RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events i'm voting for kerry!

well, i'm not. i mean, i don't know if i would or not. im not sure yet. its justa catchy subject.

anywho...

are most kerry supporters supporting kerry? or opposing bush?

does kerry have the appeal and poise and respect (etc, etc) of a US president? do people really like the guy and think he'll do an amazing job?

... or do a whole buncha people just really hate dubya?

Reuters seems to be of the opinion that it's more anti-Bush than pro-Kerry:

...among supporters, Kerry's greatest appeal is still that he is not George W. Bush. Whether that is enough to win a close election is unclear.

"It is anybody but Bush," Diane Cromer, a resident of Lake Worth, Florida, said after attending a recent Kerry town hall meeting.

Kerry, who raked in $54 million in the first three months and launched a lucrative fund-raising tour, acknowledges he still has a lot of work to do with swing voters. He debuted a new series of ads on Wednesday to begin introducing himself.

"A lot of people still don't really know who I am," Kerry told Democrats at a New York fund-raiser. "The level of communication that we still need to undertake here is enormous."

A mix of both.

There are only a handful of politicians I would pick Bush Jr. over. Frankly, I'm twitching to get him out of office. I do agree with Kerry on most of the issues I feel are important, however, and think he'll do a good (though not stellar) job as President.

and then there's this relating site:

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/

agree or disagree with the politics, thats a funny URL

It's probably true a lot with an incumbant's opponent. I'm sure a big appeal of Bush was not being Clinton(or Gore).

It's post-Nixon syndrome. Voters assume all politicians are corrupt, so instead of voting for who they like most they vote for who they hate least.

Yeah, I like Kerry and all, but he doesn't excite me. In 2000, McCain excited me.

But there's things that Bush does that I don't like. Kerry, I don't have the same sort of ambivalence. After I learn more about him, I may decide it wouldn't be right to support him, but for now I favor him more than Bush.

I actually see a good candidate in Kerry. Anyone remember that he was saying we needed more troops over in Iraq almost a year ago? Checking out the douchebag site reminds of some people I know that always vote 3rd party & despise both of the big 2 parties. They're voting for Kerry & don't like it.

http://blog.johnkerry.com/dbunker/archives/001388.html
Bush Ad Hits New Low: Misleads Americans About Kerry's Record

BUSH FICTION: From Bush's new attack ad: "Announcer: “Few votes in Congress are as important as funding our troops at war.” Announcer: “Though John Kerry voted in October of 2002 for military action in Iraq he later voted against funding our soldiers.”

FACT: John Kerry DID NOT Vote Against Our Men and Women in the Military; Kerry Voted Against the FAILED Bush Policy in Iraq. Of course John Kerry supports our troops—it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. John Kerry voted AGAINST the bill in order to get the President to change his failed policies in Iraq – policies that were increasing the risk to soldiers and the cost to American taxpayers.

FACT: It is HYPOCRITICAL for the Bush Administration to call this a vote against the troops when they threatened to VETO it themselves if the final version included a Senate approved provision to make $10 Billion of these funds into a loan to be paid back to the U.S. taxpayers. If there was time for the Administration to veto this bill and still get money to the troops, they cannot turn around and claim that Kerry’s vote would have cut off funding for the troops – they cannot have it both ways. The simple reality is that the troops were always going to get their funding – the only real question was whether the President was going to change his failed Iraq policy.

“The White House threatened Tuesday to veto its own spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan if Congress made reconstruction aid a loan, taking its most forceful stand on the issue even as more lawmakers supported a reimbursement by Iraq. After declining to threaten a veto last week before the Senate voted to lend up to $10 billion to Iraq, the White House surprised many people on Capitol Hill with its warning…Last week, without using the word "veto," Mr. Bush called on a series of wavering lawmakers and made it clear that he would not appreciate a vote for a loan. The statement on Tuesday, after eight Republican senators defied him last week and helped form a majority in favor of a $10 billion loan, was the strongest threat to date. "If this provision is not removed, the president's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill," Joshua B. Bolten, the White House budget director, wrote in a letter to Congressional leaders.”
[Firestone, New York Times, 10/22/03]

As Kerry said in his statement about the vote: "The best way to support our troops and take the target off their backs is with a real strategy to win the peace in Iraq - not by throwing $87 billion at George Bush's failed policies. I am voting 'no' on the Iraq resolution to hold the President accountable and force him finally to develop a real plan that secures the safety of our troops and stabilizes Iraq.”

FACT: Kerry Was a Lead Sponsor of the Amendment to Fund Our Nation’s Troops in Iraq Through Rescinding the Bush Tax Cut for the Wealthy. Kerry would have supported this legislation if the Bush Administration was willing to do the responsible thing and pay for it by rescinding the tax cut for the wealthiest Americans – which they refused to do.

As he said in his statement, “Rather than asking for shared sacrifice from Americans - as Senator Biden and I have proposed, he has refused to repeal any of his tax cut for the wealthiest to pay for rebuilding Iraq. Our troops are paying the highest price - and America's hard working families shouldn't have to subsidize President Bush’s failure or line the pockets of corporations like Halliburton trying to make a fast buck in Iraq.”


2. BUSH FICTION: Kerry voted against body armor for troops in combat.

FACT: The very fact that vehicle and body armor funds were included in this legislation – which was passed 7 months after the war began -- is an acknowledgment that Bush sent our troops into combat without adequate protection, forcing military families to scramble to pay for this essential gear. General Abizaid admitted as much in testimony before Congress.

“Soldiers will not patrol without the armor -- if they can get it. But as of now, there is not enough to go around… Last month, Rep. Ted Strickland (D-Ohio) and 102 other House members wrote to Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, to demand hearings on why the Pentagon had been unable to provide all U.S. service members in Iraq with the latest body armor. In the letter, the lawmakers cited reports that soldiers' parents had been purchasing body armor with ceramic plates and sending it to their children in Iraq. The demand came after Gen. John Abizaid, head of the U.S. Central Command and commander of all military forces in Iraq, told a House Appropriations subcommittee in September that he could not "answer for the record why we started this war with protective vests that were in short supply."
[Loeb and Labbe, Washington Post, 10/4/03]

FACT: Retired Generals Agree: Bush Sent Troops to Iraq Without Proper Protection.

“BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE (RET.), CNN ANALYST: In reference to armored vests, there was a shortage. I think most of that is solved now. And for a while there, there were fund-raisers to send vests and people were buying them for themselves. This is a long-term problem that should have been fixed, however, well before the Iraq war started.

BLITZER: General Joulwan, when people hear this, they go crazy. They can't believe, in this day and age, the United States would send military personnel into a war zone not fully prepared.

JOULWAN: Absolutely. I visited one of these units in December that was getting ready to deploy. That was December, they were deploying in January, and they were short basic equipment: radios, vests, armored Humvees, et cetera. We're better than that as a nation, and we're better than that as a military.

BLITZER: When you were there, General Shepperd, and you met with men and women on the ground in the military, what were they saying to you?

SHEPPERD: Well, they were saying that we are short on the up- armored Humvees, we're short of the proper body armor. Everybody had flack jackets and some body armor, but not the new body armor. They showed us the schedule, and said it was going to be done. They were short at that time, I believe, around 1,400 up-armored Humvees that were coming into the country, and the body armor was on schedule. So these shortage will drastically come down, but it does leave you wondering why couldn't we have done this before the war, and we simply didn't.” [CNN, 3/14/04]

FACT: It is hypocritical of the Bush Administration to criticize Kerry for this when they didn't even ask for the funds for body and vehicle armor to be added to this legislation – they were added by Congress because they were desperately needed.

"Before approving the administration's $87 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress added hundreds of millions of dollars for more body armor, armored Humvees, and other systems to protect soldiers from roadside bombs and ambushes."
[Loeb and Labbe, Washington Post, 10/4/03]


3. BUSH FICTION: Kerry Opposed Higher Combat Pay

FACT: The higher combat pay provisions were originally included in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2004, then extended under 2004 Supplemental Appropriations Bill for Afghanistan and Iraq – both of which Kerry SUPPORTED. The Bush Administration actually OPPOSED this and planned to cut pay for troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan until Democrats objected.

“The Pentagon wants to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, who are already contending with guerrilla-style attacks, homesickness and 120-degree-plus heat. Unless Congress and President Bush take quick action when Congress returns after Labor Day, the uniformed Americans in Iraq and the 9,000 in Afghanistan will lose a pay increase approved last April of $75 a month in "imminent danger pay" and $150 a month in "family separation allowances." The Defense Department supports the cuts, saying its budget can't sustain the higher payments amid a host of other priorities. But the proposed cuts have stirred anger among military families and veterans' groups and even prompted an editorial attack in the Army Times, a weekly newspaper for military personnel and their families that is seldom so outspoken.” [San Francisco Chronicle, 8/14/03]

After criticism from Democrats, the Pentagon announced that current salaries for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan would not be cut, but such efforts may come at the expense of troops serving elsewhere. [Knight-Ridder, 4/5/03; Los Angeles Times, 4/3/03; CQ, 4/16/03]


4. BUSH FICTION: Kerry opposed better healthcare for reservists and their families

FACT: Bush OPPOSED expanding the military reservists health care program, called TRICARE, in the $87 Billion legislation.

“The bill also included a provision opposed by Bush to expand the Military health insurance system known as TRICARE to include members of the National Guard and Reserves who are unemployed or lack health insurance coverage.” [The Associated Press October 31, 2003

FACT: The Bush Administration Threatened to VETO the FY04 Defense Authorization Bill if it included TRICARE.

Offering inactive National Guard members and reservists the same health care benefits as active-duty soldiers could force cuts in other areas of the military budget, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told lawmakers in a letter this week. Rumsfeld said he would recommend that President Bush veto the defense authorization bill if it included a Senate plan to expand TRICARE, the military health program… "These unfunded entitlements would drain resources from important programs benefiting our military, such as continued improvements in pay, quality of life, readiness and other pressing requirements," Rumsfeld said. [The Associated Press July 10, 2003]

FACT: John Kerry has consistently been one of the strongest supporters of the men and women of our armed forces, veterans, and their families. Today, he is launching a Military Bill of Rights to make certain that our military and their families receive the protections they deserve [see attached]

__________________________________________________________

Well at the begining I was pro-Kerrey. I explained it had mostly to do with his 80's Iran Contra La Penca bombing involvement. Anyone who was on the CIA's smear list (albeit briefly in a botched smear job that leaked out) is a-ok in my book. He was a threat to those that need a bit of threatening.

Then during the primaries I jumped ship for Wesley Clarke.

Now he's no more so i'm back with Kerrey. I just wish Kerrey would deal with Cheney/Bush more aggresively (he's off to a good start this week).

So while he's not my ideal canidate, he's close.

And no, i don't stick to party affiliation. I'd happily vote for McCain and i'd happily vote to defeat Tom Daschole or Pelosi. I'd happily vote for anyone of genuine integrity and concern for the interests of people over corporate interests. Somehow though, that seems a lot to ask for from canidates of either party nowadays.

McCain reeks of integrity, doesn't he? I think its his lone wolf image.

I think Clarke would have been better than Kerry, who I'd never heard of before.

mccain in 2008!

i'd vote for mccain

once he has unilateral rkmb support, being president will seem inconsequential

I'd vote for nearly anyone before Kerry. I don't much like Bush either.

I might vote in protest for Nader or someone else.

This is getting rich.

Matter Eater Man cites Kerry's own blog as "proof" that Bush is a liar and whomod can't even spell Kerry's name correctly.

I'm probably going to vote for Senator Kerry.

If Senator McCain was running, I would vote for him.

Quote:

---

FACT: John Kerry DID NOT Vote Against Our Men and Women in the Military; Kerry Voted Against the FAILED Bush Policy in Iraq. Of course John Kerry supports our troops—it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. John Kerry voted AGAINST the bill in order to get the President to change his failed policies in Iraq – policies that were increasing the risk to soldiers and the cost to American taxpayers.

---

This is just silly, you vote against funding the troops and you say it is to make a statement on failed policies. Bullshit, once you have voted the troops in you should fully fund them, wait until they are out of harms way to do your little its an unpopular war so now I protest jig......

if he had vetoed it i would have the same distaste for his actions...

Flip flop flip flop...

From...

Kerry Bus Tour

Quote:

---

"I understand where you are coming from, ma'am. I really sympathize with the anger you feel," he said. "I'll tell you this — if you'll trust me with the presidency of the United States, I will pursue a policy that I know can get our troops down in number, reduced, out of Iraq. We can change the entire dynamics of what is happening there."

---

KNEEL before ZOD!!

i'm voting for kerry!

Greater than whomod, greater than ZOD...

whoZOD~!

Good God...an amalgamation of terror indeed!

The difference is that Bush continues to stick with his cahnge of ideas. He saw there was a need for Homeland Security, he pushed for the creation of one. Kerry changes his views from person to person, so to give them just what the people want to hear. For example...

While with a group of Palestinians, Kerry was against the fence in Israel. But when he is with a group of Jews, he says the fence is vital for Israel protection.

Kerry wants to look like this decorated war hero to get that moderate vote, yet wants to be seen as someone who also forsaken his role that got him this decoration.

Kerry wants to be seen as voting for something then voting against it later.

Etc, etc, etc...

This is said by Kerry within the last 6 months, some statements just a few weeks apart. As if he doesn't realize there are satelites orbiting the Planet Houston that delivers this information about him instantly.

To change your mind is one thing, but just give people what they want to hear is another. Furthermore, 9/11 is a good enough reason for ZOD to think someone would change their views on Homeland Security and role within the world. There is a reason for Bush's actions.

KNEEL before ZOD!

Much of the flip flop characterization is the result of millions of dollars spent by the Bush campaign exaggerating Kerry's senate record. They have a very successful history of doing this to even fellow party members.

http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/gop_negative/sc.html
Bush Team Planned Negative Strategy for South Carolina; Bush: "Y'all Have Done this Before. Let's Do it Again." After losing the New Hampshire primary to Sen. John McCain (R-A), Bush and his advisors convened a strategy meeting to plan the South Carolina campaign and settled on a negative theme. According to a Newsweek account of the meeting, "Bush went for a jog and, still dressed in running shorts, stuck his head into the meeting. 'We getting everything straightened out?' he asked with a grin. 'Y'all have done this before. Let's do it again.' The room filled with knowing laughs. Bush knew the drill: in 1988, after his father had lost in Iowa and barely survived in New Hampshire, his campaign had been rescued by going negative and driving hard right in South Carolina." [Newsweek, 11/20/00]

Bush Adviser Outlined Groups Needed To Coordinate Negative Campaign; Said of McCain: "We've got To Take This Guy Out." At the meeting Bush adviser Warren "Tompkins stood up in the motel room and ticked off the groups they needed to win: the Christian Coalition, the right-to-lifers, the evangelicals, the Southern Baptist Convention. 'We aren't going to pussyfoot around,' said Tompkins in his whispery voice. 'We play it different down here. We're not dainty, if you get my drift. We're used to playing rough.' McCain was coming up in the polls. 'We've got to take this guy out,' said Tompkins." [Newsweek, 11/20/00]

Bush Caught Bragging About Negative Attacks Against McCain; Bush: "I'm not going to do it on TV." During a campaign event in South Carolina, Bush was caught on overhead boom microphones discussing negative attacks on McCain with GOP State Senator Mike Fairs. Fairs said Bush "hasn't even hit [McCain's] soft spots." Bush replied, "I'm going to ... But I'm not going to do it on TV." [Associated Press, 2/12/03]
Examples of Negative Attacks on McCain in South Carolina:

Push Polls in South Carolina Called McCain "A Cheat, A Liar and A Fraud;" McCain Called on Bush to Stop Attacks. During a McCain town hall event in Spartanburg, South Carolina an attendee said her 14 year-old son received a push poll telephone call attacking McCain as "a cheat, a liar and a fraud." McCain denounced the attack and said, "I can't believe that someone from a good family such as George Bush wouldn't stop this." [Associated Press, 2/10/00]

Bush Veteran's Event Targeted McCain; Surrogate Said "He Came Home. He Forgot Us." At a Bush campaign rally in Sumter, South Carolina, J. Thomas Burch Jr., chairman of the National Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Coalition attacked McCain's record on veteran's issues. "He has always opposed all the legislation, be it Agent Orange or Gulf war health care, or frankly, the POW-MIA issue -- he was the leading opponent in the Senate. He had the power to help these veterans. He came home. He forgot us," Burch said. The Washington Post reported, "Bush declined to either endorse or reject Burch's characterization of McCain's record in the House and Senate. 'You need to ask them [leaders of veterans groups]. What I stand by is that they have looked at both of us and they have chosen me to be the nominee. I'm proud of that.'" Bush responded that Burch was "entitled to his opinion." [Washington Post, 2/4/00; New York Times, 2/5/00; FOX; Special Report with Brit Hume, 2/3/00; Tapper, Salon, 2/11/00]

McCain's Personal Life Criticized by Bush Supporter in Christian Magazine Edited by Bush Adviser. During the race for the South Carolina primary, McCain was criticized in World magazine, a newsweekly for evangelical Christians. After criticizing McCain's policy proposals, the article then questioned McCain's personal life, claiming that 20 years ago, "the 43-year-old former POW quickly fell in love with the 25-year-old cheerleader. She was rich, attractive and well connected." It said that McCain won his first election "despite charges of carpetbagging and buying the election." The article went on to say that "for all his dependence on his wife's money, John McCain doesn't appear to be a particularly attentive husband," and brought up McCain's wife's past addiction to prescription drugs. The article was written by Bob Jones IV, a member of the family that founded the Christian fundamentalist Bob Jones University. World magazine's editor, Marvin Olasky, has been described as Bush's "revered intellectual guru" and as one of Bush's "closest advisers on religion." Bush has credited Olasky "with helping him craft his vision of 'compassionate conservatism.'" [New York Times, 2/16/00, Safire column, Austin American-Statesman, 2/17/00, 2/18/00; Salon, 2/25/00]

After September, I'll use the line "Don't blame me, I voted for McCheese."

It has a certain ring to it.