Just a Little Test...

Hmm, the most cogent response was by a an admitted registered Republican.

Interesting.

Operaman, I may disagree with you in whole, but in parts I find common ground with you.

I have many liberal-left friends and acquaintances, and I can’t think of one of them that is legitimately ‘pro-Kerry’. Every vote they cast will be against Bush.

And defensive votes are pretty normal in a winner-take-all system, but does anyone really think Kerry is their answer man?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I have many liberal-left friends and acquaintances, and I can’t think of one of them that is legitimately ‘pro-Kerry’. Every vote they cast will be against Bush.

And defensive votes are pretty normal in a winner-take-all system, but does anyone really think Kerry is their answer man?
[/quote]

Reminds me of what Bill Maher said on Larry King the other night…
“No, I don’t think Kerry has all the answers, but I KNOW Bush doesn’t have all the answers, and he’s cheating off Cheney’s paper.”

The issues facing Kerry remind me of the book All the King’s Men by R. Penn Warren, specifically how the protagonist Willie struggled in politics because he believed that the intelligence of his ideas and the soundness of his policies would be enough to convince the people. Like Kerry, he underestimated the value of pure emotion in politics and almost lost out completely until he learned how to really speak to the people.

Personally I don’t like my president to be like the ordinary American. I want my president smarter and wiser than most, and if that comes off elitist then I can live with it. But with Kerry I keep wishing he’d look straight into the camera and just talk to the American people and tell us how he feels about things. That’s what Bush and Cheney and Zell Miller gave us at the RNC: pure emotion. For intellectuals like me, content has to trump emotion, but most people will pull the handle for the guy who makes them feel best.

[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[/quote]

BB’s right, you don’t wanna get me started…but I’ll let this one slide. You should probably check out my thread “Just a Matter of Time”, you’ll really hate that.

Opraman

“most people will pull the handle for the guy who makes them feel best.”

I enjoyed your post, but it does come down to your final quote. Always has, always will.

Operman,

We agree on the idea that neither of us want an ordinary bloke as the leader of the free world - that’s why it is incumbent on us to elect the best of the best of us.

But I would add that while emotion can clutter up decision-making, so can to a brainless marriage to reason. More than the ability to be smart is the ability to be wise. I prefer a candidate with moral clarity and a sense of strength. In an age of peril, which we are surely in, I prefer resolution, not cheap gimmicks and worthless triangulation.

Moral clarity is a kind of intelligence, and I would put it up there with all the other kinds of smarts we want in a competent leader. I believe intelligence without wisdom can best be described as a Ferrari with no steering wheel - all that under the hood with no ability to control it in a meaningful direction.

That being said, I think Bush is certainly more intelligent than his detractors assume - and I think it is an advantage. Constantly being underestimated is terrific in a public debate (witness the debates in 2000). Bush is terrible with the media, but then again, I thought we, as a society, were sick of slick-talking politicians. Bush struggles because he isn’t good at equivocating, and while that puts him at a disadvantage in the media, it is a great advantage in deciding on policy.

Two kinds of people want to be president: those who want to do something, and those who want to be something. Kerry is the latter, and in this era of danger, we don’t need that weakness at the highest office in the nation.

Operaman -

Hey, maybe if Bush jumped up and started panicking like a little bitch after he was told about the attacks, people would have started to panic themselves. As president, it is his duty to set the example and to not instill panic into the general public. Honestly, what do you expect him to do in that situation? Run out of the room screaming “Oh my God!!! We’ve been attacked!!!” That would have looked good on his part, right? Trust me, our national defense doesn’t need the president to make the immediate decisions regarding jetliners flying into buildings. They knew what they had to do, and there was nothing they could have done to stop those planes. He was trying to maintain composure and was probably thinking about what was going on, because at that point nobody had a damn clue what was going on or who was responsible. After the attacks, the president got on T.V and said that we should not panic and to carry on with our lives as normally as possible. How would that have worked if he went flying out of the room barking out orders. Think of it like this: In the Ranger bat, if we should come under attack, we don’t need anyone to tell us to return fire; we just fucking do it because that’s what were supposed to do; it’s our job. We don’t need the commander to get on the horn to tell us what to do. RLTW

rangertab75

When we are under attack the president’s job is to do what the secret service tells him to do. The military has plans and proceedures that they follow in cases like that.

The president can declare war but there are a lot of generals who have studied the art of war all of their lives. They decide how, where and when. During 9/11 the presidents job was to remain calm while the secret service assessed the situation and decided how and when he was going to leave. Everyone who thinks he should have jumped up and stormed out don’t understand how the process works. I personally think the fact they got him out of that school in under 7 minutes was astonishing. The level of communication going on there would have taken most organizations a lot longer. They cover every base every time.

This thread was intended to give the Pro-Kerry camp a chance to voice their reasons for being pro-Kerry instead of anti-Bush. What is Kerry’s plan for the economy? What are his plans for the war on terror?..The war in Iraq? How will he balance the budget in 5 years?

The sad fact is, after reading through most of these posts, I’m still waiting.

If you think that Kerry will do a better job for the economy, then tell me how. If Kerry will be tougher on terror, tell me how.

The argument could be made that everyone that votes for a challenger is really voting against the incumbent. I seem to remember the 2000 election, however, and Bush had things he wanted to to - specific things like tax cuts, privatizing Soc Sec, tort reform. He had specific items he wanted to accomplish. Where are Keryy’s items?

I’m sorry, but voting for Kerry because of the 7-minutes Bush sat in a classroom on 9-11 has got to be one of the weakest reasons I’ve ever heard of.

I guess there is really fewer pro-Kerry people out there than I thought.

I reject the premise of your thread, Rainjack, and ask that you explain a bit further.

Why is it necessary, in a (essentially) two man race, for a voter to love (or even like) one candidate? Why is it not acceptable to dislike one candidate enough that the other candidate is a better choice?

(This is not necessarily where I stand, however. But I do kindly ask that you answer this more fundamental question regarding the premise of your request.)

RangerTab,

Hmmm Sounds like BattleDrills: React to Near Ambush!

What Batt, what years were you in? I was in 2nd Batt.

‘’‘’

Operaman,

I disagree with you but by far the best post supporting Kerry I have read on the forums. Well stated and you are the type of person that could have a debate…(Read not a flame war) with.

Mag

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
I reject the premise of your thread, Rainjack, and ask that you explain a bit further.

Why is it necessary, in a (essentially) two man race, for a voter to love (or even like) one candidate? Why is it not acceptable to dislike one candidate enough that the other candidate is a better choice?

(This is not necessarily where I stand, however. But I do kindly ask that you answer this more fundamental question regarding the premise of your request.)[/quote]

RSU:

It’s not necessary, but in terms of motivating your base, which is crucial for a candidate to win – especially in a close election such as this one – it really helps if they are fired up about their own candidate. Distaste for the other side helps at the margins, but the key is a base motivated because they are “for” their candidate.

Also, it gives the candidate the advantage of being able to really pursue the mushy middle undecideds if he has his base’s support sewn up. As you see with Kerry’s Iraq positions, when he moves too close to a position that would win over the center, his base pulls him back.

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
I reject the premise of your thread, Rainjack, and ask that you explain a bit further.

Why is it necessary, in a (essentially) two man race, for a voter to love (or even like) one candidate? Why is it not acceptable to dislike one candidate enough that the other candidate is a better choice?

(This is not necessarily where I stand, however. But I do kindly ask that you answer this more fundamental question regarding the premise of your request.)[/quote]

Since the end of the conventions, polling data(I don’t have hard polling numbers, but I think my memory is in the ball park) suggests that only 30-35% of those voting for Kerry are voting FOR Kerry. The remainder- 65-70% of those planning to vote for Kerry are actually voting AGAINST Bush, and would vote for any candidate that the dems nomonated.

The premise here was to try and flush out a true Kerry supporter - not an ABBer - and have them explain why they are for Kerry without framing their reasoning with Bush’s actions/inactions.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
RSU:

It’s not necessary, but in terms of motivating your base, which is crucial for a candidate to win – especially in a close election such as this one – it really helps if they are fired up about their own candidate. Distaste for the other side helps at the margins, but the key is a base motivated because they are “for” their candidate.

Also, it gives the candidate the advantage of being able to really pursue the mushy middle undecideds if he has his base’s support sewn up. As you see with Kerry’s Iraq positions, when he moves too close to a position that would win over the center, his base pulls him back.[/quote]

All very true, BB. However, my concern is with this notion that rainjack has put forth here – and others have voiced before – that it is somehow “inappropriate” to make a decision in an election based on who you like least.

RSU:

I think you have a valid point! My problem with you is that you will not stand behind the man that you like most!

Sure I will – I’ll vote for him!

RSU:

A vote is not standing behind your man, as you risk nothing if he loses. Now betting three months off of this forum is standing behind your man…and so far you have run from the challenge!

Get over it already, macho man.

Hey RSU,

Too bad you duck Zeb’s challenge.

No one could be foolish enough to vote for W? Could they?

Hey the press, Hollywood, and disgusting, filmakers can’t be wrong?

Can they?

What do you have to lose?

JeffR

lol…still no one has replied to my question of what choosing the winner of the election would reflect about either of us. This bet is so irrelevant and meaning less, yet some are apparently hung up on – and refuse or are unable to declare why!

RSU:

It’s not that we are “hung up on it.” It’s simply a way to declare in a strong fashion how much you believe in your candidate. You have been very aggressive on this forum when there were no consequences attatched. Sort of like a liberal professor pontificating for hours. Why not right, there are no earth shaking ramifications to his words.

You have insulted the President of the United States on a regular basis on this forum. You have also personally insulted those who support President Bush. You have stated that John Kerry is smarter, more able and all around better suited for the job. You think he’s going to win!

You have now been called down to back up your words, and you continue to duck the challenge. It’s not about being “macho.” If you think it is then you really don’t understand. I am simply attempting to attach consequences to your words. You don’t like that much.

You seem so strong when you are spreading your venomous hateful posts. Attacking everyone from behind a keyboard, yet so weak when asked to back up your words.

What part about this challenge scares you kid?