous Admin’s unilateralist policies, and France, Germany, etc., will be able to take him seriously.
No, but it helps. In terms of getting legislation through Congress, LBJ was a much more effective president than JFK – because he had previously been Speaker of the House.
The popular acceptance is there, despite Republican attempts to obfuscate that obvious fact with their shameless “Harry and Louise” ads. And I think Kerry can succeed where Clinton failed – because, as noted, he is a Congressional insider.
Bush enacted all his “faith-based initiatives” on his own authority as president. Kerry can reverse them on the same authority.
Bush will appoint activist judges based on their beliefs. There’s nothing else to choose here; the only difference is the content of their politics.
See my arguments regarding health care, above.
You sound a good deal less adamant about what Kerry will likely accomplish than you did in the post I quoted from which makes it look like these are all slam dunks.
I don’t really think not being Bush is going to be much of a panacea in dealing with other countries. They are going to act in their own best interests…which is amusing to contemplate given that they all seem to want to critisize us for doing the same thing. But at any rate, it’s gonna take a lot more than just not being Bush to have a successful foreign policy and, once again we have no way of judging Kerry’s liklihood of success because all we’ve been told is either that he has a “plan,” or that he will simply do it and that’s all there is to it. Not nearly good enough for me.
And I don’t think that you can really compare Kerry’s with LBJ. There is a world of difference between being a mostly ineffectual senator (with 20 years’ experience, no less) and one of the most powerful, clever and brutal speakers-of-the-house who ever held the office.
And we can argue over whether or not Bush would appoint judges based on their points of view, but they wouldn’t be “activist” judges who legislate from the bench either, such as we’ve had for the last thirty or forty years on the liberal side. If the founding fathers had intended judges to make law they would have made provisions for it in the Constitution.
All in all, when I look at Kerry I don’t see much substance at all and I see much to be suspicious about.
Speaking as an outside observer, I think I can field that question; Kerry will bridge a lot of the gap just by breathing. The mistrust and revulsion with which Bush is held by much of the world is a significant disadvantage to the USA. Just dumping that baggage will do a lot of good.
Do other countries act in their own best interest? Sure they do. But if they don’t think the USA is run by lying warmongerers, they’re likelier to see their interests coinciding with U.S. interests. Its also likelier to have foreign governments elected that have pro-U.S. agendas.
RickJay, your points are well-taken and I appreciate your POV. The problem for me is that Kerry more or less says “If you vote for me I will do this and that and the other thing” as though it were a done deal once he is elected. He doesn’t say “I will work to do this or that,” or “I will try to do this or that,” he says “I will do this or that.” I think this is dishonest as there is no way he can know what he’ll be able to accomplish, if anything, nor has he said word one about how he would go about accomplishing it.
Kerry’s way of framing his campaign promises is traditional. That he will try to, work to, etc., is simply understood. The electorate is presumed to be on notice as to the practical limits of the president’s authority. Really, what candidate ever adds the caveats and qualifiers you’re describing? I don’t recall Bush doing it any more than Kerry does.
Pop quiz:
Who’s quote is this:
Let’s take the war on terror as an analogy. Bush says many things about how it’s being conducted. He talks about nations around the globe working together to track down the terrorists, their supporters and enablers, and their sources of funding. He says the efforts to fight terrorism will go on for years. He says some of the ways it will be fought will be visible; some will not. He makes it clear that countries harboring or supporting terrorism will be held to account. And in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, he makes it clear that we are serious about protecting ourselves and are willing to use force if necessary in order to do so.
(I know there are many who have a problem with his handling of these matters, but I’m simply using this as an analogy to illustrate what I mean by spelling out your “plan.” I’m not looking to spark a debate over the legitimacy of Bush’s actions with this post.)
Now, what if he just said “I have a plan to fight terrorism. With my plan, I will do this and that and the other thing and you don’t have to worry about it. My plan will succeed and the U.S. will never need fear terrorism again.”
The problem is, words are cheap. That Kerry will try may be understood to you and his other supporters, it isn’t necessarily clear to those who aren’t among the choir he’s preaching to. And I think it’s dishonest to try to lead them to believe that he will, absolutely and without a doubt, accomplish all these specific problems he claims to have the solutions to, without any sort of specifity as to how he’s going to go about it.
And, just for the record, I seem to recall that Bush was pretty clear before the last election about how he wanted to handle the economy, education, defense, etc. The thing is though, he wasn’t running against an incumbent and claiming that he was so much better than the incumbent, and so much more clear-thinking than the incumbent, and had better so much judgement than the incumbent, etc., etc., as Kerry has been doing. If you’re going to make such claims, you should be prepared to back them up with more than just a “trust me.”
This will be true right up to the moment at which Kerry is forced to defy the UN or the international community and do something in the U.S. interest. Then he’ll be the next hated president.
Or, he’ll knuckle under to world opinion, to the detriment of the U.S.
The assumption many of you make is that the world is a big happy family with a wayward son, and once Kerry pulls America back into the fold, everything will be great. But France, Russia, Germany, China, and other major world powers are NOT interested in what’s best for the U.S., but what is best for them. There will be conflict. Plenty of it.
Starving Artist said: “…without any sort of specifity as to how he’s going to go about it.”
heh, heh, heh…make that “specificity.”
:smack:
If in fact the distrust directed towards Bush was typical of all U.S. Presidents, you would have a point.
Since that’s not true, you don’t. While I realize YOU like him, it’s hard to deny that Bush is probably the single most reviled man to hold that office in living memory. There IS, Sam, a capability on the part of the President of the United States to get some international support and goodwill. Bush is miserably bad at that aspect of his job, the worst in a long, long time. Even the much-maligned Reagan was far better at this aspect of the job.
Sure, there will always be conflict. Bush, IMHO, is unusually bad at handling it.
True. “Most reviled” by Americans and by foreigners. I don’t think even Nixon was as widely and passionately hated as Bush.
You may have a point. To anyone reading, note that “reviled” is different than “unpopular”. Carter was less popular the day before the election than Bush. However, Carter was less hated than seen as a boob.
RickJay, I would posit to you that had 9/11 never happened, GWB would probably be regarded a lot like Reagan. You know…tax cuts; wealthy friends; able to work with both sides of the aisle; a “uniter, not a divider;” personable; family man; etc.
9/11 changed things. First of all, Bush had to make choices and decisions that none of us would ever want to make. These choices and decisions resulted in an opposition party that was at first flustered because Bush’s approval rating was so high they couldn’t figure out how to oppose him, as oppose him they must. But finally, with the help of overwhelmingly negative media coverage, they were able to convince much of the population that Bush was a swaggering cowboy, out of touch with and uncaring about the rest of the world, alternately trying to make his vice-president’s cronies rich or avenge daddy by attacking Iraq.
Many people fell for this hook, line and sinker. A great many of them can be found on this board spouting things like “Bush is evil,” Bush is satan," “Bush is a murderer,” etc.
What really happened is that a good guy found himself having to make tough decisions in order to protect the country and lots of people have capitalized on it in a negative way for political purposes. That’s why he’s reviled, in order to get a Democratelected President in this election. And so we come to where we are now.
But all that happens to be true, Starving.
Not quite . . . I wouldn’t compare Bush with Satan. He is at most an imp. Cheney, now . . .
Reagan was as hated as Bush. I remember the time well. Protests in the streets, Reagan being burned in effigy, worries that he was going to start WWIII, etc.
That was when I was in college, and if you even whispered that you liked Reagan, you’d get lectures from students, professors, whoever. It was an article of faith on the left that Reagan was an evil man who wanted to screw the poor, oppress the people of Central America, start WWIII, and spread nuclear weapons across the earth.
You’re placing the turning point at the wrong spot, quite obviously.
Look, this only happened three years ago and everyone should be able to remember this. Public opinion throughout the world towards the USA was overwhelmingly POSITIVE after 9/11. That simply isn’t a matter of opinion, it is absolute fact. The great, great majority of the world’s people were strongly in the U.S. camp when that happened. The outpouring of sympathy and support was unprecedented.
The impression of George Bush worldwide also went through a strong positive uptick. Nobody gave a shit about this “My Pet Goat” nonsense until quite recently; I recall a few extreme partisans babbling that he didn’t get back to Washington quite fast enough and the general responses were A) “Who cares” and B) “Who gives a flying crap?” He seemed strong and decisive and the U.S. was widely supported in its efforts to invade Afghanistan and get bin Laden. NATO countries invoked Article 5. Nations far and wide pledged help. Bush was largely seen as a decisive leader defending his country against the most odious band of scum to come down the pike in a long time. It is simply not true, not even close to true, that 9/11 was a negative turning point for the world’s opinion of Bush. It is profoundly ignorant to state it was. It was the biggest positive worldwide PR boost a President has had in my lifetime, bar none.
The turning point, absolutely without any question whatsoever, was the invasion of Iraq. Whereas most people thought the invasion of Afghanistan was justified and probably a necessity, most people didn’t understand wat they perceived to be a rush to invade a country that was neither dangerous nor capable of defending itself. That began to turn the wide of world opinion against him; the subsequent revelation that the USA’s claimed casus belli (and the only possible way Iraq could have constituted a threat) was a lie sealed the deal. It wasn’t 9/11, and it’s plainly bullshit to say it was. It was Iraq. AND THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING TO THE REST OF THE WORLD.
Had Bush not rushed into war in Iraq, worldwide opinion of him would be nowhere near as negative as it is. It’s even conceivable it would be largely positive, had he in instead concentrated on the war against terror and made more headway there.
As for this “overwhelming negative media coverage” I saw nothing of the kind. The U.S. media has been as it has been since Gulf War 1, overwhelmingly pro-American and unwilling to criticize military actions unless it has no other choice. I simply don’t perceive any truth in your characterization of media coverage.
Now, you may believe the Iraq war was necessary, and that’s fine. I don’t, and that’s my opinion. Those are reasonable differences of opinion. But your insinuation that world opinion turned against Bush **as a result of 9/11 ** is the most preposterous sort of bullshit; it is the complete opposite of truth.
Stuff and nonsense, Starvers. Bush is a liar, a moron and a bigot, who has surrounded himself, or had himself surrounded by, or been surrounded by when he wasn’t looking, or been surrounded by when he was looking but not seeing, neon-cones.
These neon-cones have determinedly plotted the downfall of the nation, while evincing not the least capacity for rational thought or policy formulation, or even plotting. Failing and/or refusing even to acknowledging their own cognitive dissonance, they have failed in the very task they set themselves–the eradication of every value that their country stands for, the annihilation of nuance, the egregious evisceration of rhetorical posturing.
History itself will be their ultimate judge. And no, not one of those there judges that the neon-cones foisted upon the American people to spread their lies, but that great blinkered figure in whom we and God put our trust.
I disagree. The turning point was the invasion of Afghanistan. The turning point in the United States may have been Iraq, but there were widespread protests around the world against the invasion of Afghanistan.