Why should I vote for John Kerry?

[Useruser666]

Please give only reasons for voting FOR Kerry. No "Because it ain't Bush!" If I see one Bush in your reasons I will disregard the entire post.

[mouse]

So that our troops will come home.

[Useruser666]

So that our troops will come home.

Why would they come home under Kerry?

[Hook Dem]

chirp*chirp

[NameDropper]

Because your mind is telling you to.

Same reason one would vote for Bush.

[Yonivore]

Please give only reasons for voting FOR Kerry. No "Because it ain't Bush!" If I see one Bush in your reasons I will disregard the entire post.
There is no good reason to vote for Kerry.

He's done nothing significant for this country in over two decades of Senate service.

[Samurai Jane]

Polls show a significant amount of Kerry's support comes from Democrats who are motivated by their hatred of the president, not their loyalty to Kerry.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if it wasn't for the ABB crowd, it wouldn't even be close.

[NameDropper]

I can't think of a reason to vote for Bush.
Largest spending in history.
Huge deficit.
Lost jobs.
Has done nothing for social security.
Has screwed up this country in 4 years.

[NameDropper]

Rumor has it that if it weren't for the "scared" crowd, Bush wouldn't have any votes.

[Samurai Jane]

I can't think of a reason to vote for Bush.
Largest spending in history.
Huge deficit.
Lost jobs.
Has done nothing for social security.
Has screwed up this country in 4 years.

Obviously you can't think of a reason to vote for Kerry either, as the original post specifically requests.

[TheMrPeanut]

I think both candidates are nuts.

[Nbadan]

I don't think UserUser666 is looking for a reason to vote for Kerry as much as rationalizing why he should vote for W.

[Useruser666]

Please stay on topic. This was supposed to be a serious discussion.

[Nbadan]

If you want the real story then go to john Kerry.com (www.johnkerry.com)

[Spurminator]

Yes, that would be the best place for objective information on John Kerry.

[Spurminator]

Since none of the Demohomers are providing any input, I'll give some reasons why I would consider voting for Kerry...

- Combat outsourcing through removal of tax benefits for corporations who outsorce, or adding tax benefits to companies who do not.
- Less ease for congress to push high spending, low reward programs through.
- No consitutional amendment banning gay marriage
- Could ease tension with some allies (which is stupid, but it's reality and it should be taken into consideration)
- Reverse overtime pay restrictions

That said, I won't be voting for Kerry, but if I were led to, those would be my reasons.

[Useruser666]

I agree with a lot of the ideas of both canidates. I read through many of the plans from that section of Kerry's website. I don't see how these plans can be enacted. I don't see the section that holds his plan for paying for all of these "reforms". What things will be cut for us to afford this?

[Nbadan]

What things will be cut for us to afford this?

John Kerry is right. All they have to do is raise taxes back to the level they were paying during the Clinton administration on those making $200,000 or more. There is plenty of money driving the economic recovery, but the world money market needs a reassurance that the U.S. is serious about debt control.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Bush's plans are the same.
Noway he can balance the budget.
But he cries about Kerry's record and he is the one spending like there is no tomorrow.

[spurster]

John Kerry will not make up rationales for war.

JK will lead and work with the world on global issues, including terrorism.

JK is for pay-as-you-go in government spending.

JK will work to make us less dependent on foreign oil.

JK will work to protect the environment.

JK will work against tax incentives for outsourcing.

JK will work for health care for those without insurance.

[greywheel]

Stem Cell Research.

[Yonivore]

Stem Cell Research.
Stem Cell Research has received more funding during this administration that from any previous administration.

[E20]

I never knew there were this many candiates.

http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president_party.php?party_name=All

[greywheel]

Stem Cell Research has received more funding during this administration that from any previous administration.

It's new research. Federal funding only began in 2000.
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/faqs.asp

[Nbadan]

Kerry served honorably in Vietnam, fought with valor. W did everything he and his dad could to avoid Vietnam, and when that didn't work, he just quit showing up to the National Guard. You might think this as just smite, but I think it says tons about character.

John Kerry will work with the leaders of other countries to battle terrorism. Hell, he's even gotten France and Germany on the Iraq rebuilding bandwagon, as long as W is back in Crawford on Nov 2nd.

John Kerry will protect the investment I have made in the Social Security system. After another supposed liberal, Clinton, was done with 8 years in office, the Social security system was fully funded till at least 2072. With W's needless tax giveaway to the very rich the Social Security system will be broke in less than 2 decades at which time taxpayers will be expected to make up the difference.

W's fantasy world of privately funded retirement accounts for the young makes no mention of what is to happen to the millions of people who will be affected by the crash of the current SS system after everyone stops paying.

John Kerry will work for the people instead of his corporate lobbists. Everytime that W has had a tough choice to make whether to do the right thing, or please his core constituents and lobbiest, W has chosen the later. That's why he refuses to admit that he's made any mistakes in Iraq even though the reverse is painfully obvious.

John Kerry has credibility. He's never misled the nation into anything. He's never waivered from his criticizm for the rush to war in Iraq without proper diplomacy. If Kerry had been elected in 2000 instead of W I dare say that the U.S. would not be tied up in Iraq right now. Bin Laden would have been killed or captured. Our national borders would be adaquetly protected, and all the world leaders would be meeting on what to do to help fight radical Islam in the Middle East so that it never takes hold of the minds of the young in the first place.

[Yonivore]

Kerry served honorably in Vietnam, fought with valor.
That's debatable. And, Nbadanallah, not all of the over 280 vets are getting government jobs. How do you answer Bud Day?

W did everything he and his dad could to avoid Vietnam, and when that didn't work, he just quit showing up to the National Guard. You might think this as just smite, but I think it says tons about character.
You imply airmen were still being deployed to Vietnam when the whole Alabama transfer kerfuffle arose. George Bush spent 4 years flying hundreds of hours on patrols...and, when the Vietnam War was winding down and they shipping pilots home to desk jobs, George W. changed his priorities, quit flying, served the minimal time, and sought an early discharge. There's no evidence he was AWOL or that he didn't fulfill his duty. Kerry on the other hand, had to get Jimmy Carter to convene a committee to review his discharge status before he got an honorable discharge, 6 years late...and, in addition, all of his medals had to be reissued in 1985. Hmmmm, that should be an interesting story.

John Kerry will work with the leaders of other countries to battle terrorism. Hell, he's even gotten France and Germany on the Iraq rebuilding bandwagon, as long as W is back in Crawford on Nov 2nd.
John Kerry will suck the dicks of corrupt countries like France, Germany, and Russia -- along with take a butt-fucking from Kofi Annan...all countries that were in cahoots with Saddam Hussein and some of which were giving him arms with which to kill our men and women. Yeah, I want them on the team.

John Kerry will protect the investment I have made in the Social Security system. After another supposed liberal, Clinton, was done with 8 years in office, the Social security system was fully funded till at least 2072. With W's needless tax giveaway to the very rich the Social Security system will be broke in less than 2 decades at which time taxpayers will be expected to make up the difference.
Anyone who uses the phrase, "...the investment I have made in the Social Security system," doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about.

W's fantasy world of privately funded retirement accounts for the young makes no mention of what is to happen to the millions of people who will be affected by the crash of the current SS system after everyone stops paying.
You expect everything to be pain free. I'm willing to give up my currently deposited money if they'll just stop the madness.

John Kerry will work for the people instead of his corporate lobbists. Everytime that W has had a tough choice to make whether to do the right thing, or please his core constituents and lobbiest, W has chosen the later. That's why he refuses to admit that he's made any mistakes in Iraq even though the reverse is painfully obvious.
Kerry's vice-presidential candidate is a trial attorney...a cheesy one, at that. And, Kerry? He's married to a corporate interest.

John Kerry has credibility. He's never misled the nation into anything. He's never waivered from his criticizm for the rush to war in Iraq without proper diplomacy. If Kerry had been elected in 2000 instead of W I dare say that the U.S. would not be tied up in Iraq right now. Bin Laden would have been killed or captured. Our national borders would be adaquetly protected, and all the world leaders would be meeting on what to do to help fight radical Islam in the Middle East so that it never takes hold of the minds of the young in the first place.
Nice finish...telling us what Kerry hasn't done. He didn't show up for his job much either. 20 years and no significant legislation passed...

Kerry would have still been cowering in the White House basement if he'd been elected in 2000.

[Useruser666]

John Kerry is right. All they have to do is raise taxes back to the level they were paying during the Clinton administration on those making $200,000 or more. There is plenty of money driving the economic recovery, but the world money market needs a reassurance that the U.S. is serious about debt control.

And the difference in those taxes will pay for everything the Clinton administration promised and all of the security for this country? How can that be? What about Kerry's promises to get the troops in Iraq more armor and vests?
I'm just honestly asking.

[mouse]

The original question was. Why should I vote for John Kerry?


I say Why not vote for Kerry?
He could not do any worst than Bush. After all how far can you go when you hit rock bottom? We are already at war. the economy stinks, And health care is horrible,

All you Kerry bashers and Bush lovers need to remember this. You could've asked the same question before Bush took office, And what would the response be?


should I vote for Bush? And the Bush Lovers would say because he would be doing his Job and not getting blow jobs in the oval office,

And the Kerry supporters would be saying what many of you are saying now, About Bush,The facts are plain and simple. As for as what has Kerry done in the 10 years of being in the senate? You have to ask yourself what do any of those fat fucks do besides give themselves raises?

I know many of you do not want to read this but we all know the facts are that, This country was a lot safer when Clinton was Prez, And I myself along with millions of hard working people had good jobs, And gas was not 2.00 dollars a gallon, And our young boys and girls were not coming home in flag draped coffins from getting shot at in a country that we have no business being in unless your in the oil buissness and you are looking out for your own ass even if it means 4 more years of sending this great nation down the toilet? Then vote for Bush,

I am not sure if Kerry can pull off half of what he promises. All I know I am willing to give him his 4 years than to give Bush another minute of my life....


Unlike your so called messiah George W. Bush? I don't need 7 minutes to make up my mind.

[Samurai Jane]

Addressing the Job loss issue, I found this little article written by an economist on zogby.com off all places.. I thought it was interesting...


Kerry and Edwards Guilty of Economic Malpractice

John Kerry and John Edwards have done an outstanding job of exploiting and misrepresenting the differences between the two employment surveys that are performed by the government each month.

As an economist, I must say that the jobs debate that has been going on in our nation for the past two years has not only been frustrating to watch, but is a perfect illustration of why politicians at the national level should be required to have business degrees instead of jurisprudence doctorates. In fact, in America today, there are very few politicians who appear to possess even the most rudimentary grasp of what the average college student learns in his/her first freshman economics class.

Let’s look at this issue more specifically as it pertains to the rhetoric of job losses since President Bush was inaugurated. First off, the Left has done an outstanding job during this period of ignoring the inherent differences between the two employment surveys that are performed by the government each month whilst exploiting and misrepresenting those disparities as well as the public’s ignorance of them. Furthermore, the news media has totally failed the public in this regard by not only participating in the misinformation campaign, but also in neglecting to fulfill its rightful obligation to society -- educating them on important issues of the day.

To be more precise without getting tediously technical, there are two surveys done each month to determine employment levels in our nation. The first is accomplished by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and is referred to as the Establishment Survey. In this poll, 390,000 companies (establishments) are asked questions by either phone or mail to try to determine a fair estimate of all Americans who are presently employed by such companies and government offices. Concurrently, the Household Survey is performed each month by the Census Bureau in the form of telephone questionnaires to 50,000 residences in 792 different regions of the nation. In reality, both of these reports give economists and lawmakers valuable information about employment trends, wage issues, gender and race matters, etc.

The problem is that these surveys don’t always tell the same story, and the Left and their media minions for the past two years have continually focused the public’s attention on the most negative aspects of each of these reports whilst typically downplaying or totally ignoring the positive ones. As a result, regardless of the fact that the economy as measured by almost every conceivable statistic has been growing at a very brisk pace since the second quarter of 2003, the average American doesn’t feel that way. For instance, even though home ownership and prices are at the highest levels in American history, and the GDP in the twelve-month period between April 2003 and March 2004 grew at the fastest pace in twenty years, only 42% of people who feel that the economy is the top priority in this election believe that the President is doing a good job in this regard. Such was the determination of John Zogby in a recent poll wherein he concluded, “While the President and his team hoped that the economic turnaround would be to his benefit, it is clearly an albatross around his neck at this point in the campaign.”

Why the chasm between perception and reality? What are some of the differences that exist in these government reports that are being exploited by the Left to convince the electorate that things are actually worse than the facts dictate? Well, as a perfect example, the Establishment Survey in the most recent report released last Friday suggests that there are currently 874,000 fewer Americans on non-farm payrolls than in December of 2000 before President Bush was inaugurated. Of course, this was the headline statistic reported all weekend. However, the Household Survey in this same report claims that there are currently 1,848,000 MORE people employed today. As you would imagine, most news agencies neglected to convey this positive datum. Why do you think that might be?

Now, an inquiring mind might wonder why these reports are so different. Well, the Establishment Survey only includes people who are employed by companies or governments, and fails to address -- as the Household Survey does -- those who work for small businesses, or are self-employed, consultants, independent contractors, etc., etc. This is why the Establishment Survey is actually understating employment in our nation by about 8 million jobs. Let’s understand that people who are not included in the Establishment Survey, but ARE in the Household version, range from realtors, mortgage brokers, insurance salespeople, accountants, beauticians, manicurists -- basically anybody who either works for themselves or a small business.

As a result of these disparities, it is extraordinarily disingenuous for Senators Kerry and Edwards to continually refer to job losses since Bush took office given the fact that one of the government surveys COMPLETELY refutes this assertion. Furthermore, and potentially more important, when Misters Kerry and Edwards talk about the declining employment numbers, they always do so by insinuating that the President “Lost Jobs.” Ever wonder where he lost them? Are all of these jobs hiding somewhere in that mysterious place in everyone’s dryer that lonely socks go?

Nowhere is this “Lost Jobs” discussion more intentionally misleading than as it pertains to manufacturing jobs and how many have been “lost” since President Bush took office. In fact, I sincerely wonder if Misters Kerry and Edwards have ANY clue that manufacturing jobs have been declining in our nation since June of 1979 when they peaked at 19,553,000. After hitting this all-time high, America lost almost 3 million such jobs in the next 3½ years, bringing this total to 16,702,000 by January of 1983. Today, this number is 14,384,000. As such, American businesses have been aggressively relocating manufacturing facilities outside of the country for more than 25 years. Unfortunately, the Democratic Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates seem to have conveniently “lost” this fact somewhere along the campaign trail, and continue to imply to the electorate that this phenomenon is President Bush’s fault.

Beyond this, it seems quite amazing that regardless of the number of times Misters Kerry and Edwards have referred to the President losing jobs, no responsible journalist has ever asked the candidates to address specifically what kinds of jobs were lost, and how this data might relate to either the attacks on 9/11 or the collapse of the Stock and Tech Bubbles. For instance, since December of 2000, 1,517,000 payroll jobs have been lost in the categories of: computer and electronics manufacturing (512,000); transportation equipment manufacturing (254,000); air transportation warehousing (119,000); telecommunications (297,000); information services such as ISPs, search portals, etc. (111,000); financial activities related to securities (45,000), and; computer systems design and support (179,000). As one would imagine, all seven of these employment categories were likely pummeled as a direct result of the Stock and Tech Bubbles bursting, as well as the attacks of 9/11. Furthermore, since December of 2000, there have been 328,000 job losses in the retail trade sector. How much of this payroll decline could be directly related to e-commerce and the explosion of Internet purchases? Certainly, it is not caused by a decline in retail sales, as this statistic is significantly higher today than in the year 2000, even if the public doesn’t believe it.

The bottom line here is that the American economy has been going through an extraordinary transformation in the past ten years with all the well-publicized technological advancements, the bursting of the Stock and Tech Bubbles, and the attacks of 9/11. Regardless of the thumping of politicians’ chests, there is only so much that fiscal and monetary policy can accomplish. Furthermore, irrespective of what governments might do, they cannot stem the tide of global economic forces. As such, it appears not only disingenuous, but almost unimaginably naive for a politician in the year 2004 to be discussing problems in the economy without specifically addressing what factors other than policy issues might be the cause. In reality, this is akin to a doctor suggesting to a patient who has just had a stroke that the culprit was his weight problem, without looking at all of the other internal physiological determinants that might have been responsible such as a blockage of the carotid artery.

The significance of all of this is that we as a nation are likely going through structural societal and economic changes that are just as sweeping and impactful as those that transpired at the end of World War II. As a result of the ramifications of these shifts, it appears to be the “wrong place and the wrong time” for our country to consider putting a couple of Senators in the Oval Office who not only appear to understand virtually none of the global economic issues that confront us, but are quite willing to lie to the American people about such matters just to gain the power they desire. Or, put a different way, it appears that these two Senators are quite guilty of economic malpractice, and that maybe Mr. Edwards’ law firm should be looking into suing them both for gross acts of negligence in this regard.


(10/12/2004)
- By Noel Sheppard, Intellectual Conservative


http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=10023

[mouse]

Dude you want to get into a cut and paste war? I will win, there is more dirt on Bush than all of kerry's family and you know this man,,,,

How about I copy and paste all the coffins coming to America with dead Americans?

remember who your talking to when you talk smack at 2 Am on a saturday night.

http://www.boomspeed.com/woaimouse/Crazyone.jpg

[Nbadan]

That's debatable. And, Nbadanallah, not all of the over 280 vets are getting government jobs. How do you answer Bud Day?

With all due respect, Bud Day is making the same mistake today that John Kerry made in the 1970's. Aligning himself with this shady group of characters will someday come back and haunt Mr. Day.

[CrazyOne]

Alright, since I've been dragged into this thread...

Vote for Bush, or Brother Marciano will not be pleased.


If Brother Marciano isn't pleased, well, let's just say you better have your health insurance paid up, capiche?

[Useruser666]

Mouse, I don't understand how or why you believe America was safer under Clinton. It's off the topic of this thread, but that struck me kind of strange. I don't believe the economy to be that bad. I really think it's improving. A lot of things have changed after 9/11. Much of what you state as reasons for voting Bush out of office are direct effects of that. Most of these issues if attributed to Bush or Kerry make valid arguements. I'd like to keep this thread more about why I should vote for Kerry, and leave it at that.

[Yonivore]

With all due respect, Bud Day is making the same mistake today that John Kerry made in the 1970's. Aligning himself with this shady group of characters will someday come back and haunt Mr. Day.
:lmao

Might I suggest you read the O'Neill's updated epilogue from his book, "Unfit for Command." Written after the media and Kerry campaign attempted to discredit the original publication, O'Neill goes back and answers all charges...every one. Good read for anyone wanting all sides of the story about Kerry's Vietnam experience and why it matters today.


Free Download of "Unfit for Command," Epilogue (http://members.humaneventsonline.com/offers/offer.php?id=UC012)

Contained in the epilogue:

Proof the first of three Purple Hearts was due to a self-inflicted wound not suffered under any contact with the enemy.

Proof the third of three Purple Hearts was due to a self-inflicted wound not suffered under any contact with the enemy and NOT during the same incident where Kerry "earned" his Bronze Star -- as has been inferred by the Kerry Campaign.

Proof the Bronze Star was dubiously awarded after Kerry "rescued" Beret Rassman after was thrown from Kerry's boat due to an unexpected change in direction and quick acceleration (fleeing) and not due to a mine explosion.

Proof Kerry murdered a father and son and captured a wife and daughter as opposed to killing any VC and capturing other combatants, as reported, in the "Sampan Incident."

A broad discussion over the thrice issued Silver Star award which leaves questions only Senator Kerry can answer; including the "V" designation for valor on an award that is issued for valor thus, making a "V" designation redundant -- and singular in occurrence in the annals of the military. And, why the part that described him chasing down a teen in loincloth and killing him has been dropped from the citation. Also, why is Secretary Lehman so clueless about the citation he "signed?"

Proof (actually just a distillation of the admissions by the Kerry Campaign) that Kerry never spent any time in Cambodia -- much less, Christmas of 1968.

Proof Kerry met with the enemy, that they comprised "both sides" he met with in Paris in 1970 and that he brought their demands back and became their vicarious ambassador in the United States; demanding that the U.S. accept the 7-point plan of Madame Binh which amounted to a unilateral surrender in return for P.O.W.'s

And, finally, a broad discussion of the "Winter Soldier Investigation," upon which Kerry relied to bolster his lies before Congress.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. There’s a discussion over Kerry’s refusal to sign the Standard Form 180 and the epilogue concludes with this analysis:



John Kerry and the Politics of Betrayal

In the concluding pages of Unfit for Command, we noted that our concerns about Kerry focused on the question of character and our conclusions were that Senator Kerry was unfit to be commander in chief. We believe Senator Kerry broke the trust indispensable to successful command and we expressed our concern that the pattern we had observed with Kerry’s history regarding the Vietnam War would only be played out again in the context of today’s international crises.

John Kerry undoubtedly calculated he could have it both ways—for those who wanted to see a war hero, he could tout his decorations — for those who were anti-war, he could point to his role as spokesperson for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. What John Kerry never calculated fully was that a great number of the men and women who served in Vietnam simply wouldn’t buy the story.

To the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, John Kerry was a betrayer, plain and simple. He betrayed the over two million men and women who served honorably in Vietnam when he testified to Senator Fulbright’s committee in April 1971 that they were the army of Ghengis Khan, committing war crimes on a daily basis, with their atrocities completely approved up and down the chain of command.

John Kerry wanted to be a war hero of a war he said was immoral. The self-contradiction implied in that statement never seemed to bother him. Put simply, he wanted to be an honored member of a select club, even though he insulted the club’s members and claimed to the world that the club itself had no legitimate moral authority.

Unfortunately for John Kerry, the most memorable speech of his life may prove to be one of his first, his 1971 testimony before Senator Fulbright’s committee. There he sat in street-theater military fatigues, claiming that the Vietnam War was a mistake, that the United States was a colonial power interfering in a civil war, that we were in Vietnam not to win a victory against godless communism but to protect a corrupt regime and a puppet dictator in South Vietnam.

John Kerry in that April 1971 testimony asked his most memorable public question: “How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?” Perhaps the ultimate mistake was his. To run for president with his Vietnam “war hero” story as the central pillar of his campaign invited the criticism that his true legacy was that of a Judas, a betrayer, who abandoned his brothers-in-arms on the field of battle and denigrated their honor once he secured the safety of home.

If the past is to be taken as prologue to the future, the parallels between John Kerry’s anti-administration rhetoric on Iraq today and his war-protest rhetoric of 1971 must be taken seriously. For Senator Kerry, terrorists are a nuisance, like gambling and prostitution. This is not a surprise to the authors. By taking the side of the enemy, as he did in Vietnam, or reducing terrorists to the ranks of gamblers and prostitutes, as he does today, Kerry believes that Iraq is no more a war against terrorism than Vietnam was a war against communism. Indeed, John Kerry’s cynicism prevents him from understanding people’s desire for freedom.

John Kerry began his campaign at the Democratic National Committee a “war hero,” but as was the case with Vietnam, he has now shifted to his second phase, presenting himself as a vocal “anti-war” critic, this time of President Bush’s efforts in Iraq.

John Kerry clearly has no commitment to consistency, but he does have an unwavering ambition to win the presidential election in 2004, no matter what he has to say. The parallels to 1971 are all too apparent. How can we be sure that John Kerry will not end up this time where he ended up last time—betraying our troops by withdrawing from the field of battle at any cost should he ever get the chance to give the order?

Reviewing the controversy following the publication of our book, we hold fast to our original conclusion: John Kerry is truly unfit for command. Advantage, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.