If you don't already dislike Kerry than read...

[Rick Nebiolo]

...these two articles.

The first is Heroes Don't Shout (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/29339.htm) from the New York Post.

Then if time permits, read Kerry: strange, stuck-up... and stupid (http://tinyurl.com/6hyfh) by Mark Styn.

IMO Kerry is in big trouble. Unless something goes wrong at the RNC, I think it is going to be Bush by a wide margin.

~ Rick

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO Kerry is in big trouble. Unless something goes wrong at the RNC, I think it is going to be Bush by a wide margin.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think its enough by itself to sink him. I think a lot of things still need to go right at the RNC.

I also think what hurts him more is that Kerry has to spend his own campaign dollars to defend against Swift Boats which leaves him with less dollars to spend on creating the image that he is a better alternative the GWB.

Stu

[jokerswild]

I don't. Bush is the one in trouble. He trails in Ohio, Florida, Missouri,and West Virginia. The undecided vote is quite small. The revelations of the Bush team being clearly behind the smear of the Swift Veterans for Karl Rove's money will turn against him.

The facts of Bush being a cocaine addict, alcoholic(whether reformed or not), that deserted in Vietnam, lied about Iraq,did nothing to stop 9-11, and has overseen the net loss of jobs while busting the budget will make this election quite close.

The debates should be the deciding factor.

[Chris Alger]

From your NY Post article: "Kerry knew that none of the charges [of atrocities committed by average American soldiers] were true."

Congratulations, Rick. You might be the only sentient being on the planet who believes this.

[Cyrus]

. . . then read the article (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/29339.htm) again.

Here's the pertinent snippet, which shows that the article's writer has a completely disoriented grasp of the situation:

"We're at war. And for all his faults, Bush has proven himself as a great wartime leader. Despite painful mistakes, he's served our security needs remarkably well."

This is at complete odds with reality.

I trust you don't need someone to elaborate.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
This is at complete odds with reality.

I trust you don't need someone to elaborate

[/ QUOTE ]


I would love for someone to elaborate on this. Just because you say so isnt a valid reason.

[Phat Mack]

I don't think an article by a retired army officer who isn't a Vietnam vet, but speaks to that which he doesn't know, puts Kerry in "big trouble".

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't. Bush is the one in trouble. He trails in Ohio, Florida, Missouri,and West Virginia. The undecided vote is quite small. The revelations of the Bush team being clearly behind the smear of the Swift Veterans for Karl Rove's money will turn against him.

The facts of Bush being a cocaine addict, alcoholic(whether reformed or not), that deserted in Vietnam, lied about Iraq,did nothing to stop 9-11, and has overseen the net loss of jobs while busting the budget will make this election quite close.

The debates should be the deciding factor.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am looking forward to the debates. It will cause alot of swing voters to swing towards Kerry, IMO. Bush will just fumble and try to steer every discussion towards "character" and away from any and all issues.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
...these two articles.

The first is Heroes Don't Shout (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/29339.htm) from the New York Post.

Then if time permits, read Kerry: strange, stuck-up... and stupid (http://tinyurl.com/6hyfh) by Mark Styn.

IMO Kerry is in big trouble. Unless something goes wrong at the RNC, I think it is going to be Bush by a wide margin.

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, if you get your news solely from op-ed pieces (like the ones in your post) and from Limbaugh and Hannity, you probably do believe that "it is going to be Bush by a wide margin". However, most polls show otherwise. The only issue Bush is favored on is fighting terror. The only way Bush can carry the election is by 1) focusing on terror, and 2) using his "moral superiority" to show that he is the only choice, IMHO.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
From your NY Post article: "Kerry knew that none of the charges [of atrocities committed by average American soldiers] were true."

Congratulations, Rick. You might be the only sentient being on the planet who believes this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might be amused that I had to look up sentient just to make sure.

A more complete quote might put things in context:

"The first show-stopper problem with Kerry began after his return. He had the right to protest against the war — more than most, since he had served himself. But he had not earned the right to lie about the honorable service of millions of others.

Kerry's lies — and they were nothing but lies — about "routine" atrocities committed by average American soldiers and sanctioned by the chain of command were sheer political opportunism. Kerry knew that none of the charges were true."

I don't believe atrocities were routine. I do believe there were atrocities.

Regards,

Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
. . . then read the article (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/29339.htm) again.

Here's the pertinent snippet, which shows that the article's writer has a completely disoriented grasp of the situation:

"We're at war. And for all his faults, Bush has proven himself as a great wartime leader. Despite painful mistakes, he's served our security needs remarkably well."

This is at complete odds with reality.

I trust you don't need someone to elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, let's look at a more complete quote from the article:

"But we're at war. And for all his faults, Bush has proven himself as a great wartime leader. Despite painful mistakes, he's served our security needs remarkably well. And security trumps all else in the age of terror.

Kerry says many of the right things. But I can't believe a word of it. I just can't trust John Kerry. I can't trust him to lead, I can't trust him to fight — and I can't trust him to make the right kind of peace.

I have reservations about voting for George W. Bush. But I have no reservations about voting against John Kerry. And I'm not alone.

The last paragraph quoted sums of my own feelings quite succinctly.

Regards,

Rick

[The once and future king]

I am a Brit and dont get to vote.

Standing on the sidelines it seems immpossible that any candidate could be worse than Bush.

Also I laugh out loud at the suggestion that Bush has been a "Great" war time leader.

[TenPercenter]

[ QUOTE ]
I am a Brit and dont get to vote.... Also I laugh out loud at the suggestion that Bush ...

[/ QUOTE ]

And I laugh out loud at the suggestion that a Brit not voting in the US presidential election is some sort of right that has been taken from you. "dont get to vote" indeed.

Ten

[Senor Choppy]

[ QUOTE ]

IMO Kerry is in big trouble. Unless something goes wrong at the RNC, I think it is going to be Bush by a wide margin.


[/ QUOTE ]

Doubtful: http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[MaxPower]

Rick,

We went over this yesterday in the Bob Dole thread.

Kerry did not lie in his testimony to Congress, just as Bush die not lie in claiming that there were WMD in Iraq.

Read the testimony and point out to me where he lied. He may have relayed some stories that later turned out not to be true, but that is not the same as lying.

Kerry's crewmate may have there own biases, but the author of this article and the Swift Boat Group are not without there own biases. For instance, he says"

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry's lies — and they were nothing but lies — about "routine" atrocities committed by average American soldiers and sanctioned by the chain of command were sheer political opportunism. Kerry knew that none of the charges were true."

[/ QUOTE ]

None of them were true! That's a pretty strong statement. Some of them are true.

Also, without taking his words out of context, show me anywhere where he "betrayed" or "dishonered" his fellow veterans.

Here is the link:
http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/jkerrytestimony.asp

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
The debates should be the deciding factor.

[/ QUOTE ]

The debates should be hilarious (until you realize that one of the two idiots will be president for the next four years). We will have Bush hemming and hawing and stumbling because he doesn't understand the question, followed by Kerry running overtime trying to take both sides of whatever issue the question is about. This election is the best argument ever for having a "none of the above" option in presidential elections. That option being unavailable, I will vote for Kerry, only because it's hard to imagine him being worse than Bush (but if anyone can find a way, he can).

[CORed]

Looking at the site's graphics, I see that a lot of Kerry's states are in the "Weak Kerry" classification, whereas most of Bush's are in the "strong" bush classification. I did not see what the definition of those classifications are, but it looks to me like this election is very much up for grabs. A month ago, I thought it was going to be a landslide for Kerry, but it now looks like Kerry is doing everythin he can to blow it.

[riverflush]

For the record here...despite his bumbling and stumbling (highlighted nightly on Letterman, and quite funny I might add)...GW Bush as done very well in every debate for public office that he has participated in. To date, Bush has swept the debate seasons in elections he's been involved in, back to the days in Texas. Much of the 2000 debate wins (most likely) had more to do with the "Three Different Personalities" Gore than Bush being extremely strong, but they were still wins (post debate Gallup/Zogby polling).

Also...Kerry has taken a serious hit with this Swift Boat/Cambodia flap. People should not discount the past 20 days. I've always watched presidential elections with a keen analytical eye, and this Swift Boat thing is not insignificant.

[CCass]

The site Choppy has linked to is flawed IMO. It shows California as barely Kerry, and I don't think Bush stands a chance there. It also shows Tennessee (my home state) as barely Kerry, and I don't think Kerry stands a chance here. In fact, I will give 2 to 1 odds that Kerry doesn't win TN. It just isn't going to happen.

However, I do think the electoral college vote is a tossup at this point, with 3 or 4 swing states that will end up deciding the election.

[CORed]

You have a point. As long as Bush's handlers anticipate the questions well, or Bush can manage to stick to his script, whether it actually answers the question asked or not (something most politicians do in debates) he will be OK. Much as I dislike Bush, I have to admit he does a pretty good job of delivering a prepared speech. It is when he has to speak off the cuff (e.g. in press conferences) that he is laughably pathetic. If Kerry or the questiners can manage to get him away from his script, he will be in trouble.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
For the record here...despite his bumbling and stumbling (highlighted nightly on Letterman, and quite funny I might add)...GW Bush as done very well in every debate for public office that he has participated in. To date, Bush has swept the debate seasons in elections he's been involved in, back to the days in Texas. Much of the 2000 debate wins (most likely) had more to do with the "Three Different Personalities" Gore than Bush being extremely strong, but they were still wins (post debate Gallup/Zogby polling).

Also...Kerry has taken a serious hit with this Swift Boat/Cambodia flap. People should not discount the past 20 days. I've always watched presidential elections with a keen analytical eye, and this Swift Boat thing is not insignificant.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that the Swift Boat thing is not insignificant. But I think it will eventually backfire on Bush.

[J.R.]

Bush, for as his faults, is a pretty good political debator because he keeps it simple and forces his opponent's hand, often making/inducing his opponent to adopt a polarized position. And most political debates, and this is especially so for the incumbant, are about not losing rather than winning.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that the Swift Boat thing is not insignificant. But I think it will eventually backfire on Bush.


[/ QUOTE ]

Explain again how Kerrys' inaccuracies regarding his war experiences that are being made public by a group of highly decorated Vietnam Vets which has no official association with the Bush administration is going to hurt President Bushs' chances for relection.

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Cyrus]

"I have reservations about voting for George W. Bush. But I have no reservations about voting against John Kerry."

The last paragraph quoted sums of my own feelings quite succinctly. --Rick Nebiolo

Let me get this straight. You had George W Bush for 4 years and you had John Kerry on stage for about 7-8 months (as a candidate),

- and yet you know so much more about John Kerry than you know about GWB
- and what you know about John Kerry is so bad
- and what you learned those 4 years about GWB is so good

that you have no problem voting "against John Kerry" but only have "reservations" about voting for GWB.

Plus, "what you know about GWB" is that he had been an "excellent war time leader" and "effective in the war against terror".

Do you truly believe all that stuff? I mean, coolly, rationally? I'm curious.

[riverflush]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush, for as his faults, is a pretty good political debator because he keeps it simple and forces his opponent's hand, often making/inducing his opponent to adopt a polarized position. And most political debates, and this is especially so for the incumbant, are about not losing rather than winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

You hit on something so perfectly here...

Bush is good in debates because he's not nuanced - you know exactly where he is on things. He's a plain speaker with opinions. MANY people disagree with his views, but you know what he thinks because he does keep it simple. If you watch him in debates (the Will Ferrell debates don't count, guys) he stays on message and goes right after his opponent's contradictions on an issue - pointing out his own presumably correct (in his mind) and often polarizing position. Al Gore often attempted to give carefully nuanced position answers that wouldn't offend = bad move in a debate. Bush gets his opponents to backpedal on their views and actually agree with him at times because his answers are so simple. His opponents often end up trying to sound as "simple" as him, because they realize they are ranting.

[Garbonzo]

[ QUOTE ]
...these two articles.

The first is Heroes Don't Shout (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/29339.htm) from the New York Post.

Then if time permits, read Kerry: strange, stuck-up... and stupid (http://tinyurl.com/6hyfh) by Mark Styn.

IMO Kerry is in big trouble. Unless something goes wrong at the RNC, I think it is going to be Bush by a wide margin.

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm. I see under your name that you are from LA.

Have you read the New York Post before?

[tolbiny]

Don't worry dudes-
I'm a brit AND i get to vote in the election.....

[Utah]

Hi Cyrus,

I know you hate Bush and there are actually some valid or arguable reasons for doing so. Even so, I still think you are a complete whack job /images/graemlins/grin.gif

However, I would like to ask you. Do you actually like Kerry? Do you think he would be a good president? Or, is he simply an anti-Bush vote for you (assuming you are of voting age /images/graemlins/laugh.gif). Nothing wrong with the later. I am just curious.

[Roy Hobbs]

Rick:

Come on, on the basis of these articles you think Kerry is in trouble? These are right-wing -- or at least conservative -- opinion pieces. That's all.

RH

[nothumb]

Hi Rick,

The Post has pretty good sports coverage. Their political writing is ass. So wildly, blatantly, distortedly right-wing as to be more or less completely useless in terms of reliability. For instance, the article you quoted. It claims that Kerry lied about war crimes, when he was quoting from the statements of other veterans at another conference. This is never mentioned in the article. He even prefaces his statement in his testimony by saying this.

I don't see how Kerry is currently in trouble. I think one thing the polls don't show is the young voters who are not considered 'likely' by pollsters but are quite probably going to come out in big numbers this year. The last time that happened was when Clinton beat Bush in '92 - and did so by a bigger margin than most people anticipated. The youth vote is poorly reflected in polls and will be a big factor IMHO.

That said, I'm not ready to bet on Kerry as of yet.

I do think (and I'm responding to a lot of posts in one here) that the Swift Boat thing will be a big issue. I think it could still go either way though - Bush should be ashamed that members of his own campaign and people with close ties to his administration and his family are involved heavily with 527's while he has been calling for an end to their activities. It's blatant hypocrisy. But I don't underestimate the ability of commentators and the media to hammer away at the distortions created by this incident and make them part of Kerry's bio. It's what happened with Gore in 2000 and it will happen again.

NT

[riverflush]

nothumb....

I've warmed up to your posts and generally enjoy your opinion on here...especially after our first few battles got a little loud back when I joined 2+2!

But any clear-headed person who looks at this situation has to realize that the hypocrisy, while on both sides of the coin, is much more blatant with the Kerry/Democrat camp. The 527's are only in the news because of groups like MoveOn.org, ACT, George Soros, Harold Ickes and the Media Fund, etc. etc. in the first place. It was a natural phenomenon for Democrats, who have always been better at raising "soft money" in elections. Ban "soft money" and these folks have to find some way to get involved = the boom of 527's. Republicans have always been better at raising "hard money" and therefore, don't rely on the 527's as much. The only right-wing 527 with any real stregth is the Club for Growth, and they're #8 in money!

The left-leaning 527s have been hammering away on Bush for 16 months...and now we're outraged?

You flipped the story around...

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]


However, I would like to ask you. Do you actually like Kerry? Do you think he would be a good president? Or, is he simply an anti-Bush vote for you

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the big dirty unmentionable issue in this election: the two candidates are Bush and Notbush. Kerry got the Dem nomination because he was a better Notbush than anyone else. In exit polls, many voters in the Dem primaries said that they had voted for Kerry, and then admitted they would have really wanted to vote for Edwards or Dean or whoever, but felt that Kerry had a better chance of beating Bush. These people were casting their votes solely on the basis of polls by CNN or NBC or Fox that showed that Kerry vs. Bush did better than Dean vs. Bush.

When ever any Democrat on the cable news shows is asked about Kerry's position on an issue, they may spout a canned line or two from the party platform, but then they launch into an anti-Bush tirade. The only people who have any real feelings about Kerry are the military and the vets who hate him. No one else cares. In TV interviews with the average persons in the street, "Kerry supporters" are generally unable to articulate any real Kerry policy that they are in favor of, they just don't like Bush.

Kerry is Notbush, he is a place holder on the ballot. One of the big concepts I learned in math was the incredible progress made by the introduction of the place holder into the number system: the zero.

[MaxPower]

Here is a very funny Daily Show clip about how John Kerry has spent his whole life not being George Bush.

Its on this page:
http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/indecision2004/dem/videos.jhtml

Click on John Kerry: Anybody But Bush

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Explain again how Kerrys' inaccuracies regarding his war experiences that are being made public by a group of highly decorated Vietnam Vets which has no official association with the Bush administration is going to hurt President Bushs' chances for relection.

Inquiring minds want to know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Inquiring minds will have seen enough evidence to realise how dumb this makes you look.

[andyfox]

Hi Rick,

The polls show Kerry leading in most of the so-called battleground states. What someone says in the New York Post is of no consequence since virtually nobody reads it outside of New York and Kerry will win New York. Obviously ditto plus for the British "journalist."

What Kerry did or didn't do in Vietnam or what he said or didn't say in his 1971 testimony will have nothing to do with the election. If Bush can pick up a big bump at the convention, I believe he'll probably win. Otherwise, I expect a close election. I believe Kerry made a big mistake in choosing a lightweight for his vice presidential running mate who won't help him much in the battleground states.

The country is evenly divided between left and right. The 2000 election ended in a dead heat and most polls show Bush and Kerry in a virtual dead heat.

What exactly in either of the two articles did you find persuasive?

[nothumb]

Hey flush,

Thanks. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Ditto.

I think if Kerry was voicing the same outrage over 527's as Bush is, you would clearly be right. Republicans have a better formal organization and their informal organization is covert and disciplined enough as to basically not need 527 status.

But I don't hear Kerry saying that outside groups are wrong. I hear him attacking a group that has made false and misleading attacks on him, attacks that deliberately take quotes out of context and misrepresent the qualifications of the participants.

He was also quick to condemn over-the-line ads against Bush when he was asked to by the Bush campaign.

If Kerry had been making the same statements as Bush, that all 527's should be shut off, he would be a bigger hypocrite.

NT

[Cyrus]

"I know you hate Bush."

I would not be as amused as I am with old George if I "hated" him. I don't "hate" him"! I hate getting my finger caught at the door or having to watch "American Pie" to bond with my offspring, is what I hate. No, I am just amazed at the utter idiocy. Plus, I thought that the American people had their bellyful of imbecility with Ronald Reagan. I was wrong.

"I still think you are a complete whack job."

I don't understand gangster lingo. Was that a warning? /images/graemlins/cool.gif

"Do you actually like Kerry? Do you think he would be a good president? Or, is he simply an anti-Bush for you?"

I don't think that John Kerry will be as different, in foreign policy, from George W Bush as most of you neocons and assorted "libertarians" are afraid of. No way. As a matter of fact, I fully expect Kerry to continue on the "military option" in Iraq, for the next 4 years.

But, yes, I have him as mainly anti-Bush more than anything else. (Note that the American electorate is on the same boat: Polls show that the large majority of those voting for Bush are voting "pro-Bush", while almost half those voting for Kerry are voting "anti-Bush". Not "pro-Kerry".)

I believe that George W Bush has proven to be totally incapable of carrying the mantle of the leader of (not just the "free world" but) the whole world. Totally incapable. His time of crisis demostrated that extremely clearly. So I will take what is offered me. The system offers Kerry. I would advise anyone of voting age to cast a vote for a (slightly) better President than the current one. And, who knows, might even turn out to be a very good one! For sure, he will be better for the environment and he might bring back some good and tested, sensible economic policies that, y'know, gave you a surplus in the damn budget!..

But, sure as hell, George W Bush is not right for the job.

[Senor Choppy]

[ QUOTE ]
Looking at the site's graphics, I see that a lot of Kerry's states are in the "Weak Kerry" classification, whereas most of Bush's are in the "strong" bush classification. I did not see what the definition of those classifications are, but it looks to me like this election is very much up for grabs.

[/ QUOTE ]

A 'strong' state is one that a candidate has a 10%+ lead accordingly to the most recent major poll. A 'weak' state is one they have a 5-10% lead. And a 'barely' state is a 1-5% lead. Even discounting all 'barely' and states where they're dead even, Kerry would lead 215-182. If you give Kerry California in addition to this, he's at 270-182, which means even if all the other close states went to Bush, he'd still lose.

[ QUOTE ]
A month ago, I thought it was going to be a landslide for Kerry, but it now looks like Kerry is doing everythin he can to blow it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it might be just the opposite. (http://img69.exs.cx/img69/7638/aproval_vs_alert_chart.gif)

[Senor Choppy]

[ QUOTE ]
The site Choppy has linked to is flawed IMO. It shows California as barely Kerry, and I don't think Bush stands a chance there. It also shows Tennessee (my home state) as barely Kerry, and I don't think Kerry stands a chance here. In fact, I will give 2 to 1 odds that Kerry doesn't win TN. It just isn't going to happen.

However, I do think the electoral college vote is a tossup at this point, with 3 or 4 swing states that will end up deciding the election.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you look at the method they use to come up with these figures, you'll find that the site isn't to blame for perceived oddities like the CA results. The CA number is from the most recent Survey USA report, which seems to have a more conservative bias compared to other polls. Also, the number is probably within the margin of error from a more reasonable percentage.

As far as TN goes, 5 of the last 6 polls showed Kerry in the lead with only 1 showing him behind 48-46%. Kerry most definitely stands a chance here, and the fact that you're probably being bombarded by election ads right now is proof.

[CCass]

[ QUOTE ]
...As far as TN goes, 5 of the last 6 polls showed Kerry in the lead with only 1 showing him behind 48-46%. Kerry most definitely stands a chance here, and the fact that you're probably being bombarded by election ads right now is proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for bringing this up. You have helped me prove my point about TN not being in play. I have not seen 1 political add on TV from either candidate. The Kerry campaign isn't spending any money here, because they can't win TN. As a reminder, Gore didn't win his "home" state 4 years ago, why would you think a New England Liberal would stand a better chance? From what I have read/seen, the only southern state that the Kerry campaign is spending any serious time/money on is NC, becuase of the Edwards factor.

As an aside, no democratic candidate has ever won the presidency without winning at least 5 southern states. I see no way that Kerry can win 5 southern states, so if he wins (and I think it is to close to call ATM), he will accomplish something no other Democratic candidate has ever done.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Rick,

The polls show Kerry leading in most of the so-called battleground states. What someone says in the New York Post is of no consequence since virtually nobody reads it outside of New York and Kerry will win New York. Obviously ditto plus for the British "journalist."

[/ QUOTE ]

These were just two articles culled from a bunch of similar articles. They are probably well read throughout the blogosphere (in a few weeks I hope to be more comfortable with using one of several sites that track popularity of these essays).

[ QUOTE ]
What Kerry did or didn't do in Vietnam or what he said or didn't say in his 1971 testimony will have nothing to do with the election.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wouldn't have but Kerry brought this upon himself by making his four month stint in Vietnam a major centerpiece of his campaign.

[ QUOTE ]
If Bush can pick up a big bump at the convention, I believe he'll probably win. Otherwise, I expect a close election. I believe Kerry made a big mistake in choosing a lightweight for his vice presidential running mate who won't help him much in the battleground states.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who do you think would have been better? Gephardt perhaps?

[ QUOTE ]
The country is evenly divided between left and right. The 2000 election ended in a dead heat and most polls show Bush and Kerry in a virtual dead heat.

[/ QUOTE ]

One thing for sure, there appear to be fewer undecideds at this point then in past elections.

[ QUOTE ]
What exactly in either of the two articles did you find persuasive?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here are a few IMO persuasive passages from the Ralph Peters Post article:

"As far as the swift-boat controversy goes, it's likely to remain a he-said-she-said issue through Election Day. The red flag to military men and women is that so many swift-boat veterans have come out against John Kerry. Not just one. Not 10. Dozens upon dozens.

This is as rare as humility in the Hamptons. Vets stick together. Kerry likes to play up his "band of brothers" image, but if he's got a band, his opponents have a symphony. And even if the first violinist turns out to be a "Republican stooge," it's nonetheless stunning for so many vets to denounce a former comrade publicly. It just doesn't happen unless somethings really wrong.

As for Kerry's support from his own crew, that's normal military psychology. You get the most objective view of a junior leader from his peers — the other swift-boat commanders (and their crews) who had to fear a weak link in the chain. "

next:

"John Kerry doesn't show a trace of integrity. Those constant flip-flops to suit the prevailing political winds are more troubling to military folks than many of the issues themselves.

Integrity matters to those in uniform. You have to be able to depend on the guy in the next foxhole — or swift boat. Trust is more important than any technology."

lastly from the Ralph Peters' article:

"Finally — and this is the one the pundits have trouble grasping, given the self-promoting nature of today's culture — real heroes don't call themselves heroes. Honorable soldiers or sailors don't brag. They let their deeds speak for themselves. Some of the most off-putting words any veteran can utter are "I'm a war hero."

Real heroes (and I've been honored to know some) never portray their service in grandiose terms, telling TV cameras that they're reporting for duty. Real heroes may be proud of the sacrifices they offered, but they don't shout for attention.

This is so profoundly a part of the military code of behavior that it cannot be over-emphasized. The rule is that those who brag about being heroes usually aren't heroes at all. Bragging is for drunks at the end of the bar, not for real vets. And certainly not for anyone who wishes to trade on his service to become our commander-in-chief.

From Steyn's column:

"I said a couple of weeks back that John Kerry was too strange to be President, and a week or two earlier that he was too stuck-up to be President. Since I'm on an alliterative roll, let me add that he's too stupid to be President. What sort of idiot would make the centrepiece of his presidential campaign four months of proud service in a war he's best known for opposing?

I wouldn't stand for Parliament on a family values platform because I know someone's bound to bring up the 123 gay porn movies I had a bit part in back in Amsterdam in the 1970s."

best of all:

And even if he'd never slimed his comrades, there's something ridiculous about a fellow with four months in Vietnam running as Ike, the Duke of Wellington and Alexander the Great rolled into one. On Sunday, after calling on the Senator to apologise to the 2.5 million veterans he slandered, Bob Dole couldn't resist chipping in his own view of Kerry's wounds.

"Here's, you know, a good guy, a good friend. I respect his record. But three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of," he said. "I mean, they're all superficial wounds." Dole's right arm is withered and useless from wounds received in World War Two, and he never made a big hoo-ha about it in the '96 campaign."

Regards,

Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

Cyrus,

As indicated I'm not a big Bush fan. I'm going to be pressed for time the rest of the day but my response to Andy Fox sums up what I liked about the two articles.

Regards,

Rick

[andyfox]

I wasn't criticizing you (or Kerry) for bringing up his Vietnam experience. I was just saying that, at the end of the day, people aren't going to vote or not vote for him because of Vietnam. They're going to vote for him or Bush because of what they think they'll mean for them over the next four years, or for what they've done in public office more recently.

For VP, I would have taken one of the Florida senators. And I think Gephardt would have been better too.

I don't find it stunning at all that so many vets (who weren't on the boat with him) are against him. He came home and blasted the war and the United States' behavior. He was an anti-war liberal, a leader in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. They'll never forgive him for that.

Why is political integrity more important to those in uniform than those out of uniform? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Kerry does flip-flop on the issues. Why is that more important to someone who served in the military than to someone who didn't? The veterans are not in uniform any more anyway.

I agree with the point about bragging about one's military heroics. I thought the "John Kerry reporting for duty" shtick was atrocious. But it's nothing compared to what I see as the disastrous foreign and domestic policies of the current president.

I've already addressed Bob Dole's comments in another thread.

I've read the Boston Globe article "John Kerry: Candidate in the Making." Kerry, to his credit (IMO), apparently had doubts about the war before he went. But his father had been a WWII test pilot and worked for the State Dept. and his mother was active in community service. Kerry was apparently greatly influenced by JFK and was taken by his call to ask "what you can do for your country." He saw himself as part of the elite, who, when called, served. (And, of course, used that service as part of his resume.)

Is he a politician through and through? Yes. Is he my ideal candidate? No. Is he better than Bush? To me, yes. That's because I think Bush is a disaster and the neocon worldview is 180 degrees opposite from mine. Bush summed it up for me when he said (I might have this slightly wrong) "some call you the elite, I call you my base." I see Bush as a shill for (as he put it) "the haves and the have mores." The statistics probably put me in one of those categories, but Bush (again IMO) is the wrong guy for the country. Today's economic statistics from the census bureau back up my thoughts.

So I guess the bottom line for me is that while I may dislike Kerry, I'm in the anybody-but-Bush crowd. Kerry's very liberal, so I think he's a tough sell even without the Swift Boat guys. The fact that he's showing up as well as he is in the polls (and I did see the L.A. Times poll this morning that shows Bush edging ahead), after the president had a 90% approval rating after 9/11 is only becuase of dissatisfaction with Bush's policies.

More important: How'd Raymer do last night?

Regards,
Andy

[Rick Nebiolo]

Andy,

All good points, effectively made as usual. I'll check the Dole thread late tonight.

"More important: How'd Raymer do last night?

Greg was charming, gracious and witty as usual. We had a good time talking with his Dad too. If I'm not too tired, I might try to put out a trip report tonight or tomorrow morning. Right now I'm off to Manhattan Beach (need to leave now to beat the worse traffic) to take a long walk near the piers before heading over to El Dukie's for the home game /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Regards,

Rick

[andyfox]

I call on Skechers on Manhattan Beach Blvd., and they have an office that has glass walls and a glass ceiling (a real glass ceiling, not the proverbial glass ceiling) that looks out over the ocean. Beautiful spot, hard to work there though in that environment.

Enjoy! Sorry I won't be with you guys tonight.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush summed it up for me when he said (I might have this slightly wrong) "some call you the elite, I call you my base." I see Bush as a shill for (as he put it) "the haves and the have mores."

[/ QUOTE ]

This was used in Farenheit 911, and is grossly out of context. It was a joke Bush told at a fundraiser that made about $2 million for charity. This is the context:

[ QUOTE ]

JIM LEHRER: And now a little more politics. Vice President Gore and Governor Bush were both in New York City last night at the annual Al Smith dinner. That's a white-tie charity event honoring the former Democratic Governor of New York who lost his bid for the presidency in 1928. Here are some excerpts.

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: I'm honored to be at this year's Al Smith Memorial Foundation dinner. This dinner represents a hallowed and important tradition, which I actually did invent. (Laughter) And, of course, I want to acknowledge FEMA Director James Lee Witt, who accompanied me here tonight. (Laughter) We travel everywhere together. (Laughter) Please accept my apology for interrupting your meal. Since this is a special occasion, I wanted to mark it by getting all of my interruptions out of the way before Governor Bush speaks. (Laughter) I know some people are going to keep accusing me of exaggeration, so let me be clear. Those people seek nothing less than the complete destruction of the American way of life. (Laughter) (Applause) It's absolutely clear. I never exaggerate. You can ask Tipper or any one of our 11 daughters. (Laughter) Another thing that bugs me is when people say I am just a wonk, obsessed with policy detail. Well, like some many Americans, I like to just kick back and relax and watch television for relaxation. One of my favorite shows is "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" Well, it should really be called "Who Wants to be After Taxes a $651,437.70 Person?" (Laughter) Of course, that's under my plan. Under Governor Bush's plan... (Laughter) it would be "Who Wants to be After Taxes a $701,587.80 Person?" (Laughter) This is a fund-raiser, isn't it? Whenever I see everybody dressed the same way, my antenna goes straight up. (Laughter) I also make you this simple pledge: If I am entrusted with the presidency, I may not always be the funniest President, but I will never sigh to you. Thank you. God bless you, and God bless America. ( Applause )

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Thank you all very much. This is an impressive crowd-- the haves and the have-mores. (Laughter) Some people call you the elite. I call you my base. (Laughter) The woman I just ran into coming off the elevator, she said, "I'd like to give you some advice on what to wear." I said, "well, I appreciate that." She said, "white tie is fine, but you need some more earth tones." (Laughter) Perfectly nice woman. I think her name is Naomi or something like that. The odd thing was she handed me a bill for $15,000. (Laughter) Can you imagine? Sure, a grown man paying $15,000 for somebody to tell you what to wear? Heck, $15,000 these days gets you a sleepover in the Lincoln Bedroom. (Laughter) (cheers and applause) This evening does have a special meaning. The story of Al Smith's historic run for the presidency is truly inspiring. It gives me hope that in America, it's still not possible for a fellow named Al to be the commander in chief. (Laughter) And I see Bill Buckley is here tonight-- fellow Yale man. (Applause) We go way back, and we have a lot in common. Bill wrote a book at Yale; I read one. (Laughter) He founded the Conservative Party. I started a few parties myself. (Laughter) Bill was certain he won every debate he had. Well, I know how he feels. (Laughter) It's been a pleasure to be with you all tonight. Your excellency, Laura and I would like you to come and visit our family next year. I'll send you the address as soon as I know what it is. Thank you very much, God bless. (Applause)

[/ QUOTE ]

[andyfox]

I knew Bush meant it as a joke. But there's a truth behind it, namely, that Bush is the rich man's president. When defending his proposed tax cuts, he said that a woman executive earning $200,000 a year deserves the same percentage tax cut as a waitress earning $20,000.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
When defending his proposed tax cuts, he said that a woman executive earning $200,000 a year deserves the same percentage tax cut as a waitress earning $20,000.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is difficult for me to comprehend is why anyone would believe otherwise. The socialist position of taking from the rich and giving to the poor just does not set well with most middle class Americans.

[cardcounter0]

Study the simple economic principle of 'utility value'.

Kind of the manufactoring 'economy of scale' principle applied to income.

[adios]

Andy you're right I think we should cut a 100% of that waitresses federal tax burden. How much do you think a single woman with a 10 year old child making $20,000 a year pays in federal taxes including social security and medicare with only the standard deduction available? Well if we look at the standard deduction, two dependent exemptions, the earned income credit and a child credit I'd be willing to wager she pays close to $0. From what I understand the newest Bush child tax credit was available to those that paid $0 in Federal taxes before accounting for the credit.

[NotReady]

Have you ever been hired by a waitress earning $20,000 per year?

[Wake up CALL]

I love this feature!

*** You are ignoring this user ***

[cardcounter0]

Actually, the last time I was hired by anybody was 1989. I own my own business. What kind of tax break do I get?

[NotReady]

You shouldn't be paying any taxes. As a socialist, you should be donating 100% of your income to the guvmint, thus obtaining a 100% tax deduction.

[cardcounter0]

Where do I sign up for this socialist thing?
/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Do I have to make any statements against Bush the Facist?
/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]
Since 2001, even with record low inflation, U.S. federal spending has increased by a massive 28.8% (19.7% in real dollars)—with non-defense discretionary growth of 35.7% (25.3% in real dollars)—the highest rate of federal government growth since the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson.

From the massive increases in agricultural subsidies in the farm bill of 2002, to the new Medicare prescription drug entitlement of 2003; from the 47% increase in the defense budget, to the 80% increase in education spending, George W. Bush has demonstrated that “limited government” is not part of his political vocabulary.

[/ QUOTE ]

With Fascists like Bush, who needs socialists?

[cardcounter0]

Facist = right wing socialist.

[adios]

Glad you got with the program /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[andyfox]

I know lots of people making $200,000 a year; and I know a lot of people making $20,000 a year. The $200,000 people are doing fine. Their lives won't change appreciably is they pay a 37% or 32% marginal tax rate. The $20,000 people need every extra penny they can get.

The middle class is getting screwed by the tax code. If you're poor you pay little if anything; if you're rich, you get plenty of opportunities to use the system to your benefit.

[NotReady]

Kerry is both.

[andyfox]

See my response to Wake up Call.

It is the attitude that the person making $200,000 deserves the same tax cut as the person making $20,000 that I object to.

[Chris Alger]

Notice how we have to shift from saying that Kerry told "nothing but lies" and that he knew "none" of his charges were true, to admitting that some of his atrocity testimony is uncontradicted, indisputable, but that we can quibble over the what's "routine" and how high such abuses were sanctioned and tolerated. So rather than debate the evidence, the right characteristically exaggerates, oversimplies and lies in order to defame someone who's real "crime" was that he cae out against the war. Notice, for example, that Kerry never claimed that the "average" GI committed atrocities, or that "millions" of GI's committed atrocities, as the Post article implies. It's just another example of the usual facially absurd right-wing propaganda.

[andyfox]

The idea that lower taxes lead to higher employment and growth is not borne out by the historical record. Here are the marginal income tax rates in the top bracket compared with productivity growth:

1950-63:
Tax: 91.1%
Growth: 3.5%

1964-1980:
Tax: 71.2%
Growth: 2.2%

1981-1986:
Tax: 53.2%
Growth: 2.1%

1987-1992:
Tax: 30.8%
Growth 1.7%

1993-2002:
Tax: 39.5%
Growth: 2.1%

Anecdotally, as a small business owner, I can tell you that the personal and corporate income tax rates have nothing at all to do with how many people I hire or let go.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
The $200,000 people are doing fine. Their lives won't change appreciably is they pay a 37% or 32% marginal tax rate. The $20,000 people need every extra penny they can get.


[/ QUOTE ]

You just don't get it. So what that the 20k people need every penny and the 200K'rs can "afford" to do OK with less. How can you justify taking more from someone who has worked harder to become more successful to someone who is satisfied with the government handouts? Fair is fair but at least tax at the same rates and perhaps that will encourage those 20Kr's to get a better education and a better paying job.

I might speculate that most of those 20Kr's you know work for you. Why not make them all 50Kr's Andy and let the rest of us off the hook?

[NotReady]

There's no doubt that tax cuts spur the economy. Citing a period of years with a particular tax rate and growth rate is irrelevant because many factors influence growth. There is a business cycle and growth would vary if there were no taxes or 90 % taxes.

I'm no economist, but Nobel winner Friedman used to say taxes aren't the main issue anyway - government spending is the real problem, because most of it isn't really investment in production.

From a logical viewpoint, this makes obvious sense. I will have to leave any more detailed debate to real ecomonists, a discipline which often reminds me of psychology.

[adios]

Ok it all boils down to what should the distribution of income be after all federal taxes are paid and why should it be that way. Until a politician answers those straight forward questions, I'm not willing to support tax increases of any sort. Sure it's easy to state that folks making $200,000 can afford paying more in taxes and such but when does it stop? When is enough, enough?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Notice how we have to shift from saying that Kerry told "nothing but lies" and that he knew "none" of his charges were true, to admitting that some of his atrocity testimony is uncontradicted, indisputable, but that we can quibble over the what's "routine" and how high such abuses were sanctioned and tolerated.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is silly, Kerry's the guy that's backing away from what he stated as a Viet Nam Vet Against the War not the other way around.

[ QUOTE ]
So rather than debate the evidence, the right characteristically exaggerates, oversimplies and lies in order to defame someone who's real "crime" was that he cae out against the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again why is Kerry backing away from his statements at the time. Many Vets feel they conducted themselves honorably in Viet Nam so why wouldn't they be pissed at Kerry for stating things at the time that they felt were untrue.

[ QUOTE ]
Notice, for example, that Kerry never claimed that the "average" GI committed atrocities, or that "millions" of GI's committed atrocities

[/ QUOTE ]

How about 1000's of soldiers? I think that in Nam the maximum deployment was 500,000 troops. He certainly claimed that thousands of soldiers including himself committed atrocities. Again whether you like it or not there are a significant number of Viet Nam vets that have a beef with Kerry rightly or wrongly. I guess they're all right wing puppets.

[ QUOTE ]
It's just another example of the usual facially absurd right-wing propaganda.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I get only righ-wing propaganda is facially absurd.

[andyfox]

"How can you justify taking more from someone who has worked harder to become more successful to someone who is satisfied with the government handouts?"

Where were we talking about someone taking government hand-outs? We were talking about someone earning $20,000/year. Nor is it a given that the higher earner worked harder. I was fortunate in having the parents I had, who lived in the neighborhoods they lived in, and could afford a solid education for me. I believe that we all make our own beds, but it does help to start in a certain place.

The progressive income tax serves to make the other taxes we have less regressive. When the impact of all taxes are considered, we take about the same percentage from all incomes. And the marginal tax rate only applies to the income above the threshhold. Adios was correct that the person making $20,000 probably pays no income taxes. But, for the sake of our discussion, if she did, she would pay the same rate on that $20,000 as the $200,000 earner pays on her first $20,000 of income.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I do get it. I feel that person A, making ten times as much as person B, should pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes.

By the way, I do indeed have some 20Kers working for me. But I have more 50Kers and almost as many 200Kers as well, so I'm doing my best to let the rest of you off the hook.

[andyfox]

BTW, here is what President Bush had to say presenting one of his budgets to Congress:

With us tonight, representing many American families, are Steven and Josefina Ramos. Please help me welcome them. The Ramoses are from Pennsylvania, but they could be from any one of your districts. Steven is a network administrator for a school district, Josefina is a Spanish teacher at a charter school, and they have a 2-year-old daughter, Lianna.
Steven and Josefina tell me they pay almost $8,000 a year in Federal income taxes; my plan will save them more than $2,000. Let me tell you what Steven says: "Two thousand dollars a year means a lot to my family. If we had this money, it would help us reach our goal of paying off our personal debt in two years."

Apparently, President Bush doesn't agree with the "So what?" approach, at least in his speeches.

[Zeno]

I want to make an important note and comment.

666.

That was the number of views on this thread when I clicked on it. In view of all the recent religious posts going on at 2+2, I wanted to make note of this fact. More important, is the fact that an Atheist made the decisive click on 666 to make it 667. That must be important. I don't know how but it certainly must be.

By the way, Kerry is a Shyster. Bush is no better.

-Zeno

[andyfox]

No doubt marginal tax rates of 90% are too high to do much good for anybody. My point is that it's difficult to establish exactly how the tax system effects economic growth. There are many taxes (e.g., individual, corporate, capital gains) and many factors unrelated to taxes (e.g., adopotion of technological advances; oil prices [both factors which probably helped my case in the statistics I cited]) that all have to be considered in the mix. There are many countries in the world that have prospered with relatively high tax rates. The effect of taxes on economic perforamance is a subtle thing that cannot be encapsulated by the politicians' quick advice to lower taxes and the resultant boom will lift all boats.

[andyfox]

I agree Bush is no better. But I think he's far worse.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree Bush is no better. But I think he's far worse.

[/ QUOTE ]


You are more witty than I. I give up. When we rule American as Consuls - I party, You Rule.

I'm glad that's settled. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

-Zeno

[Chris Alger]

I don't disagree that Kerry has "backed away" from his claims of atrocities in the sense that he's characterized his rhetoric as excessive (although I disagree). The article, however, didn't criticize Kerry for this. It said that everything he said about atrocities was a knowing lie, which is, like almost all of this moronic smear campaign, absolute crap.

[ QUOTE ]
How about 1000's of soldiers? I think that in Nam the maximum deployment was 500,000 troops. He certainly claimed that thousands of soldiers including himself committed atrocities.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's a slight difference between "thousands" and "millions," as the Post writer said (demonstrating, yet again, the conservative penchant for lying). There were also several hundred troops actually convicted by the armed forces for war crimes and atrocities. That at least twice their number when unprosecuted and unpunished is hardly implausible, especially in light of the overwhelming anecdotal evidence of widespread abuses.

The Post writer, while claiming that Kerry told "nothing" but lies, elsewhere in the article concedes that U.S. troops committed atrocities, but that they were "statistically insignificant." If one-tenth of one percent of the troops that served in Vietnam were guilty of such conduct, their number would exceed 2,000.

[Jimbo]

Kerry lies, the intelligent conservatives and honorable Nam Vets call him on this then the liberal sheep fall in the party line and defend him. Yep, business as usual.

Jimbo

[nicky g]

Tom,
Why should only federal taxes be considered? The poor may pay no income tax but they still pay state taxes, which are much more regressive. As I understand it, a cut in federal aid to states has put many of them in serious financial trouble and has led them cutting services to the poor and raising those regressive state taxes. I read some statistics somewhere that the shortfall in federal funding to the states was almost exactly the same size as Bush's tax cut to the over $200,000 people. Spending has gone way up in other areas while fallen in this, so it seems to me there's at least an indirect link between cutting federal income taxes for those at the top and increasing regressive state taxes which disporportionately affect the poor, and that the tax cut does effectively increase the burden on the poor. I'll try to find some of the statistics for next time I post, but something for you to think about for the moment.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
I read some statistics somewhere that the shortfall in federal funding to the states was almost exactly the same size as Bush's tax cut to the over $200,000 people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nicky, one day I picked a peach off a tree and the same day over 100 miles away my sister did not eat a peach because her local grocery had sold out. Cause and effect or coincidence?

Jimbo

btw, I don't consider you a liberal, more like a Socialist. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Why should only federal taxes be considered? The poor may pay no income tax but they still pay state taxes, which are much more regressive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes they should be considered but I don't know the tax in each individual state. In New Mexico she wouldn't pay an taxes and actually receive money most likely for just filing a form. Are sales taxes regressive? I think so. The standard deduction, albeit inadequate most likely, is supposed to compensate for state taxes paid.

[ QUOTE ]
As I understand it, a cut in federal aid to states has put many of them in serious financial trouble and has led them cutting services to the poor and raising those regressive state taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding is most states actually have a progressive tax system.

[ QUOTE ]
I read some statistics somewhere that the shortfall in federal funding to the states was almost exactly the same size as Bush's tax cut to the over $200,000 people. ...

[/ QUOTE ]

What you're implying to me is that the distribution of income has to take into account all taxes paid and I agree with that. The governments at various levels impose so many friggen taxes I can't even begin to keep up with them. How the Feds spend the money collected which deals with how much they give individual states is another story.

[ QUOTE ]
income taxes for those at the top and increasing regressive state taxes which disporportionately affect the poor, and that the tax cut does effectively increase the burden on the poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right the total tax picture needs to be looked at (as Andy has stated) but I think there's something fundamentally wrong with a system where we have to collect money from people in Florida let's say to help out the people in New Mexico because the State of New Mexico decided to bust their budget for whatever reason.