How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Why Not Kerry??   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ]
 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Why Not Kerry??

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


100 posted 07-24-2004 12:55 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

I really have no idea what Kerry's stance is on whaling (presumably we are talking about the Japanese practice), but that a person could personally be against abortion but believe that a government shouldn't legislate either for or against certainly isn't a flip flop -- in fact most of the evidence presented here aren't flip flops.

Is it really difficult to understand?

I don't think prostitution is a good thing, but I think it should be legalized.

Is that a flip flop?

Juju,

You can't say anything about Kerry's position because, as you said yourself, you don't understand what he's saying (he makes you dizzy), so please don't pretend that you know whether or not Kerry has a solid position -- you don't know.

"I'm a uniter, not a divider"

"You're either for us or against us"

--George Bush

Face it, the Bushmongers are grasping for straw right now.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


101 posted 07-24-2004 01:17 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Brad, if you're trying to make some comparisons to claim Kerry is not a flipflopper, I'd say you're the one grasping. His waffles are too well documented for even you to rationalize as rational...

Now, excuse me while I stuff some documents down my shorts and socks....accidently, of course Talk about grasping!!
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


102 posted 07-24-2004 01:27 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Unfortunately, the documentation you've provided contradicts itself (More on that later.).

But is it a flip flop to have religious beliefs and not believe that they should be government policy?

Somehow, the idea that "Everybody knows . . ." doesn't strike me as a particularly persuasive or solid retort.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


103 posted 07-24-2004 01:48 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

most of the ones presented here are not flip-flops? Well, let's see what we can find...
..............................................................
In 1991, Kerry Supported Most-Favored Trade Status For China. “Sen. John Kerry said yesterday that he is breaking party ranks to support most-favored-nation trade status for China … ‘I think the president has some strong arguments about some of the assets of most-favored-nation status for China,’ Kerry said.” (John Aloysius Farrell, “Kerry Breaks Party Ranks To Back China Trade Status,” The Boston Globe, 6/15/91)

In 2000, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Permanent Normal Trade Relations With China. (H.R. 4444, CQ Vote #251: Passed 83-15: R 46-8; D 37-7, 9/19/00, Kerry Voted Yea)

Now Kerry Criticizes The Bush Administration For Trading With China. “Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said on Monday Americans workers were paying the price for President Bush's weak stance on trade with China and other countries. … On the bus tour, Kerry singled out the Bush administration's handling of trade with China and said that country was manipulating its currency.” (Caren Bohan, "Kerry Pledges Aggressive Trade Stance," Reuters, 4/26/04)
...........................................................

Kerry Voted For Authorization To Use Force In Iraq. (H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea.)

In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President’s Action In Iraq. KERRY: “George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.” (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)

Kerry Later Claimed He Voted “To Threaten” Use Of Force In Iraq. “I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Presidential Candidacy, Mount Pleasant, SC, 9/2/03)

Now, Kerry Says He Is Anti-War Candidate. CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it’s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?” KERRY: “I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 1/6/04)
...........................................................

Kerry Said He Will Fight To Keep Tax Relief For Married Couples. “Howard Dean and Gephardt are going to put the marriage penalty back in place. So if you get married in America, we’re going to charge you more taxes. I do not want to do that.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 10/23/03)

Said Democrats Fought To End Marriage Penalty Tax. “We fought hard to get rid of the marriage penalty.” (MSNBC’s “News Live,” 7/31/03)

But, In 1998, Kerry Voted Against Eliminating Marriage Penalty Relief For Married Taxpayers With Combined Incomes Less Than $50,000 Per Year, Saving Taxpayers $46 Billion Over 10 Years. (S. 1415, CQ Vote #154: Rejected 48-50: R 5-49; D 43-1, 6/10/98, Kerry Voted Yea)
...........................................................

Kerry Voted For Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House. (H.R. 3162, CQ Vote #313: Passed 98-1: R 49-0; D 48-1; I 1-0, 10/25/01, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Used To Defend His Vote. “Most of [The Patriot Act] has to do with improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on September 11th.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Town Hall Meeting, Manchester, NH, 8/6/03)

Now, Kerry Attacks Patriot Act. “We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time. I’ve been a District Attorney and I know that what law enforcement needs are real tools not restrictions on American’s basic rights.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Iowa State University, 12/1/03)
..............................................................

“Rather than take a side--albeit the one he thought was most expedient--Kerry actually stood on both sides of the first Gulf war, much like he did this time around. Consider this ‘Notebook’ item from TNR’s March 25, 1991 issue, which ran under the headline ‘Same Senator, Same Constituent’: ‘Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war.’ --letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22 [1991] ‘Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush’s response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf.’ --Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991]” (Noam Scheiber, “Noam Scheiber’s Daily Journal of Politics, The New Republic Online, 1/28/04)
...........................................................

In 2002, Kerry Signed Letter “Urging” MA Legislature To Reject Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage. “We rarely comment on issues that are wholly within the jurisdiction of the General Court, but there are occasions when matters pending before you are of such significance to all residents of the Commonwealth that we think it appropriate for us to express our opinion. One such matter is the proposed Constitutional amendment that would prohibit or seriously inhibit any legal recognition whatsoever of same-sex relationships. We believe it would be a grave error for Massachusetts to enshrine in our Constitution a provision which would have such a negative effect on so many of our fellow residents. … We are therefore united in urging you to reject this Constitutional amendment and avoid stigmatizing so many of our fellow citizens who do not deserve to be treated in such a manner.” (Sen. John Kerry, et al, Letter To Members Of The Massachusetts Legislature, 7/12/02)

Now, In 2004, Kerry Won’t Rule Out Supporting Similar Amendment. “Asked if he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages, Kerry didn’t rule out the possibility. ‘I’ll have to see what language there is,’ he said.” (Susan Milligan, “Kerry Says GOP May Target Him On ‘Wedge Issue,’” The Boston Globe, 2/6/04)
............................................................

In March 2003, Kerry Promised Not To Attack President When War Began. “Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts … said he will cease his complaints once the shooting starts. ‘It’s what you owe the troops,’ said a statement from Kerry, a Navy veteran of the Vietnam War. ‘I remember being one of those guys and reading news reports from home. If America is at war, I won’t speak a word without measuring how it’ll sound to the guys doing the fighting when they’re listening to their radios in the desert.’” (Glen Johnson, “Democrats On The Stump Plot Their War Rhetoric,” The Boston Globe, 3/11/03)

But Weeks Later, With Troops Just Miles From Baghdad, Kerry Broke His Pledge. “‘What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,’ Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough Town Library. Despite pledging two weeks ago to cool his criticism of the administration once war began, Kerry unleashed a barrage of criticism as US troops fought within 25 miles of Baghdad.” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Says Us Needs Its Own ‘Regime Change,’” The Boston Globe, 4/3/03)
............................................................

In 1996, Kerry Attacked Governor Bill Weld For Supporting Death Penalty For Terrorists. KERRY: “Your policy would amount to a terrorist protection policy. Mine would put them in jail.” (1996 Massachusetts Senate Debate, 9/16/96)

In 1996, Kerry Said, “You Can Change Your Mind On Things, But Not On Life-And-Death Issues.” (Timothy J. Connolly, “The ‘Snoozer’ Had Some Life,” [Worcester, MA] Telegram & Gazette, 7/3/96)

But, In 2002, Kerry Said He Supported Death Penalty For Terrorists. KERRY: “The law of the land is the law of the land, but I have also said that I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 12/1/02)
...........................................................

Kerry Voted For No Child Left Behind Act. (H.R. 1, CQ Vote #371: Adopted 87-10: R 44-3; D 43-6; I 0-1, 12/18/01, Kerry Voted Yea)

But Now Kerry Is Attacking No Child Left Behind As “Mockery.” “Between now and the time I’m sworn in January 2005, I’m going to use every day to make this president accountable for making a mockery of the words ‘No Child Left Behind.’” (Holly Ramer, “Kerry Wants To Make ‘Environmental Justice’ A Priority,” The Associated Press, 4/22/03)
...........................................................

In 1992, Kerry Called Affirmative Action “Inherently Limited And Divisive.” “[W]hile praising affirmative action as ‘one kind of progress’ that grew out of civil rights court battles, Kerry said the focus on a rights-based agenda has ‘inadvertently driven most of our focus in this country not to the issue of what is happening to the kids who do not get touched by affirmative action, but … toward an inherently limited and divisive program which is called affirmative action.’ That agenda is limited, he said, because it benefits segments of black and minority populations, but not all. And it is divisive because it creates a ‘perception and a reality of reverse discrimination that has actually engendered racism.’” (Lynne Duke, “Senators Seek Serious Dialogue On Race,” The Washington Post, 4/8/92)

In 2004, Kerry Denied Ever Having Called Affirmative Action “Divisive.” CNN’s KELLY WALLACE: “We caught up with the Senator, who said he never called affirmative action divisive, and accused Clark of playing politics.” SEN. KERRY: “That’s not what I said. I said there are people who believe that. And I said mend it, don’t end it. He’s trying to change what I said, but you can go read the quote. I said very clearly I have always voted for it. I’ve always supported it. I’ve never, ever condemned it. I did what Jim Clyburn did and what Bill Clinton did, which is mend it. And Jim Clyburn wouldn’t be supporting it if it were otherwise. So let’s not have any politics here. Let’s keep the truth.” (CNN’s “Inside Politics,” 1/30/04)
...........................................................

Kerry Twice Voted Against Tax Breaks For Ethanol. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #44: Rejected 48-52: R 11-32; D 37-20, 3/23/93, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #68: Motion Agreed To 55-43: R 2-40; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Voted Against Ethanol Mandates. (H.R. 4624, CQ Vote #255: Motion Agreed To 51-50: R 19-25; D 31-25, 8/3/94, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Voted Twice To Increase Liability On Ethanol, Making It Equal To Regular Gasoline. (S. 517, CQ Vote #87: Motion Agreed To 57-42: R 38-10; D 18-32; I 1-0, 4/25/02 Kerry Voted Nay; S. 14, CQ Vote #208: Rejected 38-57: R 9-40; D 28-17; I 1-0, 6/5/03, Kerry Voted Yea)

On The Campaign Trail, Though, Kerry Is For Ethanol. KERRY: “I’m for ethanol, and I think it’s a very important partial ingredient of the overall mix of alternative and renewable fuels we ought to commit to.” (MSNBC/DNC, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Des Moines, IA, 11/24/03)
...........................................................

Senator Kerry Has Long Voted Against Stronger Cuba Sanctions. (H.R. 927, CQ Vote #489, Motion Rejected 59-36: R 50-2; D 9-34, 10/17/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 955, CQ Vote #183: Rejected 38-61: R 5-49; D 33-12, 7/17/97, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1234, CQ Vote #189, Motion Agreed To 55-43: R 43-10; D 12-33, 6/30/99, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2549, CQ Vote #137: Motion Agreed To 59-41: R 52-3; D 7-38, 6/20/00, Kerry Voted Nay)

In 2000, Kerry Said Florida Politics Is Only Reason Cuba Sanctions Still In Place. “Senator John F. Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat and member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said in an interview that a reevaluation of relations with Cuba was ‘way overdue.’ ‘We have a frozen, stalemated, counterproductive policy that is not in humanitarian interests nor in our larger credibility interest in the region,’ Kerry said. … ‘It speaks volumes about the problems in the current American electoral process. … The only reason we don’t reevaluate the policy is the politics of Florida.’” (John Donnelly, “Policy Review Likely On Cuba,” The Boston Globe, 4/9/00)

Now Kerry Panders To Cuban Vote, Saying He Would Not Lift Embargo Against Cuba. TIM RUSSERT: “Would you consider lifting sanctions, lifting the embargo against Cuba?” SEN. KERRY: “Not unilaterally, not now, no.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/31/03)

Kerry Does Not Support “Opening Up The Embargo Wily Nilly.” “Kerry said he believes in ‘engagement’ with the communist island nation but that does not mean, ‘Open up the dialogue.’ He believes it ‘means travel and perhaps even remittances or cultural exchanges’ but he does not support ‘opening up the embargo wily nilly.’” (Daniel A. Ricker, “Kerry Says Bush Did Not Build A ‘Legitimate Coalition’ In Iraq,” The Miami Herald, 11/25/03)
...........................................................

Kerry Recognized NAFTA Is Our Future. “‘NAFTA recognizes the reality of today’s economy - globalization and technology,’ Kerry said. ‘Our future is not in competing at the low-level wage job; it is in creating high-wage, new technology jobs based on our skills and our productivity.’” (John Aloysius Farrell, “Senate’s OK Finalizes NAFTA Pact,” The Boston Globe, 11/21/93)

Now, Kerry Expresses Doubt About NAFTA. “Kerry, who voted for NAFTA in 1993, expressed some doubt about the strength of free-trade agreements. ‘If it were before me today, I would vote against it because it doesn’t have environmental or labor standards in it,’ he said.” (David Lightman, “Democrats Battle For Labor’s Backing,” Hartford Courant, 8/6/03)
...........................................................

December 2002: Kerry Favored Ending Double Taxation Of Dividends. “[T]o encourage investments in the jobs of the future - I think we should eliminate the tax on capital gains for investments in critical technology companies - zero capital gains on $100 million issuance of stock if it’s held for 5 years and has created real jobs. And we should attempt to end the double taxation of dividends.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At The City Club Of Cleveland, 12/3/02)

May 2003: Kerry Said He Opposed Ending Double Taxation Of Dividends. “Kerry also reiterated his opposition to the Republican plan to cut taxes on stock dividends. ‘This is not the time for a dividends tax cut that goes to individuals,’ he said.” (“Kerry Says Time Is On Dems’ Side,” The Associated Press, 5/8/03)
...........................................................

September 2001: Said Should Not Raise Taxes In Economic Downturn. “The first priority is the economy of our nation. And when you have a downturn in the economy, the last thing you do is raise taxes or cut spending. We shouldn’t do either. We need to maintain a course that hopefully will stimulate the economy. . . . No, we should not raise taxes, but we have to put everything on the table to take a look at why we have this structural problem today. . . .[Y]ou don’t want to raise taxes.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 9/2/01)


    * We Should “Absolutely Not Raise Taxes.” “Well, I think it’s very clear what I favor because we voted for it early in the spring, which was the Democratic budget alternative that had triggers in it where you didn’t wind up spending money you don’t have. It had a smaller tax cut but more tax cut for a stimulus, which is what we need. So you ask me, what do we need now? Yes, we need additional stimulus. We should absolutely not raise taxes. We should not cut spending. What we need to do is drive the economy of this country. The economy is the number one issue. It is the most important thing we should focus on.” (CNN’s “Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields,” 9/8/01)
        
    * December 2002: Flip-Flopped, Would Keep Tax Cuts From Taking Effect. NBC’s TIM RUSSERT: “Senator . . . should we freeze or roll back the Bush tax cut?” KERRY: “Well, I wouldn’t take away from people who’ve already been given their tax cut … What I would not do is give any new Bush tax cuts.” … RUSSERT: “So the tax cut that’s scheduled to be implemented in the coming years …” KERRY: “No new tax cut under the Bush plan. . . . It doesn’t make economic sense.” … RUSSERT: “Now, this is a change …” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 12/1/02)
          
    * Called For Freeze Of Bush Tax Cuts In Favor Of Year-Long Suspension Of Payroll Taxes On First $10,000 Of Personal Income. “Kerry said Bush’s tax cuts have mainly benefited the rich while doing little for the economy. Kerry is proposing to halt Bush’s additional tax cuts and instead impose a yearlong suspension of payroll taxes on the first $10,000 of income to help the poor and middle class.” (Tyler Bridges, “Kerry Visits Miami To Start Raising Funds,” The Miami Herald, 12/7/02)
.............................................................

Kerry Voted Against Exempting Small Businesses And Family Farms From Clinton Income Tax Increase. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #79: Motion Agreed To 54-45: R 0-43; D 54-2, 3/25/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

Three Months Later, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Proposal To Exclude Small Businesses From The Increased Income Tax. (S. 1134, CQ Vote #171: Motion Rejected 56-42: R 43-0; D 13-42, 6/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)
...........................................................

Kerry Used To Say Abortion Should Be Left Up To States. “I think the question of abortion is one that should be left for the states to decide,” Kerry said during his failed 1972 Congressional bid. (“John Kerry On The Issues,” The [Lowell, MA] Sun, 10/11/72)

Now Kerry Says Abortion Is Law Of Entire Nation. “The right to choose is the law of the United States. No person has the right to infringe on that freedom. Those of us who are in government have a special responsibility to see to it that the United States continues to protect this right, as it must protect all rights secured by the constitution.” (Sen. John Kerry [D-MA], Congressional Record, 1/22/85)

...........................................................

Kerry Used To Oppose Litmus Tests For Judicial Nominees. “Throughout two centuries, our federal judiciary has been a model institution, one which has insisted on the highest standards of conduct by our public servants and officials, and which has survived with undiminished respect. Today, I fear that this institution is threatened in a way that we have not seen before. … This threat is that of the appointment of a judiciary which is not independent, but narrowly ideological, through the systematic targeting of any judicial nominee who does not meet the rigid requirements of litmus tests imposed …” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 2/3/86, p. S864)

But Now Kerry Says He Would Only Support Supreme Court Nominees Who Pledge To Uphold Roe v. Wade. “The potential retirement of Supreme Court justices makes the 2004 presidential election especially important for women, Senator John F. Kerry told a group of female Democrats yesterday, and he pledged that if elected president he would nominate to the high court only supporters of abortion rights under its Roe v. Wade decision. … ‘Any president ought to appoint people to the Supreme Court who understand the Constitution and its interpretation by the Supreme Court. In my judgment, it is and has been settled law that women, Americans, have a defined right of privacy and that the government does not make the decision with respect to choice. Individuals do.’” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Vows Court Picks To Be Abortion-Rights Supporters,” The Boston Globe, 4/9/03)
.............................................................

In 2001, Kerry Voted Against Amendment Providing $70 Billion For Tax Credits For Small Business To Purchase Health Insurance. (H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #83: Rejected 49-51: R 48-2; D 1-49, 4/5/01, Kerry Voted Nay)

Now, Kerry Promises Refundable Tax Credits To Small Businesses For Health Coverage. “Refundable tax credits for up to 50 percent of the cost of coverage will be offered to small businesses and their employees to make health care more affordable.” (“John Kerry’s Plan To Make Health Care Affordable To Every American,” John Kerry For President Website, www.johnkerry.com, Accessed 1/21/04)
...........................................................

In 1994, Kerry Said Democrats Push Health Care Too Much. “[Kerry] said Kennedy and Clinton’s insistence on pushing health care reform was a major cause of the Democratic Party’s problems at the polls.” (Joe Battenfeld, “Jenny Craig Hit With Sex Harassment Complaint - By Men,” Boston Herald, 11/30/94)

But Now Kerry Calls Health Care His “Passion.” “Sen. John Kerry says expanding coverage is ‘my passion.’” (Susan Page, “Health Specifics Could Backfire On Candidates,” USA Today, 6/2/03)
..............................................................

Kerry Used To Oppose Expensing Stock Options. “Democratic Senator John F. Kerry was among those fighting expensing of stock options.” (Sue Kirchhoff, “Senate Blocks Options,” The Boston Globe, 7/16/02)

Kerry Said Expensing Options Would Not “Benefit The Investing Public.” KERRY: “Mr. President, the Financial Accounting Standards Board … has proposed a rule that will require companies to amortize the value of stock options and deduct them off of their earnings statements … I simply cannot see how the FASB rule, as proposed, will benefit the investing public.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 3/10/94, p. S2772)

But Now Kerry Says He Supports Carrying Of Stock Options As Corporate Expense. “On an issue related to corporate scandals, Kerry for the first time endorsed the carrying of stock options as a corporate expense. The use of stock options was abused by some companies and contributed to overly optimistic balance sheets. Kerry applauded steps by Microsoft Corp. to eliminate stock options for employees and said all publicly traded companies should be required to expense such options.” (Dan Balz, “Kerry Raps Bush Policy On Postwar Iraq,” The Washington Post, 7/11/03)
............................................................

Kerry Used To Decry “Special Interests And Their PAC Money.” “‘I’m frequently told by cynics in Washington that refusing PAC money is naive,’ Kerry told his supporters in 1985. ‘Do you agree that it is “naïve” to turn down special interests and their PAC money?’” (Glen Johnson, “In A Switch, Kerry Is Launching A PAC,” The Boston Globe, 12/15/01)

But Now, Kerry Has Established His Own PAC. “A week after repeating that he has refused to accept donations from political action committees, Senator John F. Kerry announced yesterday that he was forming a committee that would accept PAC money for him to distribute to other Democratic candidates. … Kerry’s stance on soft money, unregulated donations funneled through political parties, puts him in the position of raising the type of money that he, McCain, and others in the campaign-finance reform movement are trying to eliminate.” (Glen Johnson, “In A Switch, Kerry Is Launching A PAC,” The Boston Globe, 12/15/01)
...........................................................

AND THEN WE HAVE THE ONE THAT TOPS THEM ALL>>

Kerry: Service Should Not Be “Litmus Test” For Leadership. “Mr. President, you and I know that if support or opposition to the war were to become a litmus test for leadership, America would never have leaders or recover from the divisions created by that war. You and I know that if service or nonservice in the war is to become a test of qualification for high office, you would not have a Vice President, nor would you have a Secretary of Defense and our Nation would never recover from the divisions created by that war.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/08/92, p. S17709)

But Now Kerry Constantly “Challenges The Stature Of His Democratic Opponents” Over Their Lack Of Military Service. “And more than ever, Mr. Kerry is invoking his stature as a Vietnam veteran as he challenges the stature of his Democratic opponents -- none of whom, he frequently points out, have ‘worn the uniform of our country’ -- to withstand a debate with Mr. Bush on national security.” (Adam Nagourney, “As Campaign Tightens, Kerry Sharpens Message,” The New York Times, 8/10/03)

...........................................................


If none of those convince you, I have more.......
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


104 posted 07-24-2004 02:01 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Oh, and you mentioned abortion, Brad...

The Washington Post via the Seattle Times reports:

    But even as he tried to avoid making news, Kerry broke ground in an interview that ran in the Dubuque, Iowa, daily, the Telegraph Herald. A Catholic who supports abortion rights and has taken heat recently from some in the church hierarchy for his stance, Kerry told the paper: "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception.

    "I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist," he continued. "We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."

Captain Ed, at Captain's Quarters explains that this completely belie every vote Kerry has ever taken on the subject of abortion, including his support of the late-term abortion procedure sometimes called partial-birth abortion. If life begins at conception, why then does Jon Kerry not only agree to allow abortion, but campaigns on its behalf?

Good question, huh?

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank a soldier.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


105 posted 07-24-2004 02:37 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Hey, keep them coming. Why you think an opinion ten or thirty years ago compared with today is a flip flop is beyond me and a lot of the other stuff self destructs if you actually read what was said (though, I admit, not all).

Still, I'm trying to figure out why separating your religious beliefs as you participate in a secular government is a flip flop?

I would call that good government as the alternative is theocracy.

As you well know, I love a good, nuanced position and that's exactly what I see Kerry trying to do. Unfortunately, nuance doesn't seem to be in favor these days, nonsense seems to be the order of the day.

How you can accuse Kerry of these things (comparing opinions over the course of thirty years) and remain silent when Bush can use justice and "Wanted: Dead or alive" in the same breath just goes to show that you don't really care about Kerry's stance, you just want four more years of the self-appointed anointed one.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


106 posted 07-24-2004 04:23 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Raph hugs Brad grins
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


107 posted 07-24-2004 09:23 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

How you can accuse Kerry of these things (comparing opinions over the course of thirty years) and remain silent when Bush can use justice and "Wanted: Dead or alive" in the same breath

Thank you, Brad. You have just proven the point of this thread, which was what I expected. The thread is about Kerry, pro or con, and the only way people seem to be able to respond to any Kerry negativity is to ignore it and flip the accusations to Bush. For you and those who would hug you, my thanks...
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


108 posted 07-24-2004 10:18 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Was Brad's last comment you quoted about Bush, Mike? Read it again and see if you can find the subject/verb being used …


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


109 posted 07-24-2004 03:13 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

when Bush can use justice and "Wanted: Dead or alive" in the same breath

Yes, Ron, I would say that refers to Bush.....just because it is not the grammatical subject and verb of the complex sentence doesn't mean that it's not an object (and a direct one) to to set up a "not as bad as Bush" comparison.

to show that you don't really care about Kerry's stance, says nothing. Brad has not described Kerry's stance anything he knows or likes about Kerry's stance.

The object of this thread was to ask those voting for Kerry if they were doing it as a "he's not Bush" or a "lesser of two evils" stance or, if not, what characteristics or positions of his do they admire enough to want him to be President. Out of 108   responses, we have come down with Aenimal stating (1) stem cell research (2) a rethinking of foreign policy (which says nothing) and (3) environmental issues - and he followd up with stating that he, too, wished Kerry were more specific. Noah would vote for Kerry because he admires Edwards and acknowledges that he doesn't like Kerry. That's it....the rest of the entire conversation deviates down other avenues unrelated to the initial subject of the thread.

All I asked for was a "I would like for John Kerry to be President because...." and it seems to be too difficult for anyone to answer except for the "He's not Bush" way of thinking.  They may as well mark the ballots FOR BUSH or NOT FOR BUSH. Kerry is a non-entity, placed there only because the other party is required to put up a contender. Well, if the contender were to win, then he would be in charge of our safety and our country....this man who is too busy to even read the homeland security bulletin when offered. At as political rally last week, a young boy asked him what he would do about Iraq (the film clip was on tv). His response was, "Well, son what would YOU do?" and then he proceeded reverse the tables, asking the boy questions and basically evading the question. Well, that boy isn't running for President....Kerry is. He is supposed to have some plan but, apparently no one seemd to have any idea what it is.

So if your dislike of Bush is so deep that you will take anyone in his place without even being able to list reasons why you feel they would be good at the job, then fine. Recognize it for that and hope for the best.  I would be hoping right along with you, believe me....  
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


110 posted 07-24-2004 03:53 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

Senator Kerry professes a very strong position in regards to whaling.
Opposition to whaling is one of the those issues where he has taken on a leadership role in the Senate.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


111 posted 07-24-2004 03:56 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

"a rethinking of foreign policy (which says nothing)"

No it says everything, take everything I've mentioned on the Bush administration's. Now do the absolute opposite and you have Kerry and the Democratic stance. Diplomacy.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


112 posted 07-24-2004 04:20 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
… to set up a "not as bad as Bush" comparison.

I didn't read it as a comparison between Bush and Kerry, Mike. I read Brad's post as a comparison between your views on Bush and Kerry. Objectively (yea, right), what is good for the goose really should be good for the gander. When people argue factions, however, that very rarely is the case.

As for Kerry …

IMO, what ever this country faces in the next four years will necessarily be laid at Bush's feet. National elections don't occur in November, or even in the final year of a Presidency, so much as they culminate. The foundations of both party's campaigns were already laid long before the first primary, and Bush's unprecedented popularity riding the waves of 911 insured there would be NO viable opponent to face him in 2004. Anyone with a realistic shot at the office decided to wait until 2008 and, frankly, I have to dig deeply to find fault with their cowardice (though cowardice, in my mind, it remains). When the makeup of this election was being decided, Bush appeared unbeatable.

Kerry has done very little as a Senator and there's every reason to suspect he will continue to do very little as a President. I'm not entirely sure that's a bad thing. When you're in the middle of the ocean in a row boat, a companion who sits still is often preferable to one who insists on making waves. A leader who equivocates is better than one who lies. As much as I would like to have a good President for the next four years, failing that, I'd at least like one we can survive.

I haven't entirely made up my mind yet, and likely won't for several months, but I can say with some certainty that should I vote for Kerry it WILL be a vote against Bush. I might like a better reason, but I don't *need* a better reason.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


113 posted 07-24-2004 05:15 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Raph, I'm assuming you were saying that in a humorous vein....the part about taking the exact opposite of Bush policy and you have the Democratic policy. Obviously it would not be that way and the Democrats have never claimed that they would do exactly the opposite. Kerry DID say he would work at getting cooperation from the UN, as if the 14 months Bush tried for that same cooperation never happened. Yep, the UN - that group that can't even get volunteers from their own members to provide support to the UN delegates in Iraq, the UN that is monitoring closely the murder of millions in the Sudan and shaking their heads. Did he say how he was going to manage this? Nope? If the Democratic foreign policy were exactly the opposite, then Libya would still be working on their nuclear weapons program, I suppose....nice thought.

Ron, I don't know that I have set up comparisons between Bush and Kerry in this thread. What Brad failed to recognize, or ignore, was the subject of this thread. It was created to discuss Kerry, good or bad. We have certainly had enough threads condemning Bush. I created one to discuss the good and bad of Kerry. The fact that Brad found it necessary to mix Bush negatives into his comments show to me that he couldn't discuss Kerry on his own. Bush has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Kerry would be a good President. If he were to win the election, Bush would be gone and guess what? We would have Kerry. WOuld that be a good or bad thing? That's all I was asking.

IMO, what ever this country faces in the next four years will necessarily be laid at Bush's feet. National elections don't occur in November, or even in the final year of a Presidency, so much as they culminate.

That's an interesting theory but I'm not sure I understand it completely. Yes, I understand that, because of the Bush popularity, the Democrats didn't want to waste any of their candidates with promise in a losing cause...and yet here we are. That unpromising candidate is the one people are cheering. That may make him popular but I fail to see where that makes him more promising. He's the same fellow they were prepared to throw to the lions. As far as the next four years being laid a Bush's feet, did it work that way for Clinton? Any economist worth his salt will tell you that the stock market responds to stimuli that has happened in the past several years. Yet Bush was blamed for the stock market going down as soon as he took office. About 9-11, Noah here says, "Well, Bush WAS in office when it happened." and he is not alone in that way of thinking. Will Bush be responsible for the next four years? No, sir. If the Democrats get in and make a mess of things and America comes under further attack, it will be all theirs. Nobody can cover their bases this early by claiming Bush will be responsible, whatever happens....although I know that, in the case of emergency that is the exact tactic they will try to use.

No, Ron, you certainly have no "need" to defend your position. I was simply asking people to either acknowledge that position or explain what other facts make them Kerry supporters. Lesser of two evils is certainly a valid reason...too bad that's our choice sometimes  

Oh, and as far as your comparison is concerned, that fellow that is sitting quietly in the boat is obviously not rowing. That's fine if you don't care about going anywhere but, should there be a shark attack, I think you'd like to see a little more out of him

If you don't think the sharks are circling, think again.....
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


114 posted 07-24-2004 06:15 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Again with criticism of the UN. The UN was of no help so the coalition was forced to move in against the threat of Iraq. Yet after the attack what have we learned? That evidence was inaccurate or in some cases outright fabrications. So what exactly was the UN so wrong about that the war was neccessary? If the main reasons for the attack were mistaken that what justifies the disregard of the UN?

As for the Kerry comment about the opposite, yes it was sarcasm actually. I have very little faith that the Kerry government will be that much different. However there are ENOUGH differences that make me swing towards Kerry. The issues I've listed earlier and the promise of more diplomatic solutions which is a good step in mending foreign relations.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


115 posted 07-24-2004 07:49 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
As far as the next four years being laid a Bush's feet, did it work that way for Clinton?

I think you missed my point, Mike. I'm assigning responsibility to Bush for the next four years, regardless of who wins the election, because our choices in November (or lack, thereof) are a direct reflection of Bush's earlier popularity. If we get a lousy President in November, no matter who it is, it will be Bush's fault. (But not solely his fault, of course. Those without the courage to run against him will share in the blame as well.)

And, yes, it is indeed too bad our choice sometimes resolves to the lesser of evils. Not since 1860 has this country faced a more critical fork in its road. Sadly, I see no evidence of a Lincoln on our horizon.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


116 posted 07-24-2004 10:11 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
WOuld that be a good or bad thing? That's all I was asking.


That's easy. It would be a good thing.

I posted Kerry's website. Do you want me to explicate it for you?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


117 posted 07-25-2004 11:18 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ron, since Bush Senior's popularity numbers were astronomical after the invasion of Kuwait then we must assume he was responsible for Clinton, by your formula. You have just turned me against Bush!!!  

Bread, no there's no need for that. Just respond to the many flip-flops I listed - and the majority of them are current, not 30 years old. Just take on the last one and I'll be happy. They were in response to a question from you so I'd appreciate a response there and not a shuffle and a detour...if you feel like it. Otherwise, what's the point?

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank a soldier.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


118 posted 07-25-2004 11:59 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Hmm.... So you won't vote for a flip flopper?  

Bush Flops and Flips all over the place.
-----
BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

-----
BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]

-----
BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]

-----
BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]

...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]

-----
BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]

...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]

-----
BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]

-----
BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]

-----
BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]

...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]

-----
BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]

-----
BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]

...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]

-----

I have more.  Lots more.
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


119 posted 07-25-2004 01:13 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Well, one thing I have question about, regarding Mr. Kerry, is his military record. Yes, I know he's trumpeted it, paraded it, made himself a diehard patriot. But that belies too many things, such as his record.

Yes, he volunteered for Vietnam. Many people did. I think he learned that he had made a mistake, and thought to extract himself. 3 Purple Hearts is a ticket home, and there has been much debate into the nature of his medical medals.

One such incident was when he went to the medic, and had a splinter removed from his arm. All it took was a pair of tweezers. Kerry said they had come under enemy fire. His shipmates said Kerry fired a mortor at a shoreline and hit a large rock. Also that no engagement happened. And indeed, the medic agreed with them, due to the nature of the wound. Kerry got his Purple Heart though.

And then, upon returning to the States, Kerry promptly demonstrated against the war in Vietnam, vehemently. Even being part of a group espousing the overthrow of the government.

Now, there may be some that argue on to the nature of 'the fallacy of youth', but Kerry was 27 at the time, not 18. His stumping about his military record and patriotism belies his actions.

I, for one, will not be voting for him, as I don't trust him. At least Bush sticks to his guns, by and large. He makes a choice and lives with the consequences. Kerry though seems to dodge, obfuscate, and attempts revisionistic history.

On a side note, someone prior mentioned the Patriot Act as the most damaging thing to civil liberties under Bush. Any recall a president known as Franklin Delano Roosevelt?

Alicat the Persnikitty
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


120 posted 07-25-2004 07:07 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Enlightening, LR, but irrevalent to this thread. There are any number of Bush bashing threads here that would be appropriate for it...this one is Kerry's, pro or con. Thought I had made that clear....anyway, thanks for your participation.


Right you are, persnickity one. That's why there are so many Viet Nam Vets against Kerry organizations. Don't forget the destroying of the medals but he just happened to forget his so he borrowed others to complete the ceremony while his still rest on his wall to this day...... typical of the man, I would say.

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank a soldier.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


121 posted 07-25-2004 08:51 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

If you're trying to draw distinction between Kerry and Bush by pointing out Kerry's flip-flops then Bush's flip-flops are perfectly relevant to this thread Deer.  The point is -- flip-flopping isn't the evil the right always attempts to point it out to be.  Compromise is the engine of politics and government.  It merely shows someone who is willing to make adjustments in the face of new information and circumstances -- and occasionally it reveals one pandering.  So, big surprise.  Politicians fib if it might get them a vote.  

It's just a pretty easy sport to play the flip-flop game which makes me wonder more about Carl Rove -- I thought he was smart.

Every re-election campaign is first and foremost about whether or not the incumbent deserves re-election.  Bush 41 pissed away his lead just like 43 is pissing his away.  The question is -- does a guy who can come off of approval ratings as high as these two guys did and lose the lead deserve to be re-elected?

But if you want to know the positives on Kerry -- I'm happy to oblige.  Access has been posted here by both Brad and ME.  If I can find his website -- anybody can.

A few position points:

Economy --

Tax cuts for corporations that don't move jobs out of the country
More Tax cuts for middle-class Americans
Roll back tax-cut for those making more than 200k... 3% of the population.
Eliminate capital gains taxes for long-term venture capital investments in small businesses with an emphasis on new technologies

Health Care --

The Kerry Edwards plan will cut premiums for middle class families up to $1,000
Give every American access to the same health care plans covering Congress
Cover 100% of America's children
Provide affordable prescriptions -- allowing re-importation of drugs from Canada..(oh God not Canada... Canada? Who knows what they put in the drugs up there? )

National Security --

Alliances of the able -- um... you seen the list of the willing?
Increase the military by 40,000
Modernize the military

a head to head comparison with GW National Security Comparison  (ever so -slightly biased)

Education --

National Education Trust fund to make sure every school is funded
Offer teachers better pay and better training in troubled schools and make sure teachers who don't belong in the classroom don't stay there.
Keep schools open till Six o'clock and offer better transportation to keep kids out of trouble
$4000 tuition tax credit
College for public service programs    
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_service/

Environment

Reverse the Bush-Cheney roll-backs to the Clean Air Act

Science
'will let scientific findings drive scientific decisions and make scientific reports public so all Americans can make informed decisions.'

You can expect a more detailed roll-out after the convention when the General Election officially starts.



Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


122 posted 07-25-2004 09:10 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Military should not be a litmus test for public office.

If one has served, why not tell people about it?

No flip flop.

And since others have already mentioned his military service:

quote:
These days, Kerry surrounds himself on the campaign with fellow-veterans, and he features his naval career heavily in campaign ads, but he prefers not to speak in any detail about what he went through in Vietnam. Few voters knew the story of how he won his Bronze Star for saving a man¡¯s life until that man, a lifelong Republican named Jim Rassmann, showed up in Des Moines during the last days of the Iowa primary race and returned the favor, helping to save Kerry¡¯s political life by describing how Kerry, wounded and under fire, pulled him, hand over hand, from the water after he was blown off another American boat. Even then, Kerry said almost nothing about the incident, leaving the talking to Rassmann, with whom he¡¯d had no contact in the intervening thirty-five years. He also resists speaking publicly about the incident that won him the Silver Star, but his surviving crewmates have told how, when they were ambushed by a Vietcong guerrilla firing rockets from the riverbank, Kerry made an instantaneous decision that evasive action was impossible, turned his boat directly into the fire, beached it, and leaped ashore, to the astonishment of the man with the rocket launcher, who popped up from his spider hole and fled. Kerry chased him and killed him. Navy men were not supposed to leave their ships during combat, and before recommending Kerry for the medal his commanding officer quipped that he wasn¡¯t sure whether he shouldn¡¯t court-martial him instead.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040726fa_fact
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


123 posted 07-25-2004 09:12 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Sigh.

LR, your last post only serves to remind me why Democrats usually scare the crap out of me. Can anyone spell bread-and-circuses?


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


124 posted 07-25-2004 09:20 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Yes Ron, I know what you mean... it's just a good thing the liberals weren't elected in 2000 -- had they been, we'd have soaring deficits, a recession, and have our military spread out all over the globe in nation-building campaigns?  

Which programs do you not want funded Ron?  
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Why Not Kerry??   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors