i’ve been getting a few comments about how people don’t like Kerry here. none however provided any solid arguments. i used economy as my basis for arguing Bush is incompetent. tho i know most who commented probably can’t vote but it’s funny how so many people are treating this like a beauty contest. you are not exactly voting for american idol or someone you will have lunch with tomorrow you know. brian’s entry do you like him puts it so well: “So, pick your aloof, phoney, elitist, poseur jerk. You’re going to get one either way, so maybe you should, I quess, vote on the issues, or as an evaluation of the current administration. No matter how likeable ‘Dubya’ is, he’s brought us raging deficits, turned Iraq into a terrorist breeding ground faster that Saddam Hussein could, ruined our international credibility in all areas except destructive capacity. I don’t care whether the president is ‘like me’ or not, because somebody “like me” is not ever going to run for president.”
a simple “i don’t like john kerry” is not enough to justify why you shouldn’t vote for him. how many americans are voting with intelligent critical thinking instead of emotions?
35 thoughts on “those who are anti Kerry”
You asked why I was scared of JK, so here’s my answer. First, I don’t agree with anything for which he stands. (I’m referring to his ultra-liberal views) Second, I think his weak stance on terrorism is going to lead to more attacks just like 911, which in turn will cause our economy to steadily decrease just as much as it has during the Bush administration. Bush did at least one thing right – he successfully got Sadaam Hussein out of power in Iraq. There goes a lot of the funding for the terrorist organizations. Kerry shares many of Clinton’s political values. Clinton had many times to go after Hussein and Bin Laden (and possibly stopped the attacks on 911), yet he passed them up. As I said in my blog, of course, I’m a bit biased b/c I’m a Republican, but I do have an open-mind. I’ve listened to John Kerry’s speeches on television many times and NOT ONCE has he told me why I should vote for him, rather, he has told me why I SHOULDN’T vote for George Bush.
I’m not too good at political debates. I guess that’s why I didn’t stay on the high school debate team but for a couple of weeks hehe 😉
Oh, and also John Kerry said that he didn’t need the south to win the 2004 election… so I guess he doesn’t need my vote anyway! I’m going to go ahead and give mine to Dubya. 🙂
the thing is the south is so heavily republican. if i were JK, i would also spend more time trying to win more neutral states. the last president who visited every state during his campaign was Nixon and he lost.
As we learned in history class: Hussein DID NOT fund terrorism. That was proved false.
(Though my history teacher could be wrong, I just realized. If so, sorry)
“Clinton had many times to go after Hussein and Bin Laden (and possibly stopped the attacks on 911), yet he passed them up.”
You’ve missed a vital point…the 9/11 happend during Bush’s term. Clinton was much wiser and used peaceful tactics to prevent terrorist attacks. Unlike Bush, Clinton was a brilliant diplomatic leader who could find ways to fight violence without bloodshed. I highly doubt that Clinton “passed them up”. Just because one doesn’t go in and blow up all the “evil” people doesn’t mean he didn’t do anything about it.
Sadly, most Americans vote on their emotion and the appearence of the candidate. That’s why I really don’t like debating about politic issues…most of the time it gets you nowhere b/c the arguments are just so shallow.
back to lightbulb
3. One to blame the previous administration for the need of a new lightbulb,
One thing you have to keep in mind is that there WERE attacks during Clinton’s administration (ie USS Coal and many attacks on US embassies), which doesn’t prove that Clinton’s tactics were any better than those of the Bush administration. Also, I believe that 911 would have occurred no matter if the president was Al Gore, George W, or Ralph Nader… I personally blame 911 on the lack of intelligence, not the current administration.
strong republican don’t sway. i’ll be surprised if you’d vote for any democratic presidential candidate in your life.
There are some democrats that share some of my political views. If I thought that a Democrat candidate was better fit for the job at hand then sure, I’d vote for him/her 🙂
Hussein may be dangerous but the war wasn’t justified in many ways. First no WMD was found. Second how democratic is Iraq now? plus if making it democratic was the original intention, it will never had passed congress. how many non-democratic countries are there in the world? Third, now it looks the U.S. is just invading the country for its own benefit. it lost many of its allies and left the world a horrible reputation.
What do you think about Kerry voting FOR the war in the first place? (I’m not trying to be rude ;))
i think almost everyone believed there was WMD. i know i did coz the media is crying about it everyday plus it’s right after 9/11. everyone is more likely to believe in it than any other time. read Kerry’s speech on why he voted for the war. just because he finally voted yes doesn’t mean he never protested against it.
clinton as a democrat also had an opportunity to go to war but he chose not to. i see it as a smart diplomatic way of handling international affair. you can argue the other way, there won’t be a truth since it’s done and over. the fact is there wasn’t a 9/11 under Clinton.
whether Bush truly believe there was WMD is a mystery. the fact is after he couldn’t find any and after he disarmed Saddam, he isn’t eager to make peace and get american soliders out of there. only to create more hatred toward americans in that country.
Go to the archives of CNN.com/wolf and look up the comments of Scott Ritter, weapons inspector. His remarks leave no doubt that he knew full well Iraq did not have WMD’s and that he clearly told the Shrub they didn’t have them and didn’t have any capability in the near future. Clinton was waiting for Scott’s report before he went off half cocked. Shrub received Scott’s report and still went off half cocked, anyway! Shrub wouldn’t give up the idea of war with Iraq because he is an oil man, who wanted the oil and the control of market prices war gave him. Didn’t you notice how the price of our gas soared the minute war came into conversation? Talking about considering war did not change the supply or the demand, but did change the price. Why should that be? That was Shrub&Company price gouging. And it never came down, did it? They plan to price gouge from now until the end of time because they can. And then of course, the war was very profitable for Chaney, who owns 60% of Halliburton’s stock. Yes, thats the same Halliburton who didn’t even have to bid to run away with our $ 87 billion, and the same Halliburton that has been charged with overbilling our government, and the same Halliburton that has fired employees who came forward and said Halliburton overcharges the government on purpose, regularly, and as a matter of policy. That Halliburton. That Chaney.
i think kerry is borrrring and he doesn’t know how to connect with 20-somethings BUT i will definitely vote for him. he’s way more up on the issues i care about than bush: public ed, environment, etc.
you stated that a simple “i don’t like john kerry” is not enough to justify why you shouldn’t vote for him… but yet your whole argument of why you shouldn’t vote for bush is because “you don’t like him and his policies”. You didn’t give any strong reasons why kerry is the right person, except for the fact that you think bush is not competent. What has kerry done to prove that he would be competent? What arguments have you stated that show that he would be so? Think before you critize.
please direct quote me where i said “i don’t like bush”. to me that’s totally beyond the point. you can deduct from my previous post that i obviously don’t like his polices. my main concern is economy. i think that’s one affects us all in most obvious way and for reasons i’ve provided before. bush believes tax cuts will speed up the economy. he’s proven wrong.
the strong tax raise for people with $200,000 income under clinton saved the budget. now kerry is going to do the same. i’m looking forward to see that.
Tax cuts create revenue and speed up the economy – it’s proven. When taxes are lowered, people have more money. When people have more money, they spend more money, and this helps the economy start up again. Furthermore, much of that un-taxed money can be regained after sales tax and other sources anyhow.
how do you get a comment thing like this
Your last few posts have been in inspiration Dodo. Well done! Though after reading the comments, I may be only one of the liberals here that fully agrees with your stance. I do not agree with a lot that has been said in the comments in the past few posts, and I do not want to start a heated debate, however Bubs; your comment regarding Clinton literally made my mouth fall open. I personally believe that Clinton was perhaps one of the greatest presidents of our time. He accomplished so much in his terms. Otherwise, your arguments seemed very well put together. The other comment, made by loud regarding the 20-something crowd. I have to disagree. Being 20-something, I feel that Kerry has connected with our age range greatly. I believe his stance on many views speak to our generation, and that his campaign has been aimed at us a great deal. I wrote up some support for my arguments here, but this comment is getting rather long so, perhaps I will blog about it soon. Anyway, what I am getting at is: Give them hell Dodo! Keep the posts regarding the election coming! 😀 Great stuff!
I agree with Bubs, saying “I Don’t Like Bush” is no reason to vote for Kerry. I don’t think the economic situation can be blamed on Bush; the business cycle is going to go up and down regardless of who is president and the fact is the economy is now getting better. A lot of people criticise his handling of Iraq, but don’t offer up any soulutions or any ways that it could’ve been handled better. I do agree with you in saying that he tarnished the United States in terms of internation credibility. If I was going to NOT vote for Bush, then that would be why.
However, I don’t think Kerry has proved himself capable of the presidency. Also, he’s supported by lots of special interests groups (e.g. they want legislation passed that is beneficial to them and is economically inefficient to everyone else).
As for the 20-ish age group, I think it’s commonly known that the younger you are the more liberal you are, so, it makes sense that Kerry would be “connected” with that age group. (Which is also probably why the liberals are the ones who keep pushing for kids to vote, hehe.)
I may be interpreting this incorrectly, but I don’t think Bubs was discounting Clinton’s presidency as a whole, only his lack of action against terrorism. Of course, it’s easy to say that in retrospect.
Very well said. I agree.
“I don’t think the economic situation can be blamed on Bush; the business cycle is going to go up and down regardless of who is president and the fact is the economy is now getting better.”
if that’s the case, please explain then why had U.S. a very balanced federal budget for almost 200 years until 1960s. and why is the deficit now the lowest ever in history.
Well,firstoff, I’d like to mention the Great Depression. That was in the 1890s.
Also, Dubuya was not the president from the 60s up until now so…I’m not sure what that was supposed to prove.
Finally, I think if the economy has been somewhat stable in, say, the 1800s or so (which is still a dubious statement at best), then it would probably be because of the difference in the scope of the economy. Globalization has lead to a larger world economcy, greater dependence on one another, and therefore greater sensitivity to world affairs and the business cycle in general. Futhermore, calculation of the GNP and GDP did not occur until during/after (can’t remember which, but it was somewhere during that time) the Great Depression so it’s hard to say excatly how great the economic fluctations were before then.
I don’t know anything about American history, but you mention the Great Depression in 1890’s with regards to Dodo’s question about balanced federal budget and I’m confused…
I thought the Great Depression happened in 1929 because of the stock-market crash. What does it have to do with the federal budget being stable, and was there a Great Depression in 1890 before the Great Depression in 1929?
Thank you. 🙂
hrm i’m talking about federal budget. not GDP. there are separate. altho bush is not a president since 60s, he managed to lead into a huge deficit nearly 500 billions during his four year turn. no other presidents could match that. under clinton we had a surplus. so he managed to turn this surplus into a deficit, a huge one. that certainly proves he’s incompetent in my book.
Oh, also, what exact policy of Bush’s did you think was so bad?
there are many. main ones
1. going to war unilaterally for which now seems no purpose at all. many people are saying he’s known all along there’s no WMD in iraq. well i can not prove that. but he originally said which the media fried there’s a high percentage that iraq has WMD. where is now? how does that make U.S. to the world? i say a bully.
2. cut tax and dragged down the federal budget. sue me. i’m the only person who’s against cutting tax. the fact is cutting tax really DOES NOT benefit poor people. they are paying more tax on tobacco than income tax anyway.
3. under clinton, congress were more discplined when spending federal money. they could only propose for a budget if they can put in their proposal where this money should come from. no longer under bush. another contribution to high federal debt.
aw here’s a new one
I feel that I’m alone with Dodo in not wanting Bush president again.
I could careless if Kerry hasn’t proven himself to be a president.
We went war with Iraq because there was suppose to be weapons of mass destruction (not for terrorism) which has far has I know have not been found, yet.
Sorry, I forgot that the middle paragraph was in there so please ingore it. I think Kerry would be a better president than one who has been creating huge defciet from a good size surplus from 2000.
Just because we haven’t found them yet doesn’t mean they aren’t there. I always feel ‘better safe than sorry’ in situations, esp. after 911. I’m glad that Bush is a strong leader who is checking every loose end to make sure that my family and myself are safe in our great country.
so how long should U.S. troops continue to stay and search? 1 million years? from your argument, they will always have the right to stay.
I’ve been following this whole thing from afar, and haven’t really formed a concrete opinion yet, but given a choice between Bush and Kerry, it’d be Kerry all the way.
Unfortunately, Kerry’s a pretty lousy candidate; he’s just as centrist and spineless as the bulk of the Democratic party. Dean would have been, ideologically, a lot better, but he didn’t test-market well and the party dropped him.
I’m not sure yet how I’ll vote – whether it’ll be Kerry or a write-in. (I’m registered with the Green party, for reasons that made sense when I was in high school.) I’ll have to see how Pennsylvania (where I’ll be returning come fall) leans; if it’s going to be close, I’ll vote for Kerry just to get Bush out of the White House; otherwise, I’ll write-in “Ralph Nader,” or “Noam Chomsky,” or “my scrawny ass” and vote my conscience.
wow 🙂 american politics i should read more into… i’ve only been really into Canadian politics (thus me being Canadian)… but i hope whoever wins will have better relations with Canada 😀 because us Canadians, some of us might be bitter about the whole Iraq thing, the mad cow thing, the softwood thing… but we still love you guys 😀
I suggest everyone reads this amazingly well-written article:
It has everythig that I could think to say, and more.