He is a career politician, a Washington hack, and he is too concerned with his "legacy" and "electability" to put the U.S. ahead of himself

 

Excellent observation on the "electability."

 

Because Bush is so unpolished and perceived as succeptible it seems like the Dems are focusing exculsively on Kerry's electability, ie "he's not Bush, so vote for him" and nothing else.

 

I find this a significant departure from traditional Dem behavior for two reasons:

 

1) You would think that they would of learned from the Republicans and how they challenged that scumball, white-trash piece of no good, deceitful, morally bankrupt lying waste of skin Clinton. You won't win when the sole attraction of your candidate is the fact he isn't the other guy.

 

2) Where is the traditional Dem hype regarding domestic policy, domestic policy and domestic policy? Very uncharacteristic for Kerry to remain as vague as he has about pretty much everything and anything that has to do with a concrete domestic agenda.

 

Will someone out there tell me something Kerry plans to do besides "something" about the Iraq situation?

 

Oh, and BTW, as far as media bias.... by definition, there is no way you can watch anything, or see anything, or experience anything without the influence of bias. Just thought I'd let you know so that you don't spend your whole lives searching for an "unbiased" source of information.

Will someone out there tell me something Kerry plans to do besides "something" about the Iraq situation?

Well there is the 10 million jobs.

 

Everyone loves jobs! They give you money and stuff.

 

Dear god, I fear Flying Mollusk is about to unleash another 2-pager. Keep it manageable, dude.

Dear god, I fear Flying Mollusk is about to unleash another 2-pager. Keep it manageable, dude.

Manageable? The best reads are long. My posts are no longer than stuff you read in the New Yorker, the Economists, and other things which dont make matters simple but try and endevour in better analysis. Im not saying Im even close to those. Far from it. But it would be a shame to dismiss things because of a lack of patience. The things I write take 5 minutes to read.

 

sort through your spastic and frequent rhetoric

 

Lol, Ill make it less complicated for you next time lest I give you a chance to take a cheap shot. Im sorry but that cheap shot doesnt excuse you.

 

 

My attacks on Kerry have been mostly about personality. I believe that a candidate's temperament is key in how they will perform in office. I could sit down with a copy of the latest newsletters from every thinktank in existence a and deliver a blow-by-blow on why Kerry's defense initiative is bupkus,

So your beliefs are held together by subjective observations that we will all just have to trust. Well there goes the foundation of any basic discussion. It sounds more like a blatant cop out to me.

 

 

but unfortunately I have a job and a life and I am physically unable to. I can only say that I have taken the opportunity to look at John Kerry and hear many of his remarks unedited, and can safely say that he is merely a political hack.

 

I've refused to engage in cheap shots like you but its hard not to describe you as a hypocrite. Id be fine with the "I dont have time but just trust me" defense if it came from anyone besides you. You see rippy-o, Im more bothered by the fact that you refuse to substantiate any of your assertions with this excuse, yet DEMAND substantiation from others. In fact your hypocricy eminates in the same post! Look at this:

 

I could sit down with a copy of the latest newsletters from every thinktank in existence a and deliver a blow-by-blow on why Kerry's defense initiative is bupkus, but unfortunately I have a job and a life and I am physically unable to....

 

Explain in specific detail how this is turning into a whitewash of Bush's transgressions.

How do you even defend this? You asked me to do it in terms of Kerry's economic policy and I did at considerable expense of my time. I should have known better than to give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

I made my case on Al-Jazeera, saying that they have more a monopoly on the Arab region vis a vis American media has on the U.S. And your response "Well....it is becoming more centralized, and doesn't present alternatives very well." A HELL OF A LOT BETTER THAN AL-JAZEERA does! Explain in specific detail how this is turning into a whitewash of Bush's transgressions.

 

I never said Bush. I intentionally didnt point out Bush. There was a reason it was in a seperate post. Clinton took advantage too. My point was that it was inaccurate of you to romantically describe the US media as:

 

We are traditionally a more open society and more tolerant of dissenting views. The sheer number of magazines/newspapers and online content attests to this.

We have become less and less tolerant on dissenting views and thats a direct consequence of the centralization of the media. Im sorry, next time I will take each step in the logical progression.

 

1. Its foolish to think that mainstream American media represents openness to the dissenting view. 2.Like I said, just because there are a number of media outlets, doesnt mean the majority of media isn't mainstream and centralized. There has been a vast centralization and the majority of Americans get their news from a limited number of print and television media. 3. The views seen in these media outlets are very very limited. What you see on the cover of cnn.com is what you see on the cover of the Orlandosentinel and what you see on the headlines of MSNBC. Anybody who ever ventures outside of such sources can easliy see this. But most Americans dont venture outside. Just ask you average American what they think of a number of issues and their assertions are so simple because what they get fed are simple headline type stories.

 

Media who try and venture outside of such endevours are often repremanded. There is a reason people love to hate on the NYtimes and characterize it as being elitist liberal material. Its because it asks the questions mainstream media refuses to ask. That publication is as close as mainstream media gets to the fringe.

 

 

Those who dissent from the majority mainstream media are characterized as nutcases. If you dont follow the majority, you are falsley characterized. A perfect example is the decision of the media to block the dissenting views of those who protested the war. They were characterized as unpatriotic and un-American and bad for the cause.(the most idiotic argument btw. like some soldier wont be able to shoot a gun if a guy is protesting in the US.) The media preferred riding in the tanks and ballyhooing the righteous invasion and comparing it to WW2. But they refused to show the dissent that still raged on. Its fine if you personally believe that this should have been done. But dont inaccuratley portray the American media.

 

I never defended Al-Jazeera. But unlike you, I'm not going to formulate my opinion of their coverage because there are less number of media outlets. Just look at the BBC. Ive already dismissed your claim that more numerous media outlets implies greater press freedom. It was illogical on your part. Youve got no substance on Al-Jazeera and thats the point I was trying to make. Now if you can find some serious objective indictments against it, then I will concede. But I doubt you can. So dont go about dismissing Shamrock's decision to try to understand more with your groundless beliefs you yourself are so convinced of.

 

Im just sick of the high and mighty of this country pretending we are some bastion of openness when there are serious problems here. Its hypocricy to curtail democracy and freedom in America and then demand it in foreign nations. Buts the the fluff Ive come to expect.

 

He voted for the War in Iraq. He voted for the Patriot Act. But now he has problems with "how it was enacted." Well that's just great. Everyone should take that attitude. No more tough decisions. Just take the politically popular tack, then scamper away from the naughty parts. And offer vague descriptions that are sure to appease everyone. He has no courage, and no vision. You say I "label" Kerry and don't go into depth. That's because most of the specifics stem from his superficiality. He is a career politician, a Washington hack, and he is too concerned with his "legacy" and "electability" to put the U.S. ahead of himself.

 

Ive given up on this. You obviously arent going to substantiate anything. Look for a second at what youve written and try and see the blatant circular logic. Kerry is superficial and I cant substantiate such an assertion because he is superficial. You know whats also superficial? Saying things like "he avoids the tough decisions." Ive given you specific examples of Senator Kerry delving into issues that were, at their inception, politically unpopular(Iran-Contra) and issues for which he gave the American people his conclusions that went against what people wanted to hear(POWs in Vietnam, an issue for which he has become very close friends with McCain).

 

And in response to those foreign policy and national security partisan views on him you refuse to substantiate..you know the ones that are eerily similiar to the slander machine of Rove..Ill just let some Republicans do the talking.

 

Republican Sen. John McCain yesterday defended Sen. John F. Kerry's record on national security, undercutting the Bush-Cheney campaign's latest attacks on the Democratic presidential challenger and frustrating conservatives hoping for a unified front against the Massachusetts senator.

 

"I do not believe that he is, quote, 'weak on defense,' " McCain (Ariz.) said on NBC's "Today" show.

 

Asked on the CBS "Early Show" whether he agreed with Vice President Cheney's assertion that Kerry is a threat to national security, McCain said: "I don't think that. I think that John Kerry is a good and decent man. . . . I think he has different points of view on different issues, and he will have to explain his voting record. But this kind of rhetoric, I think, is not helpful in educating and helping the American people make a choice."

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Mar18.html

 

Sen. Charles Hagel of Nebraska yesterday became the second Republican senator to break ranks with the Bush-Cheney campaign's characterization of Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, as soft on defense issues.

 

Hagel joined fellow Vietnam War veteran Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in criticizing ads sponsored by the Bush campaign that call Kerry ? a senator from Massachusetts who also is a Vietnam War veteran ? "weak on defense."

 

"The facts just don't measure the rhetoric," Hagel said on ABC's "This Week." "You can take a guy like John Kerry ... and go through that voting record," Hagel said. "You can take it with ... any of us, and pick out different votes, and then try to manufacture something around that."

 

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:hSxTg...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

 

 

At least some Republicans understand that using ones brain isnt a bad thing.

 

None of this should be construed as saying Bush is the exact opposite of Kerry (i.e. the 2nd coming of Lincoln), and you should be smart enough to know that.

 

You put him in the same category as FDR and Kennedy. I dont care what stretch of the imagination you are trying to make or where you come from. I won't accept that charade.

Ill respond tomorrow. I just want to let you know that accusing me of unsubstantiation when you aren't very specific yourself is a tactic that is getting mighty tiring. Personal attacks are lame as well.

 

Oh, and directing me to John Kerry's webpage and/or getting soundbites from that page doe not constitute hard-hitting analysis. I look forward to Fisking you vigorously. Good night.

 

Well I can do one thing now, working from your quotes. McCain/Hagel construed what Rove or whatever said to imply that Kerry is unpatriotic. I don't believe he is unpatriotic at all. Bear in mind, I am not voting for Karl Rove, or whoever plays the nicest in the 2004 campaign. So that's one straw man taken down. McCain also said that Kerry NEEDS TO EXPLAIN HIMSELF MORE. So Johnny Boy's a good man. Terrif.

 

Uhh, and if McCain and Hagel are getting major press (and they do, talk shows love 'em) doesn't this kind of shoot a hole in your "the corporate press won't tolerate dissenting viewpoints" argument?

Ill respond tomorrow. I just want to let you know that accusing me of unsubstantiation when you aren't very specific yourself is a tactic that is getting mighty tiring. Personal attacks are lame as well.

 

Oh, and directing me to John Kerry's webpage and/or getting soundbites from that page doe not constitute hard-hitting analysis. I look forward to Fisking you vigorously. Good night.

I dont know how frikkin specific I have to get.

 

Personal attacks are lame as well.

Please hold yourself to that same standard.

 

Oh, and directing me to John Kerry's webpage and/or getting soundbites from that page doe not constitute hard-hitting analysis.

 

When did I direct you to John Kerry's website? The LAtimes? Time Magazine?

Uhh, and if McCain and Hagel are getting major press (and they do, talk shows love 'em) doesn't this kind of shoot a hole in your "the corporate press won't tolerate dissenting viewpoints" argument?

 

 

No, not at all. Those articles describe an objective event.

 

Thats not my point. I never said "wont tolerate democrats viewpoint." Once again, Im not talking about Bush. I said Clinton did the same thing. So does Kerry. Im referring to minority views that are not popular. It happens on the other side too. Youre not allowed to have a logical view if it is not PC.

Ill respond tomorrow. I just want to let you know that accusing me of unsubstantiation when you aren't very specific yourself is a tactic that is getting mighty tiring. Personal attacks are lame as well.

 

Oh, and directing me to John Kerry's webpage and/or getting soundbites from that page doe not constitute hard-hitting analysis. I look forward to Fisking you vigorously. Good night.

I dont know how frikkin specific I have to get.

 

Personal attacks are lame as well.

Please hold yourself to that same standard.Specific as in think and speak for yourself. No one should be 100% using a campaign website as the basis for their arguments. I could just as eaily go to the White House site and say "See! Bush is a great President! Kids love him too!"

 

And as for personal attacks, I don't recall denigrating your ideology and claiming that you misrepresent yourself. I'm also refraining from the high-and-mighty tone that you seem to take a liking to.

 

And look out for Kerry for the day. New stuff daily! I hope you like it.

Uhh, and if McCain and Hagel are getting major press (and they do, talk shows love 'em) doesn't this kind of shoot a hole in your "the corporate press won't tolerate dissenting viewpoints" argument?

 

 

No, not at all. Those articles describe an objective event.

 

Thats not my point. I never said "wont tolerate democrats viewpoint." Once again, Im not talking about Bush. I said Clinton did the same thing. So does Kerry. Im referring to minority views that are not popular. It happens on the other side too. Youre not allowed to have a logical view if it is not PC. The Today Show and This Week on ABC aren't part of the press? Come on, now.

 

And as for the "minority" views, exactly what kind of viewpoint are you looking for? How far out do you want?

 

In regards to the press, I think we're getting off the original subject, which is that....I think....Al-Jazeera is not the most unbiased news source there is, and that the combination of MSNBCBSABCNYTIMESWASHPOSTetc, etc.... does allow for more leeway, even taking into account reader per capita.

 

Has there ever been an editorial on Al-Jazeera that says "Hey, maybe it's not such a cool idea to send 4-year olds to blow up Jews."

Specific as in think and speak for yourself. No one should be 100% using a campaign website as the basis for their arguments. I could just as eaily go to the White House site and say "See! Bush is a great President! Kids love him too!"

 

When did I do that? Thats just an assumption on your part.

 

 

Here you go. These dont accuratley describe the matters the way the well written piece I read did. But Id have to fine it.

 

 

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/package...ry/062003.shtml

 

 

Ill look for the article about Kerry and McCain bonding over the MIA situation.

Specific as in think and speak for yourself. No one should be 100% using a campaign website as the basis for their arguments. I could just as eaily go to the White House site and say "See! Bush is a great President! Kids love him too!"

 

When did I do that? Thats just an assumption on your part.

 

 

Here you go. These dont accuratley describe the matters the way the well written piece I read did. But Id have to fine it.

 

 

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/package...ry/062003.shtml

 

 

Ill look for the article about Kerry and McCain bonding over the MIA situation. Iran-Contra was 18 years ago. Pardon me, but what does Kerry have to offer us NOW?

 

And yes, I am aware that he is a Vietnam vet. As Magglio as eloquently stated previously, does that mean he is beyond criticism?

 

 

And as for me being subjective, well I'm human. I believe it's better for me to state my case as well as I can, rather than proclaim some BS monopoly on objectivity and then point to some friendly article to back me up. Yes, it is my subjective interpretation that Kerry is a gasbag. However, it has been educated by his campaign platform and his media appearances.

Iran-Contra was 18 years ago. Pardon me, but what does Kerry have to offer us NOW?

 

And yes, I am aware that he is a Vietnam vet. As Magglio as eloquently stated previously, does that mean he is beyond criticism?

 

I brought these up to refute the argument that Kerry is a man who only keeps his ear to the wins. Its a mischaracterization well refuted by his history of doing unpopular things. Then you stated that I am just getting these from his website. Well Im not so I have to refute you assertion that I am blindly following him through his website.

 

Here is another:

 

 

 

The rapprochement with Vietnam was a turning point in Kerry's life and political career. In 1992, he took on the politically risky duty of chairing a select committee investigating the whereabouts of missing soldiers in Southeast Asia. At the time, rumors of secret prison camps abounded, fed by a relatively small but dedicated cast of businesses and nonprofit organizations cashing in on the hopes of POW families. Bogus photos of American prisoners appeared, even in the mainstream press.

 

Politically, Kerry's mission was a potential "tar baby," he recalled, that his advisers warned him to avoid. His new friend McCain was branded by extremists in the POW-MIA community as a traitor, a brainwashed "Manchurian Candidate." "Things were said about him that I find . . . beyond cruel," said Kerry. At hearings where McCain's anger at his critics flared, Kerry would reach over and place his hand on McCain's arm to calm him down. "I remain grateful to him for doing that," McCain acknowledges.

 

Kerry suspected the Nixon and Ford administrations, in their haste to cut American losses, had left some captured soldiers behind, but he was dubious about the existence of secret camps. Nevertheless, he doggedly investigated even the wilder theories, and made a dozen forays to Southeast Asia to ask the Vietnamese for better cooperation. Ultimately, he crafted a report stating that while there may have been POWs unaccounted for and possibly left behind, no proof existed that Americans were still being held.

In regards to the press, I think we're getting off the original subject, which is that....I think....Al-Jazeera is not the most unbiased news source there is, and that the combination of MSNBCBSABCNYTIMESWASHPOSTetc, etc.... does allow for more leeway, even taking into account reader per capita.

 

Has there ever been an editorial on Al-Jazeera that says "Hey, maybe it's not such a cool idea to send 4-year olds to blow up Jews."

Im not getting into how biased and unbiased Al-Jazeera is. I dont have enough to defend it or attack it. Nor do I think you do.

 

 

But its not correct to so romantically describe American media. It is far from perfect.

 

And as for the "minority" views, exactly what kind of viewpoint are you looking for? How far out do you want?

 

Dissent, that which is against the majority. Primarily the view of the small underepresented minority.

Iran-Contra was 18 years ago. Pardon me, but what does Kerry have to offer us NOW?

 

And yes, I am aware that he is a Vietnam vet. As Magglio as eloquently stated previously, does that mean he is beyond criticism?

 

I brought these up to refute the argument that Kerry is a man who only keeps his ear to the wins. Its a mischaracterization well refuted by his history of doing unpopular things. Then you stated that I am just getting these from his website. Well Im not so I have to refute you assertion that I am blindly following him through his website.

 

ere is another:

 

 

 

The rapprochement with Vietnam was a turning point in Kerry's life and political career. In 1992, he took on the politically risky duty of chairing a select committee investigating the whereabouts of missing soldiers in Southeast Asia. At the time, rumors of secret prison camps abounded, fed by a relatively small but dedicated cast of businesses and nonprofit organizations cashing in on the hopes of POW families. Bogus photos of American prisoners appeared, even in the mainstream press.

 

Politically, Kerry's mission was a potential "tar baby," he recalled, that his advisers warned him to avoid. His new friend McCain was branded by extremists in the POW-MIA community as a traitor, a brainwashed "Manchurian Candidate." "Things were said about him that I find . . . beyond cruel," said Kerry. At hearings where McCain's anger at his critics flared, Kerry would reach over and place his hand on McCain's arm to calm him down. "I remain grateful to him for doing that," McCain acknowledges.

 

Kerry suspected the Nixon and Ford administrations, in their haste to cut American losses, had left some captured soldiers behind, but he was dubious about the existence of secret camps. Nevertheless, he doggedly investigated even the wilder theories, and made a dozen forays to Southeast Asia to ask the Vietnamese for better cooperation. Ultimately, he crafted a report stating that while there may have been POWs unaccounted for and possibly left behind, no proof existed that Americans were still being held.

 

 

Fine, whatever. I'm saying that he's been doing that ever since he became a presidential candidate. I never said he wasn't a principled and dedicated Senator. It's just when he got the nomination it's been "Whoops. Those Senate votes were meaningless."

 

And friendly articles count. At least put your own spin on it.

Im not getting into how biased and unbiased Al-Jazeera is. I dont have enough to defend it or attack it. Nor do I think you do.

 

 

But its not correct to so romantically describe American media. It is far from perfect.

 

 

 

Dissent, that which is against the majority. Primarily the view of the small underepresented minority.

I never said anything romantic about the American media. It's just when comparing the two, who you gonna trust? Lesser of two evils.

 

And how small and unrepresented a view do you want? Bush did it for oil? Pogroms in Iraq? Condi is a man?

It's just when he got the nomination it's been "Whoops. Those Senate votes were meaningless."

 

He has given his reasons. You wont accept it and toss it off as website fodder. Ill give him the benefit of the doubt. I gave GWB the benefit of the doubt on his views and his defenses of inconsistency(Bob Jones, compasionatte conservative) and he blew that benefit. Kerry has my trust until he loses it.

It's just when he got the nomination it's been "Whoops. Those Senate votes were meaningless."

 

He has given his reasons. You wont accept it and toss it off as website fodder. Ill give him the benefit of the doubt. I gave GWB the benefit of the doubt on his views and his defenses of inconsistency(Bob Jones, compasionatte conservative) and he blew that benefit. Kerry has my trust until he loses it. No I don't accept his reasons, because they are superficial and grandstanding. "I supported it, except the parts that seemed to turn out badly." Come on, that's what it boils down to!

 

And if Bob Jones is the worst that Bush bashers can come up with, that's rough.

We are traditionally a more open society and more tolerant of dissenting views. The sheer number of magazines/newspapers and online content attests to this.

Thats what I felt was incorrect.

 

 

And how small and unrepresented a view do you want? Bush did it for oil? Pogroms in Iraq? Condi is a man?

 

Dissenting against war is not unpatriotic, what are the real effects of a medicare bill according to non mainstream groups, ACLU, etc.

No I don't accept his reasons, because they are superficial and grandstanding. "I supported it, except the parts that seemed to turn out badly." Come on, that's what it boils down to!

 

He said he wanted it paid for with a tax cut. He said he was weary of a larger deficit. Makes total sense to me. Whatever you want to believe, I also had such views when the war was happening. How the heck would we pay for it in the middle of this economy? What about the rest of the war on terror? Was there really enough justification to sacrifice a budget and security? How can we give a tax cut and go to war? I didnt even know Kerry's voting record then nor did anyone else.

 

This is what he said, not his website. He has my trust just like Bush had my trust when he went to Bob Jones but emiting his conservative side but said he would be a moderate president. He lost that trust.

We are traditionally a more open society and more tolerant of dissenting views. The sheer number of magazines/newspapers and online content attests to this.

 

Thats what I felt was incorrect.

 

 

And how small and unrepresented a view do you want? Bush did it for oil? Pogroms in Iraq? Condi is a man?

Dissenting against war is not unpatriotic, what are the real effects of a medicare bill according to non mainstream groups, ACLU, etc.I said traditionally and more. How can you debate that? The Arab world is more tolerant than the U.S.? Do you believe that?

 

And there has been plenty of dissent published and aired on the news. I never said it was unpatriotic and apparantly Mass Media agrees.

No I don't accept his reasons, because they are superficial and grandstanding. "I supported it, except the parts that seemed to turn out badly." Come on, that's what it boils down to!

 

He said he wanted it paid for with a tax cut. He said he was weary of a larger deficit. Makes total sense to me. Whatever you want to believe, I also had such views when the war was happening. How the heck would we pay for it in the middle of this economy? What about the rest of the war on terror? Was there really enough justification to sacrifice a budget and security? How can we give a tax cut and go to war? I didnt even know Kerry's voting record then nor did anyone else.

 

This is what he said, not his website. He has my trust just like Bush had my trust when he went to Bob Jones but emiting his conservative side but said he would be a moderate president. He lost that trust. Im not speaking of financing the war. Im talking about making commitments to global stability and then sticking to them. And yes, that last sentence is completely serious. I've told you I agree that massive tax cuts are unnecessary and this is how you repay me? Calling me a sycophant?

 

P.S. I have to go to sleep. It's been fun. I may not be here until late tomorrow, so don't take that as a sign you won, OK?

I said traditionally and more. How can you debate that? The Arab world is more tolerant than the U.S.? Do you believe that?

 

Nor did I say traditionally we werent. But to appeal to our basic values is at its core romantism. We have problems with our modern media.

 

 

I dont understand how you put the whole Arab world under one umbrella? Yes they are less tolerant but where is Al Jazeera based as to have such antiAmerican views? Keep this in light of the close relationship between Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other nations with the US. If so state run, why so anti-US?

Im not speaking of financing the war. Im talking about making commitments to global stability and then sticking to them. And yes, that last sentence is completely serious. I've told you I agree that massive tax cuts are unnecessary and this is how you repay me? Calling me a sycophant?

 

P.S. I have to go to sleep. It's been fun. I may not be here until late tomorrow, so don't take that as a sign you won, OK?

 

More Kerry's reasons for his voting. I believe him and concur with his judgment. I dont see it as coming at the cost of global stability.

 

In all honesty, Ill defend John Kerry. Do I think he will be a great president? No way. Do I think he will be moderate and in line with compromise for all Americans and their views? Yes. I really hate Bush. I hate his theocracy. I hate his hawk mentality. I had so much about it. In my mind we need a president for America again.

 

I dont feel either of us wins or loses. Im not keeping score or anything. :thumbup

wasnt this about spain?

 

 

Im grateful that they pulled the troops out of there, let the US handle the mess they are in... and now the US wants the UN .... pffft I hope they stay as far away as possible, deal with your own sh*t Bush