So, why Kerry?

[juanez]

I realize many folks hate Bush more than they hate Osama, but I'm wondering: why vote for Kerry?

I mean we continuously hear all of the cleverly worded and simple minded bumper sticker slurs aimed at Bush by the libs: "No War for Oil" "Anyone but Bush" "He lied about WMD" etc.

Most of my friends are lefties, so no personal offense intended (I'm just a sarcastic bastard by nature) but when I ask them "What do you like about Kerry?" I get the deer in the headlights look from them and they revert to the silly bumper sticker stuff. These are smart people, not ignorant college kids who somehow think they possess all of the knowledge of the universe.

Most often I get the good ole: "Anyone but Bush"...ho hum. This is too easy to defeat. In jest I usually reply, "OK, how about Dick Cheney?". Again, deer in the headlights look. What do they expect for a response to such an idiodic statement like " ANYONE but Bush"? They should try actually thinking about what they say before spewing forth such foolish drivel.

Even Kerry himself "Bush bashes" far, far more than telling us what he's all about. It's real easy to criticize and cut down your opponent; tough to come up with solutions of your own. I hear no solutions from this man, just a vile hatred for Bush.

Anyway, I'm tired of the sad, Bush hating rhetoric. What do you like about Kerry himself? Why will you vote for him OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT YOU HATE BUSH?

[Clarkmeister]

"Why will you vote for him OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT YOU HATE BUSH? "


Because I hate Ashcroft.

[juanez]

LOL!

[benfranklin]

I consider myself to be an independent, so I think I can look at this impartially. I could not bring myself to vote for Bush or Gore in 2000. If I had to vote in that election, my vote would have been against Gore. Bush was an unknown, Gore was a known evil in my mind.

I think that is reflective of a large part of American politics. Particularly when an incumbent is running, the election is a referendum on the current administration. The last election was a referendum on the Clinton-Gore adminstration for many people. This election is all about Bush.

I consider myself to be intelligent and well-informed (don't we all), but I haven't a clue what Kerry is saying other than he is against anything Bush is for, and that he can do all the things that Bush can't. Kerry says he will get us out of Iraq, but doesn't say how. Kerry says he will create jobs, but doesn't say how. (He does say he is going to get tough on US companies moving jobs overseas. Like his wife's company does. He doesn't say how.)

In corporate lingo, Kerry is a suit. He is all image and no substance. His job is to front the party, and to be the anti-Bush. In this campaign, that's all that's needed. It's just a vote for or against Bush. That's one of the reasons Howard Dean didn't make it. He muddied up the waters with actual issues and ideas of his own. Too many people would have actually voted for or against Dean, instead of concentrating on Bush. Many Democrats interviewed during the primaries said that they would prefer Dean or Edwards, but voted for Kerry because he would have a better chance of beating Bush. They didn't say why they thought that, but the implication was that he had a better image and was much more main-stream (i.e., bland).

The bottom line is that Kerry won the nomination because:
1. he is against everything that Bush stands for; and
2. he is not objectionable to any special interests groups because he has never taken a strong position on any issue that ticks anyone off.

It suddenly occured to me that Kerry and Bush will be debating. There will be some classic theater. Lurch droning on and on about the sins of the administration, Bush trying to remember his prepared script and garbling words. Can't wait.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

How about maybe they agree with the platform of the Democratic Party?

[paland]

[ QUOTE ]
"Why will you vote for him OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT YOU HATE BUSH? "

Because I hate Ashcroft.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that what a lot of people don't like is the guys behind Bush. e.i. Ashcroft, KKKarl Rove, Cheney, etc.. I think that Bush is just the puppet for the masters. I also think that Kerry is just a puppet. He will have the strings pulled just like Bush.

So to me, it's not about the Man for President, but the Administration behind him. And Bush's Administration scares the bejesus out of me!

That being said, I live in California so I feel safe voting for another party instead of the two status quo candidates.

[natedogg]

I wonder if all these people who hate and despise Bush over the Iraq thing are under the impression that voting for Kerry will somehow solve the problem we created over there.

Kerry won't pull us out, the bombs and ambushes will still occur, and american soldiers will still be stationed there.

What change are they hoping for with regard to Iraq when it comes to their support of Kerry?

natedogg

[cardcounter0]

Less taxpayer money given away to Halliburton?

[Chris Alger]

They shouldn't be under that impression because he's obviously not going to pull the U.S. out of Iraq in the near future. His whole campaign, lip service to the antiwar movement aside, is that he'd prosecute the war more effectively. From an antiwar perspective, this makes him arguably worse than Bush.

Aside from a few mavericks like Byrd and Kennedy, the democratic leadership is fairly united behind Bush -- they just need to take partisan shots and wish they had a role in making policy. Look for Kerry to try to bring in NATO (like Bush, taking Biden's advice).

The one plausible antiwar reason to vote for Kerry is that if the whole enterprise melts down (occupation ocsts skyrocket, our guys all get assassinated, etc.) and becomes more expensive than the benefits, Kerry might have the political ability to cut losses, run away and blame Bush. Bush is lashed to the mast, like Nixon during the fall of Saigon, unable to concede failure even as they bulldozed the choppers off the carriers.

[jokerswild]

1. Kerry is a true hero,. He has shown courage, leadership, and does not flagantry lie to the public. Kerry has integrity.
2. Balance between legislative branches forces compromise.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
2. Balance between legislative branches forces compromise.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said it for me. This is my main reason.

[ACPlayer]

Good argument, I am convinced. Bush does not get my vote this time.

[andyfox]

Who has told you many people hate Bush more than Osama? I haven't seen any poll data supporting this contention. I have heard many on talk radio make this claim as part of their questioning of the patriotism of those who disagree with their support of the administration.

I like very little about Kerry, but I will vote for the man since the current administration is too secretive, dishonest, hawkish and dangerous for my tastes. I do not hate Bush, I disapprove of his policies.

[Philuva]

He can formulate an opinion and then articulate that opinion in a clear and concise manner.

Also, I hate Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice. I can only imagine who Bush's administration would appoint to the Supreme Court if given the opportunity.

A lot of times when an incumbent loses, it is because people are unhappy with that incumbent, not necessarily excited about the challenger, so to hear people talk about disliking Bush when talking about Kerry makes sense.

I vote Libertarian anyway, but if I would vote for Kerry over Bush easily.

[elwoodblues]

Just out of curiosity, do you think that the 2000 election was any less an "anti" vote than this one will be?

As to why an anti-Iraq War person would vote for Kerry --- his position is that if he were in office we wouldn't be there, but once we're there we need to do everything we can to win.

[bingledork]

I'm not a fan of Kerry either, but he's getting my vote in November. I'm an independent who abstained from the last election because neither Gore nor Bush appealed to me. I'm voting against Bush this time because I don't like where he's taking our country. So I'm giving the democrats a chance to try.

The only politician that I actually like is John McCain. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I'm an independent who abstained from the last election because neither Gore nor Bush appealed to me.

There were other candidates, you know. And before you repeat the tired old line that it's a wasted vote, let me remind you that the New Deal grew out of the strong showings Norman Thomas and the Socialist Party had in the 20's.

[juanez]

This is another silly bumpersticker....

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Kerry is a true hero,. He has shown courage, leadership, and does not flagantry lie to the public. Kerry has integrity.


[/ QUOTE ]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
It suddenly occured to me that Kerry and Bush will be debating. There will be some classic theater. Lurch droning on and on about the sins of the administration, Bush trying to remember his prepared script and garbling words. Can't wait.

[/ QUOTE ]


I agree. The debates will be epic blatherskite by both parties. I am not much for political debates but I am probably going to watch them. The recent Atlantic Monthly has a cover story previewing the debates. I haven't read the article yet, idealistic liberal spew being hard on my machiavellian mind set.

-Zeno

[juanez]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush is lashed to the mast, like Nixon during the fall of Saigon, unable to concede failure even as they bulldozed the choppers off the carriers.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that we "failed" in Iraq and that Bush should concede that? Seems like 50 million liberated Iraqi's might disagree. If we "failed" earlier there would have been thousands and thousands fewer Iraqi citizens in the mass graves.

Sure there are those who will continue to terrorize our troops and the new government, that's to be expected and will continue for years. But to consider our defeat of Saddam a failure is a stretch. We won't know if we "failed" for years to come. If a homicidal extremist Islam cleric is leading the country in 2010, tourturing and killing innocent citizens by the thousands again, then I guess I will concede that we failed.

[juanez]

[ QUOTE ]
and does not flagantry lie to the public

[/ QUOTE ]

ALL politicians lie to the public. Sad, but true.

[bingledork]

Kurn,

You must be joking. Any vote not for a republican or a democrat IS a wasted vote. Now if we ever changed our voting method to something conducive to multi-party elections like the approval method or Borda count, then I would agree with you.

[adios]

Bush vs. Kerry on Iraq

Nearly identical from what I can tell.

Bush vs. Kerry on the Economy

Possibly major differences here:

1. Kerry higher taxes and if you think raising the highest marginal tax bracket is all that Kerry will do I have a bridge I'd to like to sell you. Gridlock will probably rule the day though if Kerry is elected.

2. Conventional wisdom is that the next president will have to appoint a new Fed chairman and that could possibly have a major impact on the economy.

3. Kerry isn't likely to do much in the way of changing corporate taxes.


Civil Liberties

I think it's fair to say that Kerry is not in favor of extending the sunset provisions of the Patriot Act while Bush is.


National Security

Kerry has stated that he would budget a lot more money for the homeland in responding to and preventing terrorism.

I think it's fair to say that Kerry is against big ticket Department of Defense programs like an anti-missle defense.

War on Terrorism

I think it's fair to say that Kerry would conduct the "War on Terrorism" in much different way than Bush is.

Social Issues

Abortion - Kerry is a pro choice candidate.

Welfare and Govt. Handouts - Kerry would like to like to increase those on the public dole. After all it's a core Democratic Party constiuency.

Gay Marriage - Kerry would be in favor of even though he states otherwise.

Judicial Appointments

Kerry would nominate liberal thinking candidates.

Government Spending

Kerry will try to increase it greatly.

[andyfox]

I wonder how important debates really are. Supposedly Kennedy beat Nixon on the strength of the debates, but this was the first year of televised debates and they were a novelty. Nixon sweated too much and looked too shifty, apparently, and Kennedy came across with gravitas that some had doubted, prior to the debate, that he had.

But Reagan came across as a bumbilng, ignorant old man in his first debate with Mondale (hmmm . . . ) (he did better in the following debate) and it didn't hurt him in the polls at all and of course he trounced Mondale. But he had a big lead in the polls before the debates. Since the two candidates are basically neck-and-neck this time, perhaps the debates will be significant.

[CORed]

I will almost certainly vote for Kerry. The only reason I can give is the he's not Bush. I'm certainly not a lefty (politically that is, I am left-handed). I voted for Bush last time. For me, the election is about competence. I think Bush is dangerously incompetent. I believe the Iraq invasion was unncecessary and that the Bush team has screwed up the Iraq venture unforgivably since the ouster of Sadam. I don't know if Kerry will be any better. He could hardly be worse. Also, Bush's environmental record is atrocious. He not only is trying to eliminate every vestige of environmental protection, he is dishonest about it. He gives measures to gut environmental protection misleading names like "Healthy Forests Initiative" or "Clear skies initiative".

[CORed]

I'm just hoping that Kerry's handling of Iraq won't be as inept as Bush's. I'm not convinced that an immediate pullout from Iraq is the best policy now. I think we have to try to salvage the situation. However, I'm not at all certain that the situation is salvageable.

[adios]

Good point about the environment, I forgot about that issue and I agree that there is probably a big difference there. FWIW and not that my opinion means anything to you, the election should be a referrendum about the Bush presidency to a great extent. However, it doesn't always mean that the alternative is more palatable or better. I think Kerry's competance is a factor that should be evaluated. Personally I can think of lot of ways a president could be more incompetant than Bush.

[adios]

Do you think Ralph Nader would be running if he got a lot less votes than he did in 2000?

[CORed]

Actually, Kerry hedges and weazels so much it would be tough to make the case that anything he says is a lie.

What scares me about Bush is that I think he believes a lot of his lies.

[juanez]

[ QUOTE ]
The only reason I can give is the he's not Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think Bush is dangerously incompetent.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bush's environmental record is atrocious.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but seems that you missed the whole point of my post, which was:

[ QUOTE ]
What do you like about Kerry himself? Why will you vote for him OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT YOU HATE BUSH?


[/ QUOTE ]

[juanez]

I'm not sure how significant debates are either, but I am looking forward to the spectacle. It will be fun to watch these two go head to head.

I predict a rather heated discussion, but few viewers will be swayed from one side to another.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you like about Kerry himself? Why will you vote for him OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT YOU HATE BUSH?

[/ QUOTE ]

The short answer to your question is "very little". Kerry to me seems to be the quintessential weazeling politicion, who won't take a clear stand on anything for fear that it might cost him votes. If I were not so disenchanted with Bush, I would not consider voting for Kerry.

[Zeno]

An excellent point (as usual). The debates may only be significant if the contest is very, very close. And appearance is much less a significant issue than it was more than 40 years ago, especially with the torrid media being what it is. Too much imagery tends to blur the landscape.

The debate probably did helped Kennedy, simply because it was more novel and had more of an impact on the public mind at that time, but still not as much as Mayor Daley did in getting Kennedy elected. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Debates are at worst, stage shows, and at best adventures in political comedy.

-Zeno

[andyfox]

"The debate probably did helped Kennedy, simply because it was more novel and had more of an impact on the public mind at that time, but still not as much as Mayor Daley did in getting Kennedy elected."

There's a great line from Joe McGinnis's book The Selling of the President in which McGinnis goes to bed on election night in 1968 (Nixon vs. Humphrey) hearing on the news that it would all come down to Illinois. When he wakes up the next morning he hears that Nixon has won. He posits that even Richard Daley didn't have the heart to steal an election from the same man twice.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Less taxpayer money given away to Halliburton?

[/ QUOTE ]

Halliburton is under contract, it is being paid to do a job (along with all the numerous subcontractors). So nothing is being 'given away'.

If you think Halliburton aquired the contract unfairly then that would be a legimate complaint and reason to vote for someone other than Bush/Cheney.

I am sending my Resume to Halliburton. I want in on the pie.

-Zeno

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that we "failed" in Iraq and that Bush should concede that? Seems like 50 million liberated Iraqi's might disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]
The majority of Iraqis, according to recent polls, have already been asked this. Their answer is they want us out now.

[ QUOTE ]
If we "failed" earlier there would have been thousands and thousands fewer Iraqi citizens in the mass graves.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't know what you're talking about.

[ QUOTE ]
But to consider our defeat of Saddam a failure is a stretch. We won't know if we "failed" for years to come. If a homicidal extremist Islam cleric is leading the country in 2010, tourturing and killing innocent citizens by the thousands again, then I guess I will concede that we failed.

[/ QUOTE ]
And if a homicidal pro-U.S. dictator or oligarchy is running Iraq, torturinng and killing innocent citizens (like the one running our client, Uzbekistan), then you'll probably consider it to have succeeded.

The problem with you guys is that you're so gullible. Do you really believe that Bush and Cheney and Rummy lose sleep over whether the third world is "democratic" or "free?"

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Any vote not for a republican or a democrat IS a wasted vote.

So you're saying the The Socialist Party had nothing to do with Roosevelt & the New Deal? That if the socialists had not been garnering increasing persentages throughout the 20's that the Democrats would have proposed such a far-reaching policy?

Do you also honestly believe that the strong showing by Wallace had no impact on the direction the GOP took over the past 3 decades?

No. A third party can't win the Presidency, but growing support to non-Republicrat options does shape the major parties' platforms.

[paland]

[ QUOTE ]
If we "failed" earlier there would have been thousands and thousands fewer Iraqi citizens in the mass graves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quoted from another forum:

"Ah yes, the mass graves. No one ever explains who is in those mass graves or how they came about. Do they contain Iraqis who died during U.S. bombings? Or Iraqis and Iranians who died in the Iraq-Iran war? Or the Iraqi soldiers who were plowed under with U.S. bulldozers at the end of the Gulf War? No one seems to know. But all anyone has to do is mention the "mass graves" — and we know immediately that no amount of money, no loss of American lives, no cost of any kind is too great for having rid the world of the man who created those "mass graves."

My point is that, although Sadam killed many citizens, the fanatic right greatly exaggerates the graves. I've heard some quote "millions of mass graves". Come on, integrity is an issue when speaking of these things.

[jumpthru]

[ QUOTE ]

That being said, I live in California so I feel safe voting for another party instead of the two status quo candidates.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does that mean? Do you mean that California's Electoral Votes are guaranteed to go to the democratic party and you can just vote what you want without fear that your vote actually matters?

[jumpthru]

[ QUOTE ]
From an antiwar perspective, this makes him arguably worse than Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whys that?

[jumpthru]

[ QUOTE ]
He can formulate an opinion and then articulate that opinion in a clear and concise manner.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not voting to oust VVP.. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Just out of curiosity, do you think that the 2000 election was any less an "anti" vote than this one will be?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry for my ignorance, but I thought the majority of people, or at least democrats, though the Clinton administration was good. Why was Gore such the devil?

[jumpthru]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only reason I can give is the he's not Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think Bush is dangerously incompetent.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bush's environmental record is atrocious.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but seems that you missed the whole point of my post, which was:

[ QUOTE ]
What do you like about Kerry himself? Why will you vote for him OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT YOU HATE BUSH?


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

The sad fact is this is a two party system, so regardless of what you think of the other person, you dont have much choice, and if you really dislike one party, it comes down to the lesser of two evils.

[ QUOTE ]

No. A third party can't win the Presidency,
[/quote[

So why do they run?

[slavic]

Kerry is a suit

I think the term is "empty suit", I've met many.

[astroglide]

ASHCROFT, cheney, rumsfeld, rice

[Chris Alger]

(1) Wtih more room to manuever both domestically and internationally, Kerry will have more power than Bush. Unshackled by Bush's obsessive unilateralism and record lying, he can more easily and credibly ask for international help, send more troops, spend more money, etc. Aside from the occasional demand for greater brutality, the right will support whatever he does short of withdrawal. And if everything goes south he can blame Bush. He has more tools with which to continue the general policy while modifying it only slightly. In fact, I believe this is pretty much what he's said he's going to do on the rare occasions when he's been specific.

(2) Much of the antiwar crowd simply blames Bush for the war and thinks its a partisan thing. There's some truth to this, but the reluctance to focus on the institutional and systemic factors lets Kerry off the hook. With Kerry in, much of the antiwar sentiment evaporates as Kerry tries to "get us out of the mess" Bush created, but continues to occupy the country and dictate Iraqi policy.

(3) The overwhemling consensus is that we're stuck in Iraq no matter who the President is. While public sentiment for the war is now in the minority, institutional sentiment remains high. There's little support among those that matter for fixing a deadline by which the U.S. will pull out.