Let the chastisement begin.
Well, okay, no. I'm just going to systematically go through your statements and respond to them. But everybody seems to think dissenting is mean, so what the hell.
1. He is an extreme flip-flopper. He has flip-flopped about many things, including the following:
-the $87 billion funding: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
You have successfully quoted, verbatim, the one line (well, two separate lines cut and fused together) which has been in Bush attack ads for weeks now. Can you tell me what Kerry said AFTER that line, during that speech? I'm willing to bet you haven't heard any of it outside of a slam ad. Not many people have.
-his position on guns (NRA speaker; also, gun-ban convo. speaker)
Are all rifle enthusiasts required to speak out for lessened gun control? Some rifle owners join the NRA because they're into
responsible ownership of guns. Kerry is one of those rare few. Also, holding an opinion in contrast with a group your are part of is not flip-flopping. In fact, I make a point of picking out opposing but unconsidered views to present to my peers.
-probably the biggest: the Iraq war. He has said the following (paraphrase) in 2003 or so:
"Saddam Hussein is a grave danger to our country" or something to that effect; the meaning of the quote is carried through.
No, I'd like you to quote more. Paraphrasing something important into one line isn't acceptable. Your quote didn't say he was the
most dangerous threat to our country, and that's the point he's getting at now: Hussein is not more dangerous than Osama Bin Laden, and I'm quite sure he would have said that in 2003 as well.
He said this not long ago: "This was the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time."
And he just said this today, in response to Diane Sawyer's question, "Was [the Iraq War] worth it?"
"Well, it all depends on the outcome." The outcome? I will be silent for now.
Whenever you gauge whether something was "worth it" in retrospect, you have to measure losses versus gains. There is nothing shameful about doing so in war. In fact, that's what the military is for.
He voted to fund the troops for the war, and other times, he has voted against the war.
"Even with everything we know today, I still wouldn't have gone into Iraq." Mind you, this includes everything about Hussein, who you will remember, said Hussein needed to be taken out before.
First of all, a keyword here, highlighted for emphasis: he voted to fund the
troops for the war. Troops are real people. And they needed to be repaid for their enormous efforts. Bush, on the other hand, took that money and did something else with it, while
cutting money to the troops themselves. The "mixed message" he seems to be sending here is "Support Our Troops! ...But only until we get 'em out of the country. Then they're on their own."
2. He seems to be running only on two things: his Vietnam war record and Bush-bashing.
-first, the Vietnam war record. He starts his convention speech with, "John Kerry, reporting for duty." He bases his campaign on something he did 40 years ago!!!!! Now, I am not for the Swift Boat Ads and all that nonsense. I think if JK served, that's his business. But it says absolutely nothing about how he will handle his job as the President of the United States.
Serving in active duty, especially in
Vietnam, is something that sticks with you for the rest of your life. Look at the facts:
1. The war in Iraq is currently being commanded by a man who has
never seen active duty in the military, let alone combat. Forget the quarrel over his attendance record. He just lacks experience.
2. Kerry is at this moment the
most decorated member of the United States Senate.
Both of these are hard facts. Now, do you
really think John Kerry got his status through lollygagging and wimping his way through such a brutal war? No...
really?
-next, the Bush-bashing. Granted, Bush is doing plenty of bashing himself. But I seem to remember Kerry's advocates saying at the DNC that Bush has one of the most negative ad campaigns ever seen.
He isn't the only one to comment on the negativity of Bush's campaign. Note that Bush has spent somewhere around 7 times as much money on attack ads, compared to John Kerry. He's also spent more time on reelection campaign fundraising than any president in U.S. history. George Bush really,
really needs attack ads to win.
-What he should be doing is saying how he will be running this country, which, so far, I have failed to hear on a necessary level.
He was saving it for the debate. And yes, that's the word straight from one of his campaign workers. I assume you watched it after you made this post?
3. His 20-year Senate record. Wow, 20 years, right? That's a long time. That should be a good thing for the Kerry campaign. But, in actuality, it's just the opposite. Why haven't we heard about his 20-year senate record? He flipflops!
Yada yada... Again, is any of this
not taken verbatim from a 30-second Bush campaign ad?
Man, I never quote opponent's campaign ads when I want to bash a candidate. in Bush's case, I really don't need to. I have whole archives full of quotes and histories I can show you. Very few of them quick and dirty.
So, my point for bringing this evidence up is not to put down Kerry as a person. Outside of politics, he seems like a nice guy. But, in the political realm, a land of cutthroat, heartless contenders, Kerry simply cannot survive.
If by going up against heartless cutthroats, you become one yourself, then you lose the purpose of going into office in the first place. If you need to know more about this, I suggest you watch A Few Good Men.
In addition, this brings to mind a bumper sticker I saw that really hit deep. It said: "
We're making enemies faster than we can kill them."
Succeeding in the war on terrorism is far,
far more than merely going to war. If terrorism is cancer, then battling it requires much more than simply removing the original tumor with a scalpel.
I say this final point with confidence (discourage this if you may): I believe if Kerry stands a chance at all in this political election, it is not because of Kerry's outstanding political record (which he lacks), but it is because the hatred of Bush in this country is so great that people will be willing to vote for someone as long as it is not Bush.
I can say with confidence that I think John Kerry is a better candidate than Al Gore ever was, and I voted for Al Gore in the last election without any doubt in my mind that
he was more qualified than Bush. Don't let my Bush-bashing fool you. If I were
only voting for John Kerry because he's not Bush, I wouldn't... *ahem* ...beat around the bush about it. I'd say so up front.
When I say that I am bitterly opposed to Bush, it is an opposition to a system much larger than Bush itself that has been in place for far too long. In fact, I don't even think the man is really all that remarkable, except for record stubbornness. It's not that the Republican party has always been unreasonable. It's that all the reasonable people are
leaving the Republican party because of the direction the party is taking. :\ Makes me wonder if John McCain is next...
Edited by Radien, 01 October 2004 - 12:40 AM.
This topic is locked
Suggested watching even if you have not been assigned the task.
