T Nation

Just a Little Test...

In looking through the posts here on the ol’ political forum, I’ve noticed something a little odd. Bush supporters seem to be able to articulate what Bush’s message is, while Kerry supporters - check that - those who are against Bush seem to focus on what is that Bush has or hasn’t done.

Can any of you out there who are voting for John Kerry articulate why you are voting for him, without using the name Bush, or referring to anything he’s done in the last 4 years?

In other words - can anyone tell me why they are voting FOR Kerry instead of AGAINST Bush?

that’s what I thought.

I’m voting FOR:

more responsible fiscal, health, environmental, social and foreign relations policies.

I’m voting FOR someone who will actually wage a serious war on terrorism, rather than cynically using that “war” as a means of retaining power or as an excuse to settle old scores for his daddy.

Give it time. Lumpa is a night owl. He’ll respond with some kind of junk. It will be about a clear as a message as John Kerry has put out there, but he’ll respond.

Elk? RSU? You guys working feverishly to formulate Kerry’s position? Maybe when you’ve completed it, you could send it over to his campaign. Quickly! Hurry, before they change their message AGAIN!

WEll I’ll take a crack at this one. I’m a registered republican, former leader of local young republicans, 10 year subscriber to National Review, voted for Bush in 2000, and live in a predominately republican state that has no chance of going any way but red.

That being said, my vote this november will most likely be going to Kerry barring some shocker between now and the election. I am making this decision with quite a bit of reservation as I have always liked Bush and am thankful for the leadership he provided in a very difficult time.

So why vote for Kerry? Oddly enough, I’m voting for him because he’s far closer to what a true conservative is than Bush. How so?

1)Fiscal responsibility. Guided by more than a high school level course in economics that says “tax cuts make things grow,” Kerry plan to roll back the INCOME tax cut for the upper tax brackets, while cutting the CORPORATE tax rate by 5%. He also plans to cut back much of the exhorbitant spending shown by this administration and the congress. Personally I feel deceived by this congress and administration because because they’ve justified their spending because of the war on terror, but the overwhelming majority of the deficit spending has gone to the upper tax brackets’ tax cut and big-government political pork programs!! That’s not very conservative in my book.

2)Health Care. Kerry proposes a real health care plan that will insure millions of uninsured americans AND it’s payed for! It is NOT like Clinton’s plan that was a huge government bureaucracy, but rather is using directed tax credits for smaller and medium sized businesses, allowing businesses to work together to compete for better rates, etc. His health care plan is rather extensive and you can read more about it in his Plan for America if you’re so inclined. I haven’t seen Bush do anything for health care in 4 years and I don’t feel that it’s very important to him even now. My drawback with Kerry is his support by trial lawyers and the implications that could have on malpractice rates and whatnot; I guess nothing’s perfect.

3)Jobs. Nuff said. The added jobs of our so-called recovery are mostly service sector lower-wage positions, not the higher paid manufacturing and tech jobs that people are looking for. I realize that in a global economy we are going to lose jobs to cheaper labor, etc., but I think we need to do something to slow things down enough so our workers have TIME to retrain and adapt to other fields. So Kerry’s economic package is targeted to encourage jobs via lowered corp. taxes, credits for healthcare expenses, credits for implementing wellness and prevention programs, ending tax incentives for taking things overseas. So far all I’ve heard from my fellow republican GWB is that he’s sticking with his tax break and hoping for the best.

  1. National Security. I feel that I would be safer with Kerry. I know, heresy! Here I’m going to have to do a little Bush attacking. I have 3 primary reasons for my feelings on this:

–Foreign oil. Bush has done NOTHING to get us off foreign oil, something all experts agree is an essential first step if we really want to deal with terrorist regimes. IF past behavior predicts future behavior, I think we’ll see 4 more years of didly if we keep bush.

– Hypocrital anti-terrorist policy. Specifically, the policy of pre-emption against states who “harbor or support terrorists.” Bush did the right thing to attack Afghanistan although he did bungle parts of it. But afterwards, did he go after the Saudis who are the regions biggest supporters of terrorists? Nope. Iran who openly welcomes terrorists and training camps and is developing nukes? Nope. Pakistan who has more terror camps and harbored terrorists than any other country? Nope. Ol’ George decides to attack the ONE COUNTRY with NOOO ties to al-qaeda!!! Nice one G.

–Incompetance. Fellow conservatives, remember this one if you remember nothing else: on 9/11 at 9:03am when Andrew Card told him the second tower had been hit and we were under attack, Bush sat in that school for 7-12 minutes doing NOTHING!!! With Kerry I’m most worried that he will wait to take a poll before defending our country, but Bush had to wait for Karl Rove to defend ours! Although I don’t like to speculate, I can’t help but think how things might have been different had Bush acted sooner. He would have had nearly 30 minutes before the Pentagon or Flt 93 went down…maybe some people could have been saved.

So on security I think Bush just isn’t cutting it. I know he looked good after 9-11 and took charge and was comforting. He took that megaphone and acted like a leader. He cried with all of us and made us feel safe.

But now with time to reflect and remember, I look back on his administration and it just isn’t working. He is totally screwing up the war in Iraq and we all know it. Nearly 10,000 troops now killed or wounded, and for what? With every move he makes in Iraq, Bush is more concerned with how things play in the Midwest than how they’ll affect the Middle East.

For my money and my vote, it’s time to bring some brains back to Washington. I don’t think Kerry is perfect, I don’t agree with him on many things, but he’s more of a true conservative than Bush. Kerry is a lousy campaigner; he comes off stiff and elitist, and he is uncomfortable with the ugly part of politics. But I believe in my heart that he’d make a wonderful president. I want to send my fellow republicans a message and send some of them home over the next few elections. Maybe then we’ll regroup and start acting like conservatives again.

[quote]jackzepplin wrote:
Give it time. Lumpa is a night owl. He’ll respond with some kind of junk. It will be about a clear as a message as John Kerry has put out there, but he’ll respond.

Elk? RSU? You guys working feverishly to formulate Kerry’s position? Maybe when you’ve completed it, you could send it over to his campaign. Quickly! Hurry, before they change their message AGAIN![/quote]
LOL…I’ll need some time to do this!

By “his message,” I think you mean the “brand” he’s presented to the general public, because it is here that Kerry has failed. He has outlined plans – why not swing by johnkerry.com and check em out.

Operaman – you’re a breath of fresh air, and my new best friend. Great post.

RSU

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
Operaman – you’re a breath of fresh air, and my new best friend. Great post.

RSU[/quote]

I second that. Well said Operaman.

Todd

Yeah, the reverse test would be can anybody support Bush without belly-aching about Clinton?

[quote]tme wrote:
I’m voting FOR:

more responsible fiscal, health, environmental, social and foreign relations policies.

I’m voting FOR someone who will actually wage a serious war on terrorism, rather than cynically using that “war” as a means of retaining power or as an excuse to settle old scores for his daddy.
[/quote]

tme has failed to respond as requested. If you notice he has to bring Bush and his “daddy” into the equation. When there is so much hate and so weak a candidate as Kerry the liberals just have to attack Bush. I love it!

quit trying to change the subject, vroom.

Operaman,

Please explain how 7 - 12 minutes or a half hour would have changed anything that happened on the planes that were already in the air.

Additionally, please explain how a voting record as liberal as that of John Kerry makes him a true “conservative”.

When you have a president running for re-election, what the incumbent has achieved (or the colossal fuck-ups he has made) is the focus of the election, rainjack. That’s the reality.

[quote]Scott1010220 wrote:
Operaman,

Please explain how 7 - 12 minutes or a half hour would have changed anything that happened on the planes that were already in the air.

Additionally, please explain how a voting record as liberal as that of John Kerry makes him a true “conservative”.[/quote]

Ciao tutti! I’m surprised anyone actually read that epistle of mine! I didn’t intend for it to be so long, but it just kept growing(if I had a nickel for everytime I have to say THAT!).

Anyhow, I’m not so sure Bush could have done anything to change what happened on 9-11. Our whole defense department is designed to function from the top down, where the commander gives an order and it’s disseminated through the chain of command. As I look through a timeline of what happened and how long it took the FAA to get planes grounded and for NORAD to scramble fighters when they knew that 2 other planes had been hijacked, I can’t help but think some of the delays were simply because people who needed authorization didn’t have any. A presidential order just might have streamlined things a bit.

I really don’t think too much good is done by my monday morning quarterbacking, but despite the pragmatic implications of Bush’s inaction, I’m still left to reconcile a man who portrays himself as America’s best hope for securty and the man who sat on his behind for so long after he KNEW we were under attack.

Kerry’s voting record really is quite liberal, I won’t argue that one! But I think we also have to take into account just how much the ideas of liberals and conservatives have changed in the 20+ years he was in the Senate. I always laugh when I see Bush adds attacking Kerry’s record because they are so misleading, yet most voters will never take the time to understand this. Many of the liberal votes he made were part of the strategy of our legislative process, especially for the minority party, and even sometimes for a majority party when dealing with the HoR and conference committees, etc.

If you’re thinking back to ol’ Zell Miller’s republican convention speech, while many of his references to Kerry’s votes were accurate, he failed to mention how the Republican leadership at the time voted the same way many times. Our world has changed a lot over the last 20years and and things that once made perfect sense and had popular support now look premature and ill-conceived.

Today we have the former tax and spend liberals advocating cuts to corporate taxes and targetted tax credits to help businesses afford health coverage, and former small government conservatives advocating the largest expansion of the federal bureaucracy and deficit in history. I guess we’re all a little guilty of flip-flopping.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
tme wrote:
I’m voting FOR:

more responsible fiscal, health, environmental, social and foreign relations policies.

I’m voting FOR someone who will actually wage a serious war on terrorism, rather than cynically using that “war” as a means of retaining power or as an excuse to settle old scores for his daddy.

tme has failed to respond as requested. If you notice he has to bring Bush and his “daddy” into the equation. When there is so much hate and so weak a candidate as Kerry the liberals just have to attack Bush. I love it!
[/quote]

Well, it IS an election with TWO opposing candidates, so it stands to reason that they are both part of “the equation.”

Operaman, welcome aboard…great post(s). Don’t expect “facts” to go over very well here though : )

rainjack:
You have a very valid question, since Operaman already gave you an excellent, detailed answer, I’d like to offer this:
Every presidential candidate makes campaign promises and presents plans when running for election that he may or may not impliment. Even if Kerry had a “future” plan that everyone agreed on, only time would tell if those things get implimented, that’s true with every election.

That’s why you can’t leave Bush out of this question, he’s already had his shot. Whenever I hear this question it’s almost like people are saying, “So tell me, what is Kerry’s plan to get us out of this enormous mess that Bush made?”

The real question should be, “What is ONE thing that Bush has done in four years to deserve another term?” The only thing keeping his boat afloat is the “spin machine” on hyperdrive. The “spin machine” works so well, 50% of the sheeple think the war in Iraq is getting better and the economy is BOOMING.

It gets frustrating because it’s like standing in the rain, trying to convince someone it’s raining.

[quote]Scott1010220 wrote:
Operaman,
Please explain how 7 - 12 minutes or a half hour would have changed anything that happened on the planes that were already in the air.[/quote]

Being the “911 conspiracy guy” on the boards, I’d like to bring up the real question…

With two hijacked planes already crashed and an unknown number of others still in US airspace and with his location known to the public in advance of his visit, why didn’t the Secret Service literally yank him out of his shoes to get him out of there? Add to that they already had a memo that said, “bin Laden determined to attack”.

To think he did it because he didn’t want to alarm the kids is beyond ludacris. The extreme reality happens to be the Secret Service would kill every kid in that classroom if for some reason it meant protecting the President. If you know anything about how important it is that they protect the President, you’ll understand exactly what I’m saying.

In other words, how did they know he was safe?

As far as NORAD goes, “intercept” and “shoot down” are two separate things. The controvercy was never about a question whether to shoot down or not, it happened to be about an even bigger issue. Fighter intercept happens to be a matter of ROUTINE, not an executive level decision. In other words, they would actually need orders to STAY ON THE GROUND.

That’s why so many people immediately started doubting the whole 911 story, because something that just happens as routine in a matter of minutes, didn’t happen on 911 for almost two hours.

A good analogy would be, if a fire alarm went off in a building only about two or three blocks from the fire department. As a matter of routine they go and check it out, regardless of whether there is a real fire or not they treat it like an emergency every single time. Now imagine on 9/11, the building catching fire, the alarm going off, the building burning to the ground and then the fire department showing up after the fact when they were only 3 blocks away. But even more incredible, not just that building, but 3 other buildings in the surrounding area with at least 8 fire departments able to respond to any of them within 15 minutes, but none arrive until after the buildings all burn down.

That’s why certain people immediately became suspicious, because a scenerio like that is for all intents and purposes, beyond the realm of possibility.

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Operaman, welcome aboard…great post(s). Don’t expect “facts” to go over very well here though : )

rainjack:
You have a very valid question, since Operaman already gave you an excellent, detailed answer, I’d like to offer this:
Every presidential candidate makes campaign promises and presents plans when running for election that he may or may not impliment. Even if Kerry had a “future” plan that everyone agreed on, only time would tell if those things get implimented, that’s true with every election.

That’s why you can’t leave Bush out of this question, he’s already had his shot. Whenever I hear this question it’s almost like people are saying, “So tell me, what is Kerry’s plan to get us out of this enormous mess that Bush made?”

The real question should be, “What is ONE thing that Bush has done in four years to deserve another term?” The only thing keeping his boat afloat is the “spin machine” on hyperdrive. The “spin machine” works so well, 50% of the sheeple think the war in Iraq is getting better and the economy is BOOMING.

It gets frustrating because it’s like standing in the rain, trying to convince someone it’s raining.

Scott1010220 wrote:
Operaman,
Please explain how 7 - 12 minutes or a half hour would have changed anything that happened on the planes that were already in the air.

Being the “911 conspiracy guy” on the boards, I’d like to bring up the real question…

With two hijacked planes already crashed and an unknown number of others still in US airspace and with his location known to the public in advance of his visit, why didn’t the Secret Service literally yank him out of his shoes to get him out of there? Add to that they already had a memo that said, “bin Laden determined to attack”.

To think he did it because he didn’t want to alarm the kids is beyond ludacris. The extreme reality happens to be the Secret Service would kill every kid in that classroom if for some reason it meant protecting the President. If you know anything about how important it is that they protect the President, you’ll understand exactly what I’m saying.

In other words, how did they know he was safe?

As far as NORAD goes, “intercept” and “shoot down” are two separate things. The controvercy was never about a question whether to shoot down or not, it happened to be about an even bigger issue. Fighter intercept happens to be a matter of ROUTINE, not an executive level decision. In other words, they would actually need orders to STAY ON THE GROUND.

That’s why so many people immediately started doubting the whole 911 story, because something that just happens as routine in a matter of minutes, didn’t happen on 911 for almost two hours.

A good analogy would be, if a fire alarm went off in a building only about two or three blocks from the fire department. As a matter of routine they go and check it out, regardless of whether there is a real fire or not they treat it like an emergency every single time. Now imagine on 9/11, the building catching fire, the alarm going off, the building burning to the ground and then the fire department showing up after the fact when they were only 3 blocks away. But even more incredible, not just that building, but 3 other buildings in the surrounding area with at least 8 fire departments able to respond to any of them within 15 minutes, but none arrive until after the buildings all burn down.

That’s why certain people immediately became suspicious, because a scenerio like that is for all intents and purposes, beyond the realm of possibility.[/quote]

I hate conspiracy theories. Let me offer a few possible explanations for those delays. Everyone was glued to their televisions that day, to include those in the military. I don’t think even Pearl Harbor was able to paralyze America for an abbreviated amount of time the way that 9-11 did. The telephone system became instantly impossible to use on the Eastern Seaboard immediately following the crashes in New York. That probably hampered the ability for government agencies to maintain the proper flow of information necessary for instant action.

FDR never knew about Pearl Harbor prior to the attack. Likewise, GWB never knew about 9-11, or at least he did not know sufficient details ahead of time that would have been necessary to stop it. The idea that these men would deliberately allow these events to take place is just plain silly.

Todd

RSU you failed to read the request that rainjack set down at the outset. That is why I called tme’s post into question.

Todd:

Please don’t encourage him.

[quote]deanosumo wrote:
When you have a president running for re-election, what the incumbent has achieved (or the colossal fuck-ups he has made) is the focus of the election, rainjack. That’s the reality. [/quote]

I agree that the measuring stick in a presidential election is the incumbent’s performance.

However, The premise of this thread was to see if anyone could tell me ahow Kerry has articulated his differences from Bush.

He hasn’t said much of anything he would do - but he would do it differently. And depending on the day of the week - Kerry’s position on how he would be different than Bush changes as well.

So far Kerry has promised:
To raise taxes
To lower taxes
Universal Healthcare
A balanced budget
To get out of Iraq
To stay in Iraq
To spend more in Iraq
To spend less in Iraq

With all of these promises comes little in a real plan for doing these things.