Why I'll be voting for Kerry come November

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Palestinian Jew, Apr 24, 2004.

  1. Palestinian Jew
    Offline

    Palestinian Jew Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    903
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Fayetteville
    Ratings:
    +18
    Well, since I'm not only going to vote for Kerry, but actually volunteer and campaign, I thought I should be able to say why I like John Kerry's stance on the issues.
    I should say a couple things first though, I know Kerry seems to flipflop, but he's the most liberal member of the senate so I think we all know where his true core values are. Secondly, if Nader was viable I would vote for him, not because I like his views on all of the issues, but because he's not a phony like Kerry and Bush. Hell, I liked Kucinich a lot just because the guy had solid beliefs.
    So not thats out of the way, here are a few reasons I like John Kerry(This won't have any Bush bashing to show I'll be voting for Kerry instead of against Bush:D )

    1)If we continue down the path we're on, at the end of the century the face of the earth and the climate will be severely different, due to global warming. Kerry says he will begin to lay the ground on a hydrogen economy(my dream come true!) which he wants going by 2020, a pretty good date. Kerry also wants to raise the number of miles per gallon to 36 by the year 2015. He also wants to lower the dependence on foreign oil, but he doesn't want to drill in ANWAR.

    2) The "No Child Left Behind Act" will now be funded.

    3) Kerry claims he can get the UN to help us in Iraq, but unless he's willing to let France, Germany and Russia off the hook, I don't buy it. But he does want to get NATO involved and more troops into Iraq, then again, so does Bush.

    4) Kerry will repair the damage that Bush has done to the Clean Air and Water Act.

    5) For Homeland Security, Kerry wants to rollback the taxcut on the rich and begin paying for certain Homeland Security issues, like increasing the number of "First Defenders", creating a volunteer gov't organization against terrorism, protecting vulnerable ports, chemical facilities and nuclear plants. :D
     
  2. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    And yet you believe all the crap he spouts. At least your honest and you know you're voting for a phony flip flopper.
     
  3. winston churchi
    Offline

    winston churchi Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2004
    Messages:
    640
    Thanks Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +9
    Unless one of the candidates were a man like Abe Lincoln, or George Washington to name two, I wouldn't involve myself in any camp.
     
  4. JIHADTHIS
    Offline

    JIHADTHIS Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,055
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Mowing a grassy knoll....
    Ratings:
    +22
    You're in trouble already :D


    He says this now, wait till he addresses the UAW next week and says he loves the SUV he doesn't own but rides around in that his family does or doesn't own :p:


    Out of his own pocket? Congress supplies the funding, not the president

    you cancelled out your own point there

    You may have an issue there, I'm not impressed at all with GW's handling of the environmental issues

    The whole "tax cut for the rich" line is such bullshit that has been debunked countless times already. I'm sorry that you feel you have to give this man time out of your life as a volunteer, there are so many other worthwhile causes out there that could use your help.
     
  5. Gop guy
    Offline

    Gop guy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    927
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    West Reading PA
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yeah
     
  6. JIHADTHIS
    Offline

    JIHADTHIS Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,055
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Mowing a grassy knoll....
    Ratings:
    +22
    Going back to the U.N.? For what?
    Charles Krauthammer


    WASHINGTON -- In 1952, a presidential candidate running against an administration that had gotten the U.S. into a debilitating and inconclusive war abroad pledged: ``I will go to Korea.'' He won. A half century later, a presidential candidate running against an administration that has gotten the U.S. into a debilitating and (thus far) inconclusive war abroad, pledges: ``I will go to the U.N.''

    Electrifying, is it not? And Democrats are wondering why their man is trailing a rather wounded George Bush not just overall, but on Iraq -- and precisely at a time when Iraq is going so badly.

    ``If I'm president,'' Kerry said, ``I will not only personally go to the U.N., I will go to other capitals.'' For Kerry, showing up at Kofi Annan's doorstep and sweeping through Allied capitals is no rhetorical flourish, no strategic sideshow. It is the essence of his Iraq plan: ``Within weeks of being inaugurated, I will return to the U.N. and I will literally, formally rejoin the community of nations and turn over a proud new chapter in America's relationship with the world.''

    This is an Iraq policy? Never has a more serious question received a more feckless answer. Going back to the U.N.: What does that mean? It cannot mean the General Assembly, which decides nothing. It must mean going back to the Security Council.

    There are five permanent members. We are one. The British are already with us. So that leaves China, indifferent at best to our Middle East adventure, though generally hostile, and Russia, which has opposed the war from the very beginning. Moscow was so wedded to Saddam that it was doing everything it could to prevent an impartial Paul Volcker commission from investigating the corrupt oil-for-food program that enriched Saddam and, through kickbacks, hundreds of others in dozens of countries, including Russia.

    That leaves ... France. What does Kerry think France will do for us? Perhaps he sees himself and Teresa descending on Paris like Jack and Jackie in Camelot days. Does he really believe that if he grovels before Jacques Chirac in well-accented French, he will persuade France to join us in a war that it has opposed from the beginning, that is now going badly, and that has moved Iraq out of the French sphere of influence and into the American?

    The idea is so absurd that when Tim Russert interviewed Kerry and quoted Democratic foreign policy adviser Ivo Daalder as saying that handing political and military responsibility to the U.N. and other countries is not realistic, Kerry simply dodged the question. There was nothing to say.

    Which might help inside-the-Beltway Washington find its way out of its conundrum over the latest polls. No one can understand how, with the president being pummeled daily on the front pages by Richard Clarke, the Sept. 11 hearings, the Woodward book, and the eruption of Iraq into open warfare again, Bush nonetheless has gained over Kerry on the issue of national security.

    The answer is simple: Americans are a serious people, war is a serious business, and what John Kerry is offering is simply not serious. Americans may be unsure whether Bush has a plan for success in Iraq. But they sure as hell know that going to U.N. headquarters, visiting foreign capitals and promising lots of jaw-jaw is no plan at all.

    I give Kerry credit for not taking the easy antiwar path. He agrees that abandoning Iraq would be catastrophic for the United States and for the war on terror. Kerry did flirt with Howard Dean in the primaries, but has consistently opposed ``cut and run.''

    True, it would be politically suicidal to zigzag yet again on the war. After having voted No on the Gulf War, Yes on the Iraq war, No on the $87 billion for reconstruction, and today advocating a firm Yes on finishing the job, to now reverse himself once again and advocate pulling out would be a politically fatal flip-flop.

    But his tortuous path to his current position has left him politically bereft on Iraq. Ralph Nader has now made himself the antiwar candidate by calling for a pullout in six months. With that, his candidacy found a rationale beyond mere vanity, and may indeed draw some serious Democratic support. Many liberals and left-wingers will find it hard to support a Democratic candidate who, like Hubert Humphrey in 1968, advocates staying the course on a war they hate.

    Kerry's political problem is that he supports Bush's Iraq objective and differs only on the means. Unfortunately for Kerry, ``I will go to Turtle Bay'' is not the stuff of legend. Unless he comes up with something better, Kerry may lose the war issue that was his for the taking.

    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20040423.shtml
     
  7. JIHADTHIS
    Offline

    JIHADTHIS Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,055
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Mowing a grassy knoll....
    Ratings:
    +22
    Kerry's U.N. fetish
    Jeff Jacoby

    For the better part of 18 months, John Kerry has bitterly denounced the Bush administration's conduct of international relations, above all in Iraq. Over and over he has pronounced his unsparing indictment: "George Bush has pursued the most arrogant, inept, reckless, and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of this country."

    That is remarkably hostile language for a presidential challenger. No major party candidate for the White House in modern times has so thoroughly abandoned the principle that politics stops at the water's edge.

    On the other hand, voters clearly benefit when candidates articulate their differences, and make plain what is at stake on Election Day. After 18 months of honing his anti-Bush message, Kerry should be able to outline his alternative foreign policy with crystal clarity. He should have no trouble laying out a comprehensive vision for Iraq and the Middle East and explaining why it is superior to Bush's.

    So why doesn't he do so?

    On "Meet the Press" this week, NBC's Tim Russert pressed Kerry to spell out just what it is he hopes to accomplish in Iraq, and how his goals differ from Bush's. Among his questions: Do you believe the war in Iraq was a mistake? Do you have a plan to deal with Iraq? If you are elected, will there be 100,000 US troops in Iraq a year from now? Why do you say the UN and NATO should take over when they don't have the troops or the desire to do so?

    Here is a representative excerpt from Kerry's replies:

    "We need a new president . . . to re-establish credibility with the rest of the world. . . . Here is the bottom line: Number one, you cannot bring other nations to the table through the back door. You cannot have America run the occupation, make all the reconstruction decisions, make the decisions of the kind of government that will emerge, and pretend to bring other nations to the table.

    "Now, finally, George Bush is doing what I . . . have recommended. In effect, he's transferred to the UN the decision about what government we'll turn it over to. But he won't transfer to the UN the real authority for determining how the government emerges, how we will do the reconstruction of Iraq. . . .

    "If I'm president, I will not only personally go to the UN, I will go to other capitals. . . . I will immediately reach out to other nations in a very different way from this administration. Within weeks of being inaugurated, I will return to the UN and I will literally, formally rejoin the community of nations and turn over a proud new chapter in America's relationship with the world."

    No matter how the question is put, Kerry's answers on Iraq always boil down to a single recipe: Shrink the US role in Iraq and defer to the United Nations instead. That's it. That is the sum and substance of his thinking about Iraq. He doesn't relate it to the war on terrorism, to the future of liberty in the Middle East, to America's national interests. He repeatedly declares Bush a failure for not kowtowing to the UN and vows that in a Kerry administration, the UN will be given the commanding role it deserves.

    Kerry has been talking this way for months. In his speech on Iraq at the Brookings Institution last fall, for example, he mentioned the UN no fewer than 25 times. ("We need a new Security Council resolution to give the United Nations real authority in the rebuilding of Iraq. . . . This shift of authority from the United States to the United Nations is indispensable.") By contrast, he mentioned terrorism just seven times. He mentioned freedom, democracy, and the Middle East not at all.

    There is more of this UN fetish in Kerry's recent Washington Post column on Iraq. "The United Nations, not the United States," he writes, "should be the primary civilian partner in working with Iraqi leaders to hold elections, restore government services, rebuild the economy, and recreate a sense of hope and optimism among the Iraqi people."

    When Bush speaks about Iraq, by contrast, it is clear that he has thought the subject through and related it to his larger goals in the world. Agree or disagree with Bush's vision for Iraq, there is no denying he has one. Consider an extract from his recent press conference:

    "The defeat of violence and terror in Iraq is vital to the defeat of violence and terror elsewhere, and vital, therefore, to the safety of the American people. Now is the time, and Iraq is the place, in which the enemies of the civilized world are testing the will of the civilized world. We must not waver. . . .

    "The consequences of failure in Iraq would be unthinkable. Every friend of America and Iraq would be betrayed to prison and murder as a new tyranny arose. Every enemy of America and the world would celebrate, proclaiming our weakness and decadence, and using that victory to recruit a new generation of killers.

    "We will succeed in Iraq. . . . Iraq will be a free, independent country, and America and the Middle East will be safer because of it. . . . We serve the cause of liberty, and that is always . . . a cause worth serving."

    The cause of liberty and the defeat of terror vs. the cause of a more powerful UN: In this first presidential election of the post-9/11 world, that is what the choice comes down to.

    ©2004 Boston Globe



    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jeffjacoby/jj20040423.shtml
     
  8. kingjames04
    Online

    kingjames04 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Anytime you hear a liberal saying the "tax cut for the rich", it meets a reliable litmus test for establishing someone who has no clue what they speak of.
     
  9. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Watchout king james, you'll run afoul of the "anti-generalization police"!

    Logic itself is a tool of oppression, doncha know!

    Welcome to our cave.
     
  10. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    PJ, I applaud you for attempting to show support for Kerry based on his stands on the issues, not based on the Anyone But Bush argument. However, here are my questions:
    1a. By raising the MPG standard to 36 mpg, Kerry would force automakers to sell nothing but roller-skate cars and hybrids. Nothing wrong with these cars, but it will drastically increase the cost of these cars, not to mention the decrease in the production of other mid-size, full-size cars, SUVs, trucks, etc., putting thousands out of work who make those automobiles.
    1b. How is he going to decrease our dependence on foreign oil without increase domestic oil production?
    2. I totally disagree with Bush on this one - NCLB shouldn't be part of federal law at all. On that basis, I disagree that Kerry should fund it.
    3. Kerry wants to get the UN invloved in Iraq. However, when the UN was in Iraq, one car bomb scared them right out. Do we really want to subject US troops to this kind of leadership? Not to mention, there are 30 other countries with troops in Iraq already, plus 22 others who aupport the coalition in other ways.
    4. What, specifcally, has Bush changed about these acts? What negative effects has this had on the environment? I'm not too knowledgeable about it, but I am assuming not much environmental damage is being done.
    5. Kerry wants to raise taxes on the rich to pay for more cops & firefighters. IMO, those are the responsibility of the states and local governments, not the federal gov't (DoJ and FBI excluded). I wuld be in favor of federal protection of the sites you listed, working with local law officials. But raising taxes on the rich is going to decrease tax receipts, as has been shown repeatedly over the last 20-30 years.
     

Share This Page