Ultimate John Kerry ad

Moore ain't a democrat...

[I don't believe I said anything about him being a Democrat - BTA]

EDIT: No, but he isn't a half-lying democrat, like Tal accused the Republicans of being half-lying republicans.

[ October 14, 2004, 08:49: Message edited by: Caleb* ]

 

Well, as of now he's discouraging votes for Nader and encouraging votes for Kerry.

 

I don't approve of 'everything' Bush has done I simply disapprove of the incredible hate directed towards him with

as you so accused me of possessing. People in America actually 'hate' president Bush because of Iraq. Their view of bush is so tainted that they view anything he does as suspect, if Bush proposes spending more on military his 'anti-fans' will call him a warmonger, if Bush proposes to spend less on military the people who refer to him as Shrub will say he's not supporting the troops he sent into war, if he doesn't change the military budget at all Kerry supporters will label him an indecisive idiot.

However I know Kerry has potential to be a good president also. He's trying a new method of leading by being flexiable. However it's also often called 'flip-flopping', 'playing the field', 'covering all bases' or 'six one way, half a dozen the other'. His main weapon though is the hate directed at Bush. He could earn a fair amount of votes with a slogan simply as "John Kerry isn't Bush Jr."

In Auckland we recently had our mayoral elections. Dick Hubbard managed to beat John Banks even though nobody knows where Dick stands - not even him. He won solely on the fact that he is NOT John Banks.

But everyone is entitled to my opinion, so I decided to not spare you the honour

 

Consistency isn't a value in itself.

One example: Someone tells the Marlboro Man that his smoking will kill him one day. Anyway, he goes on to (consistently) smoke himself to cancer and eventual death. Smart?

Now imagine Bush is told that his approach to deal with terror won't work (for the sake of argument let's assume it is 100% true. Clearly, that's what I think.) And then Bush goes on anyway, "we-don't-negotiate-with-evil-we-defeat-it" style, knowing what he does is wrong until he hits a wall ...

It happens that I remember a wonderful quote (can't pinpoint it atm) about flip-flopping:

</font>

• You're a flip flopper! You've been saying this at one time and that soon after!
• Well, that's what I do when I get new information: I change my mind.

'nuff said.

 

This sums up nicely my feelings about Kerry too. Doesn't everyone do this? Doesn't everyone make different decisions once new information becomes available? Let use an example everyone can relate to: the Stock Market.

Say there's this new company going public, and you have a good feeling that this company is headed in the right direction so you invest in it. The company does alright at first, but then starts losing money. Future forecasts for the company look bleak, and it looks like they may even go bankrupt. At this point, are you more likely to take what money you have left out, or invest further into this sinking ship? To me that's not flip-flopping. Since when is someone not allowed to change one's mind when new information becomes available?

 

@Ragusa: Consistency isn't a value on its own, per se. However, it usually indicates a certain firmness of character and strength of moral principles. With Kerry, the problem is not that he changes his mind on key issues. The problem is that he's always on both sides of each argument. This means that whatever you believe, you should be able to relate to Kerry - and that's the intended effect. There's also a difference between changing your mind depending on new information and changing your mind depending on new questions. For me, Kerry is at best a man without much spine and at worst a cynical guy who simply agrees with everything and protests against everything in order to get votes. Whichever the case, he wouldn't get my vote.

 

Interesting you bring up the flip-flopping charges against Kerry.

I have an interesting Washigton Post article From Bush, Unprecedented Negativity - Scholars Say Campaign Is Making History With Often-Misleading Attacks .

And so on. Enjoy.

 

Ugh, whatever you think about Bush I probably share. As I said before, both suck. Just in two diverse ways.

 

Smear campaign? Since when would the republicans or democrats be producing propaganda in New Zealand? The only political adds I've ever seen are the ones shown to me on this board. I've been following the debates and elections via CNN, FOX, Sky, BBC and New Zealand news networks (but I'm certain you'll tell me that at least one of those networks is wrapped around Bush's little finger ).

I'm observing this debate from outside. I'm not subject to propaganda or something that intends on swaying my opinion. However it's obvious to see that Americans are bias towards one president or the other. Anything their candidate says/does is gospel and anything the opposition says/dods they will take it apart and only produce negative information. Kerry could eat babies on live television and his supports could probably justify it somehow. Bush could, in secret, donate most of his personal assets to charity and if Kerry's supporters found out they would turn it against him in some way. Bush has his minions also who would do the same thing.

From the outside, both candidates indeed do show the traits they have been accussed of possessing by their opposition. However Kerry doesn't flip-flop on every issue but he does change his position on some issues to gain votes. Bush isn't a good public speaker - he's just above average - but since when was it a requirement to be the reincarnation of Cicero? Bush made a mistake with Iraq based on faulty information, Kerry thought the same too till reports confirmed the information was false, however that was AFTER the invasion, why is Kerry celebrated for changing his mind? Bush doesn't have that option now, he sent them in, he has to stick with this decision and ride it out to the end - if not, all those US soldiers would have died for nothing.

Bush hasn't been a good president, however Kerry has riding on this mistakes of Bush rather than proving that he would be a good president.

 

Well Tal, to be honest here atleast for me as a Euro Bush basher every attack thrown at the man tends to ring true in my ear. It is natural that for some people it is the complete opposite.

 

I guess that is why they call them "Points of View". It must be nice to know that your "View" is the right one all the time.

 

Err, don't tell me you are serious believing that FOX is independant?

 

Interesting comments on this thread about "impressions" that individuals have of Kerry and Bush. First, we should set the record straight on the issue of flip-flopping.

Bush certainly sees the world in very contrasting shades of black and white; for Kerry the world is many shades of gray and full of nuance.

How black and white is Bush's world? Look at the Tucker case. She was a woman on death row who committed a particularly brutal murder. But the problem was that while in prison she had been saved, born again, to use an oft-used phrase. Religious leaders from all over the country came to her defense, inlcuding Jerry Falwell. This seemed a case where somone had really been reformed while in prison. Bush had no problem, for him it was simple, she did the crime, and after he "prayed about it" (I'm sure God told him to kill her) she was going to die. Later he said that he had no remorse over the matter. The world is very simple after all.

For Bush, there is no other side of the argument; you are "either with him, or against him." The Wilson case is a good example. Here was a guy who took on the issue of WMDs early on; an insider who dared to argue that Bush had been wrong in his State of the Union Address, which misled Americans about Saddam's attempts to buy nuclear materials. Wilson's wife had been in the CIA, and a covert agent. Bush's minion's leaked information that exposed her cover and ruined her career. Of course, Bush pretended to be above all this. This is his usual alibi.

When Bush ran against Ann Richards here in Texas his minions accused Richards of appointing gays to official office. There were propaganda posters of two men kissing, asking, is this what we want in the government of Texas? Bush pretended to know nothing about this propaganda - that he never condoned it.

Then he ran for president: again, once John McCain started to gain on him, the minions began their work. The new rumor was that McCain had "illegitmate children with a black woman." This was a really nasty one. Again, Bush claimed he knew nothing about it.

We've seen the same pattern this time with the swift boat ads. John Kerry posed a problem for Bush because he had a well-earned reputation for courage. He had been a decorated Vietnam veteran, who came home and had then had the courage to speak our against the war and what he had witnessed during his combat tour while there. Then there was the MIA issue, where Shrub's father, Bush I had backed off, much to the anger of the families of MIAs. John Kerry and John McCain both had the courage to face the families, and then go to Vietnam to put the issue to rest once and for all. This was the beginning of their friendship.

All this was a problem for Bush because now he had to convince people that Kerry was "spineless," that he lacked character and courage, despite his record. Shrub's minions have had success again with a gullible public who believe most of what they see in political ads. Kerry really is just a spineless and dangerous "liberal" despite his service to his country. See, isn't that a simple way to see a person? In this instance we don't even need to think about the issues.

Of course, those of us who are "liberals" could say that King George is spineless - because he has never seen the face of combat - that he is a narrow-minded, uneducated, arrogant, dangerous, Texas redneck.

But George was born in Connecticut, is a Yale graduate, comes from one of the most elitist and arictocratic families in America; was governor of Texas and is the President of the United States. So, perhaps John Kerry is right: The world in not so simple after all.

[ October 15, 2004, 17:56: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

@ Chandos

I have to say I disagree with most of your post.

In regards to the Tucker case it was up to the Governor to decide if he wanted to commute the sentence. He decided not to. I'm sure it was a tough decision, but it is probably the one I would have made also. Good for her that she found Jesus. Hopefully, he was a comfort for her as her sentence was carried out. If anything I take it as a good thing that he ignored Jerry Falwell. Let's see if you feel the same way about Ken Lay. I hear he is in Calcutta taking up the work of Mother Theresa. Would that make you feel better about a presidential pardon? (As an aside I fully expect the investigation to eventually lead to a criminal trial of Lay. A pardon would be political suicide for generations).

In regards to Wilson, Richards, & McCain why is that Republicans have "Minions" and Democrats have passionate grass root campaigns? Were there dirty tricks done? Probably. Can you or anyone else say with a shred of honesty that Democrats don't do the same thing? Wasn't it Daley of Chicago who had the dead come back to life to vote for Kennedy? Isn't there currently a scandal in Colorado
where low income people and felons are being registered to vote multiple times? Why is it O.K. to make a blanket statement that Bush knew and approved every dirty trick that has ever been pulled by one of his supporters and yet you don't hear the same thing about Kerry (or any other Democrat for that matter).

I see you bring up the Swift Boats again. I know the "Democratic Spin" is that it is all groundless. I honestly don't believe that. I have family members and neighbors who were in Viet-Nam and it just doesn't smell right. The man was barely in Viet-Nam long enough to get his laundry dirty and he was being decorated as if he was Patton reincarnated (O.K. I admit that is an exaggeration). To me it is and was very apparant that the entire thing was a political move the entire time he was there.

Now for the big finish. The deal with the flip flops is that Kerry doesn't stand for anything except himself. I live in Massachusetts and have seen him for many years. People used to be critical of Clinton that he would run a focus group to find out if the toilet paper goes over or under the roll. At least Clinton was ahead of the curve. Kerry is a bandwagon jumper. He waits until he sees in which direction everyone else has gone and then he follows. That is the problem the leader of our country should not be a follower, but a leader.

PS as elitist as Bush's family is Kerry didn't exactly come from a dirt farmer's family. About the only thing he has shown he is great at is marriage.

 

I knew you would, TGS.

Actually, that's not true: Bush said later that it was NOT a hard decision - that was my whole point, not the decision itself. Insiders, who were around him, even have said that it was an easy decision for him. That is his nature - not to be bothered by the nuances. As for Ken Lay, I don't think he will get the death penalty for stealing from Enron - but this is Texas, anything is possible.

This seems to be a pattern of how Bush operates during the span of his poitical career. Notice, I am not speaking of all Republicans or all Democrats. Unlike the opposition, I believe that there are people in the Republican party of integrity and charcater - George just is not one of them. Some have claimed that Rove is the mastermind behind these "dirty tricks." Rove has been with Bush since the beginning of his politcal career and, something which seems strange, has an office in the White House. Usually, private political advisors are not a direct part of the governmental machinery. Let's move on:

Tell that to the special forces soldier, and his family, whose life he saved.

How is this "apparant?"

He has stated that he stands for middle-class America, remember them? Issues of healthcare, education, jobs. He has pretty much laid this out. Now, whether you care to believe him or not, is entirely your decision.

Well, TGS, I live in Texas and have seen Shrub for many years. Turnabout is fair play, I guess.

I agree, and it's time we had one.

 

this is like mirrorworld, the conservative from MA vs the liberal from TX...