Why Would Anyone Vote for George Bush?
This started out as a reply to a comment to an earlier post as to why anyone, after seeing the debates, would consider voting for George Bush. On the surface it sure doesn't make sense, but almost half the country appears to be planning to do so. Actually it may be well under half as some polls suggest that outrage against Bush could be giving Kerry a five point lead at this point thanks to new voters under counted by most of the polls. For example:
http://www.newspolls.org/story.php?story_id=33
Even with the worst estimates for Bush, over 40% will be voting for him. There are some possible reasons:
1) Party loyalty. Some will vote for the Republican candidate no matter what. Often it makes sense to support your party's candidate even if a less than stellar candidate. Even if the President is mediocre, there will still be members of your party appointed to key positions in the administrative branch. Personally I disagree with this logic this year considering the unprecedented degree of incompetence by the GOP candidate, and the extreme degree of harm he has done to the country. Besides, the neocons are not mainstream Republicans, and an administration packed with neocons will not do what life long Republicans would wish.
2) Greed. I personally know many people who are voting Republican because they think they will pay less in taxes. Of course they aren't taking into account the effects of the Bush tax cuts elsewhere on the economy, and the degree to which the Bush tax cuts are tilted towards the ultra-wealthy. For most people this calculation is wrong as unless you're making over $350,000 per year you're likely to come out ahead under Kerry's plans than Bush's. I see comparable miscalculations in many fellow physicians who think that George Bush will help with the malpractice crisis. In fact George Bush's malpractice proposals are designed to help the insurance industry, not physicians, while John Kerry has a real plan to address the problem.
3) Gullibility: Most Bush supporters simply believe the many lies from the Bush campaign. For different people it could be different issues, but they share the common thread of falling for the distortions of the Bush campaign. For some it may be national security. Tremendous numbers of voters, especially those who get their news from Fox and the rest of the right wing propaganda machine rather than legitimate news outlets, believe that Saddam was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks or that he had WMD, even though nonpartisan investigations have made it very clear that the Bush Administration has been deceiving them on these points. They fail to realize the degree to which Bush has undermined our national security, failing to spend the money where needed for homeland defense and assisting al Qaeda in tripling their membership. Others believe the Republicans stand for smaller government or the free market system, when they have become a party of big government (and big government of the worst sort) and back a system of crony system which is as opposed to true capitalism as socialism is. They may also believe the distortions of Kerry's positions and record spread by the Bush campaign and right wing propaganda machine.
4) Religion. Those who desire to overturn our tradition of separation of church and state do have real reason to support Bush over Kerry. It is amazing that many who are unemployed or who lack affordable health care will ignore these issues and vote for George Bush because preventing gays from entering into a civil union is more important to them than providing health care for their children. Some people have very strange priorities, but they cannot be argued with.
5) Guns. Many hunters are single issue voters, and take gun ownership to an extreme. To them, Kerry's position on allowing ownership of guns for hunters is insufficient because there are some assault weapons which Kerry might deny them the right to purchase. As above, some have strange priorities which just cannot be argued with.
http://www.newspolls.org/story.php?story_id=33
Even with the worst estimates for Bush, over 40% will be voting for him. There are some possible reasons:
1) Party loyalty. Some will vote for the Republican candidate no matter what. Often it makes sense to support your party's candidate even if a less than stellar candidate. Even if the President is mediocre, there will still be members of your party appointed to key positions in the administrative branch. Personally I disagree with this logic this year considering the unprecedented degree of incompetence by the GOP candidate, and the extreme degree of harm he has done to the country. Besides, the neocons are not mainstream Republicans, and an administration packed with neocons will not do what life long Republicans would wish.
2) Greed. I personally know many people who are voting Republican because they think they will pay less in taxes. Of course they aren't taking into account the effects of the Bush tax cuts elsewhere on the economy, and the degree to which the Bush tax cuts are tilted towards the ultra-wealthy. For most people this calculation is wrong as unless you're making over $350,000 per year you're likely to come out ahead under Kerry's plans than Bush's. I see comparable miscalculations in many fellow physicians who think that George Bush will help with the malpractice crisis. In fact George Bush's malpractice proposals are designed to help the insurance industry, not physicians, while John Kerry has a real plan to address the problem.
3) Gullibility: Most Bush supporters simply believe the many lies from the Bush campaign. For different people it could be different issues, but they share the common thread of falling for the distortions of the Bush campaign. For some it may be national security. Tremendous numbers of voters, especially those who get their news from Fox and the rest of the right wing propaganda machine rather than legitimate news outlets, believe that Saddam was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks or that he had WMD, even though nonpartisan investigations have made it very clear that the Bush Administration has been deceiving them on these points. They fail to realize the degree to which Bush has undermined our national security, failing to spend the money where needed for homeland defense and assisting al Qaeda in tripling their membership. Others believe the Republicans stand for smaller government or the free market system, when they have become a party of big government (and big government of the worst sort) and back a system of crony system which is as opposed to true capitalism as socialism is. They may also believe the distortions of Kerry's positions and record spread by the Bush campaign and right wing propaganda machine.
4) Religion. Those who desire to overturn our tradition of separation of church and state do have real reason to support Bush over Kerry. It is amazing that many who are unemployed or who lack affordable health care will ignore these issues and vote for George Bush because preventing gays from entering into a civil union is more important to them than providing health care for their children. Some people have very strange priorities, but they cannot be argued with.
5) Guns. Many hunters are single issue voters, and take gun ownership to an extreme. To them, Kerry's position on allowing ownership of guns for hunters is insufficient because there are some assault weapons which Kerry might deny them the right to purchase. As above, some have strange priorities which just cannot be argued with.
posted by Ron Chusid at 10:02 PM
43 Comments:
Great post. Obviously, only the ignorant would support the Bush administration and they cannot be argued with. They support all the evil in the world. They are less than human. Perhaps, once the Kerry administration assumes control, martial law should be declared and these people can be removed from civilized society and re-educated.
I agree with your comments. I am not a U.S. citizen, and I live in Canada. However, my dad is a U.S. citizen so we take great interest in watching the debates and any political policies in the States.Watching all 3 debates this past week has proven John Kerry is the obvious choice for President.He answered his questions in a mature manner,and presented himself remarkably well.I was very impressed with what he had to say.Bush however scowled and didn't make any good points. I'm actually a university student taking a politics class and we all wonder how Bush got elected in the first place. Obviously the lack of a proper recount in Florida, but the American people voted him in. That continues to shock me to this day.He is very similar to his father, a gun toting war advocate who pursued Saddam to make his dad proud.If Bush gets re-elected over Kerry, it will be an even more sad day for the United States.
You arrogant jerk. You are wrong, wrong, wrong. You have no clue. I am voting for Bush not for any of the reasons you listed. What makes you think you have all the answers? It is infuriating to see your arrogance and the arrogance of so many others. That people who would vote for Bush are ignorant, gullible, etc??? Oh please.
I have the same question in my mind. Why would anyone vote for Kerry? The man has shown no leadership, he has no record of leadership. He voted against supporting the CIA in the time prior to 9/11/01, he voted for the Iraq war and he said in August '04 that he would vote for it again even without the WMD data, and yet he criticizes the war. He said prior to going into Iraq that getting rid of Saddam Hussein (sp) was the right thing to do. Kerry does nothing but tell his audience what they want to hear.
The only reason I see for people to vote for Kerry is to vote against Bush, and to me that's the most ignorant reason of all. Heaven help the USA if the anti-Bush people win this election.
Anyone who thinks that Kerry won the debates should listen to them with no video, listen to the actual answers to questions without seeing Kerry's perfect hair, perfect tan, perfect fingernails, and Botox'ed face. Then think about who gave the better answers.
We now got someone to prove my point. He supports Bush, but has shown how gullible he is as he buys the right wing propaganda and shows no knowledge of the truth about Kerry and Bush.
Among the errors, it is untrue that Kerry opposed the CIA. It is untrue that Kerry voted for the Iraq war. He voted to give the President authorization to use military force as a last resort if we were proven to be endangered by WMD. He authorized force in order to give Bush leverage to get the inspectors back in. Once the inspectors were back in, Bush had no authorization to go to war unless we were found to be in imminent danger.
Not only has Bush distorted Kerry's vote (after himself stating at the time of the IWR that a yes vote was not a vote to go to war), Bush misquoted Kerry in August.
Kerry supported gettilng rid of Saddam, but only under certain circumstances. He consistently opposed unilateral action. He consistently warned of the dnagers of the United States being seen as occupiers of an Arab country. He opposed diverting attention from al Qaeda. Saddam was well contained and could have waited.
As for the debates, Kerry was well informed and had the more reasonable answers. Bush could only repeat campaign slogan, tell a huge number of lies, and often showed he did not even understand the issues. Kerry won the debate based upon his answers, period.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
OK (wink wink) I remember now, only democrats/liberals have the right to free speech ...
Even having something in Kerry's voice is not conclussive. The right wing media has frequently taken his comments out of context in a way which gives a totally different impression of what was said. There have been cases of quite creative editing to distort Kerry's meaning during this campaign.
We are not saying it is the fault of Bush that there was no WMD. His error was in attacking without evidence of WMD. As Kerry repeatedly said, we should only attack as a last resort. Attacking was only justified if we had positive evidence both that there was WMD and that we were threatened by them. Suspicion that Saddam might have had WMD (a suspicion which was justified even if mistaken) was not sufficient reason to go to war.
Sure Saddam woud have liked to have WMD, but nobody planned to ever just walk away and let Saddam do as he chose. There are many countries which posed a more significant risk than Iraq, especially considering the degree of intervention we already had there which prevented Saddam from doing much.
There was also plenty of evidence that Bush was using intelligence selectively and even trying to influence the intelligence reports to justify the action against Saddam he already desired.
I never assumed you are a man. Conventional use of English does favor male pronouns and time is not spent on quick blog posts to guarantee gender neutrality. I figure that if someone is so concerned about their sex being correclty identified, they could post under their name rather than annonymously. (Granted that not every name would make this clear.)
To The Clueless Anonymous Poster
Take your rude self elsewhere! You proved Ron Chusid's point in one sentance!
The curious thing about Saddam and WMD is that in the Iraq war we have probably seen two of the biggest foreign policy blunders in recorded history--one on each side.
From Bush's side, we see going into Iraq unnecessarily. Going to war unnecessarily is always a blunder, but this was an even bigger once considering that the war is resulting in the opposite from what is desired. Rather than helping in the war against terrorism, the invasion of Iraq has assisted al Qaeda tremendously.
There was also a major blunder on Saddam's side. It appears that he was bluffing about having WMD in order to look stronger and fool his enemies, such as Iraq, and perhaps potential insurgents at home. Saddam sure paid for this blunder. Apparently he did not believe that the United States would attack--repeating the exact same mistake he made when he invaded Kuwait.
George Bush and Saddam Hussein. Despite being enemies they will probably b e forever linked by history as making two of the worst blunders ever.
Neo-Nazis should not be able to have free speech anywhere. This is for the public good. Already the Bushites are taunting the people of the Kerry campaign and forcing good people to violence and the burning of the swastika on their lawn. Go to another blog and speak your lies there.
Look what these right wing hate mongers are doing:
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/10/11_hersh.shtml
I am called a neo-nazi and rude just because I have a different opinion ? I am amazed. Free speech is for everyone in the USA even when they disagree with your opinion. Everyone. To take that away is ... sort of like communism. Rude does not begin so describe some of the hate-filled slogans I've seen slung towards Bush.
Well suffice to say you do nothing to win me over to your cause.
I have yet to see much more than Bush-bashing by Kerry supporters. I have been trying to find what he believes in, what are his real plans after he stops bashing Bush, but have been unable to find such. I have yet to find a Kerry website where Kerry is discussed and Bush is not bashed.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/10/11_hersh.shtml
By Anonymous, at 1:48 PM
Thanks for posting this!
If you haven't seen Kerry's proposals you simply are not trying.
Kerry spent the bulk of the campaign concentrating on his proposals while Bush was attacking viciously. (This probably led to Bush's lead in August as Kerry ignored the attacks to continue his tour to concentrate on presenting his agenda).
Kerry has published not one but two books during the campaign with his plans.
Kerry's main website has considerable information at:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/
Of course after almost four years of a President who has done tremendous harm to our national security and has been acting to undermine the free market system it is natural that there will be a considerable amout of criticism of Bush on the pro-Kerry blogs. This is increased further as Bush has based his entire campaign on hiding from his record by launching a vicious campaign of distorting Kerry's positions and record.
By Anonymous, at 2:25 PM
I'm sorry... can you read? Parhaps not, but just incase John Kerry's plan is available here - http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/ & http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/our_plan_for_america.pdf
As for your rant on free speech... this is a privately owned Blog and the owner reserves the right to delete your posts and rants.
Now the present commander in chief's own soldiers mutiny in Iraq. Soon conscripted troops will be needed to quell the uprising against their officers. This is the beginning of the end of the current administration. A new man must take command and quit the attacks against the world's poor. John Kerry is that man.
As a Vietnam veteran I ask a similar question, "Why would anyone vote for John Kerry?". One only has to count the number of veterans that Kerry counts as his 'band of brothers' and compare that number to the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth. Do the math and face reality. John Kerry is a shamless opportunist that has used others for political gain. It is a fact that he lied to Congress and gave aid and comfort to our enemy. He is a poor excuse for a man.
Using the Swift Vote Vets for the AWOL Flier is a very weak case considering how all their charges against Kerry have been refuted. Their claims on Kerry's war record are contradicted by multiple eye witnesses, the military record, and even many of their own prior statements. Their charges on Kerry's anti-war activities are based upon selectively editing Kerry's statements to make it appear he said things he never actually said. The ties between the Swift Boat Liers and the Bush campaign have been well established.
That should have said "Swift Boat Liers for AWOL Fliers."
So, as a Vietnam war criminal veteran you try to spread your lies here. People know what you are. John Kerry exposed your sins thirty years ago. You are the shame of the military industrial complex that is failing around the world.
No, Kerry did not call Vietnam veterans war criminals. He helped expose policies of the US government which were technically war crimes, and reported on anti-war meetings where others referred to war crimes, but he did not personally call American soldiers war criminals. Kerry's statements, while opposed to US policy in Vietnam, was supportive of individual soldiers.
Equal Time:
*Get a network to run Fahrenheit 911 a week before the election.
*Get equal time for Bush's time on national radio today.
*On Iraq: it's now an incubator for terrorism the likes the world has never known. Thanks W.
* what is that bulge on his back anyway> time to dig in and find out. Is Bush wired?
Gullible? The bush camp lies?
Tell me this DID John Kerry Lie in 1971? When he said
John Kerry 1971 "I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used .50 caliber machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down."
If he did not lie and is not a liar and a traitor then why are you having a self-professed war criminal run for the president of the united states of America??
DID JOHN KERRY LIE?
If he still claims he did not lie back in 1971 then why has he not turned himself in to be prosecuted for his own war crimes? He was a liar back then and a traitor and a flip flopper now OR he was a war criminal then and a war criminal now who has about half of the uninformed Americans ready to vote for him for the simple fact that it seems to be a thing to do, hate bush, and protest all wars and everything the government does and stands for. You forget we as Americans elected George W. Bush once so stand by your country and show the world we are one. Where were all the war protesters on 9/11?
Saddam had no WMD's? Do you mean nuclear weapons only, because US Troops found 2 chemical weapons back in may of this year near a road in his Iraq.
ALSO Saddam is a WMD himself. Saddam killed, raped and tortured more people then anyone has since Hitler. If you think we should not have went to war and would have left him power then you are the same types of people who believe genocide is ok as long as it is not in your house, down the street or across the water is fine just so long as your views are not infringed on.
Wake up, please I say again wake up. Your trying to live in a time and place that is no longer current with today. DO you believe Michael Moore when he said repeatedly there is no terrorist threat? If think this you should go tell 2,900+ gravestones this from the second attack on the WTC. The first one bill Clinton did nothing after it happened.
This "author" is really Michael Moore and his typography is just more Hitler-like propoganda.
Kerry did not lie, and history has proven he was right. It has become well established that US forces did violate the Geneve Convention with their free fire zones.
Of course the poster distorts Kerry's point. He was not attacking the troops in pointing this out, but was criticzing US policy which forced innocent troops to engage in these acts.
Having the courage and wisdom to go before Congress and point this out is one reason why John Kerry has the respect of many who feel he would make an excellent President.
No point in making any more false claims about Saddam having chemical weapons. The CIA's report is out, and there was nothing meaningful there.
There are several countries which present a greater risk with WMD than Saddam. Many other dictators have committed more attrocities than Saddam. Do we go to war against every country with WMD (or a desire to obtain WMD) and against every burtal dictator? In George Bush's case the answer is clear. He had reasons to go to war against Saddam which had nothing to do with either WMD or attrocities.
More revisionist history above in discussing terrorism. John Kerry warned about the terrorist threat well before 9/11. It was Reagan and Bush I who ignored terrorism, and Bill Clinton who responded, despite opposition from the GOP controlled Congress. Then Dubya took office, and ignored the reccomendations left to take on al Qaeda from his predicessors Then Bush ignored the recommendations from the intelligence community after he took office. Bush's incompetence, and failure to respond to multiple warnings, allowed the September 11 attacks to succeed.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
What's with the obsession over Michael Moore? While I've found him to make entertaining documentaries, I've never considered him to be any type of political leader. I bet I've posted far more criticial of him on line than favorable.
I've seen the commercial attacking him, clearly cutting off a statement of his on terrorism. Seeing how often the right wing media has done such selective editing of Kerry statements to give false impressions as to what he's said, I wonder what Michael Moore really was saying. Anyone know the specifics here?
Ultimately that is not very important as this is a race between George Bush and John Kerry, and Michael Moore just is not all that important.
Of course if the stories are true that Moore's next probject is to take on HMO's, and he does a good job of it, I might then consider Michael Moore to be of considerable importance.
Did I hear today that F-911 will be broadcast before the elections?
Anyone hear this?
F-911 will probably only be on pay ca ble before the election, and I doubt this will make a difference.
Moore did voluntarily take F-911 out of consideration for an emmy so that it could e shown on TV, but only pay ca ble was interested. Most TV stations (other than the Sinclair stations) feel it would be unfair to show something so partisan before the election. Some are still hoping that stations competing with Sinclair stations will show this (or Going Upriver) as counter programing to the show from the Swift Boat Liers for the AWOL Flier.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/12thknight/43043.html
My best effort to address this same question. Feel free to link away.
It is amazing reading your blog comments that anytime anyone voices a different point, you begin calling them by defamatory language. I suppose this is typical of the Democrat Party policy of being fair-minded.
By the way, I see you make no comment about the medals Kerry supposedly won during Vietnam, nor make any comment about his claim he doesn't own a SUV, or no comment about he pressuring his town to remove the no parking restrictions in front of his residence so he could park his cars, no reference to the lastest LOW TAXES that his wife paid...lower than most Americans, no comment about how much his budget will cost the tax payers if he is elected.
You know if you are going to support a candidate, at least be honest enough to post real facts and not rhetoric.
There have been a number of attacks on Kerry regarding his medals--all disputed by the facts. (For more on this, as well as the full record on Kerry see the Kerry 2004 Reference Library).
Teresa's taxes are another example of spin from the right wing media. Like other wealthy people she has benefited considerably from Bush's tax cuts. She has differed from most wealthy people in supporting a roll back of the tax cuts she legally benefited from.
Kerry diid not claim that he does not own an SUV. That was another distortion from the right wing media.
I haven't heard about Kerry having parking restrictions changed. If true, it does not sound like he did anything wrong. This is the type of issue which local community governments often deal with, frequently making changes requested by people if they are not harming others. This is especiallly trivial compared to the abuses of government which Bush and his cronies are benefiting from.
The budget? Strange for a Bush supporter to bring this up considering the record defecit he has rolled up. In contrast, Kerry supports a pay as you go policy in ordrer to balance the budget. The cost to the tax payers has been openly discussed many times. Kerry plans to roll back the tax cuts on people making over $200,000. He has also stated he would cut back his proposals if they could not be afforded based upon the tax changes he proposed and other savings.
That was a great comment which someone linked to above as to why they support Kerry. As people often don't follow links, I hope the author doesn't mind if I past it in here:
Why I will vote for John Kerry
I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness. I was taught that I should not pledge allegiance to the flag; I was taught that I should not vote. I was taught that no man should take up arms against another man. And my country allowed me the right to believe these things.
As a young man, I became a student of history. I read that my nation helped purchase the liberation of oppressed peoples with the blood of its own youth. I saw my nation warring within itself for years over the rights of a race of its own people, and in time, I came to see the necessity of such wars. I grew to have a fierce pride for my country, and I resolved to put aside what I had believed to be true in order to teach American history and civics. One of my proudest moments is standing in front of my first classroom as a teacher and leading the pledge of allegiance. No one in the room knew that, although I was 22, it was the very first time I had said those words myself. And they had - and have - deep meaning for me still.
But that meaning is tarnished - that flag is soiled. We are not the nation we were.
Where we were once a nation which deliberated and agonized over the right and necessity to fight wars, we have become a nation which, against the counsel of its equals, has heedlessly, recklessly and wrongfully pursued vengeance against a sovereign nation and its people.
Where we once fought a war to save the lives of a people in concentration camps, we have now taken thousands of innocent lives while retroactively searching for that war's justification - weapons we ourselves own which Iraq did not - and put some of their nation's survivors in conditions as barbarous as concentration camps.
At the same time, our current president has ruined the nation's financial health, spending untold billions of dollars in the pursuit of war and death, where the only excuse to spend such sums of money might have been to save the lives of the people our nation killed.
Yet, with a straight face, this same president calls himself a compassionate conservative.
This man, who has squandered whatever moral authority our nation might have had left by authorizing the deaths of thousands of Iraqi women and children, dares to call himself compassionate.
This man, who has bankrupted our economy and possibly my childrens' future, calls himself conservative.
This man, so long as he is surrounded by adoring crowds and true believers, cronies and charlatans with their own snake oil to sell, is convinced of his own rectitude, and will not change. A responsible leader would have admitted error long ago and changed his nation's course before even one more life was taken - American or Iraqi. A capable man would not have presided over the torrent of misinformation and deceit which led our legislators, including his current opponent for office, to vote for this war. An honest and truly moral man would have asked forgiveness from the world rather than assert that war and death in Iraq continues to be our best option.
Is he blind to the fact that the world resents us and thinks of us as a rogue nation?
I consider it no less than a moral imperative to vote against George Bush. Without wanting to sound strident, I would consider that as necessary as if I were asked to vote in 1933 against Hitler. Hitler, too, was freely elected and had his crowds of adoring people. That made nothing he did moral.
Ask yourself what the price is of innocent life.
Then ask yourself, in a quiet room, whether you can vote for George Bush.
The only people I've met who are supporting Kerry are doing it not because they like or admire or trust him, but because they hate Bush. Perhaps you're asking the wrong questions. He is the most empty suit we've ever had running for President. Also the richest.
Again my point is proven. The Bush supporters continue to show themselves to be devoid of knowledge of the facts and just parrot the campaign's lines.
Kerry might be wealthy, but look at the fortunes of Bush and Cheney. More importantly, look at the qualifications--Kerry far surpasses Bush.
Rove knew that Bush could not possibly win reelection for Bush if this was a typical election for an incubment, decided as a referendum on the incumbent. In light of Bush's failures both on national security and domestic issues, they had no choice but to try to scare people from voting for Kerry.
To attempt to accomplish this, they have spent millions to spread lies about Kerry's record (both in Vietnam and the Senate), lies about Kerry's positions, an d lies aobut Kerry's credentials.
Many gullible people have been fooled. Fortunatley many others are seeing through it. A growing number of newspapers which endorsed Bush in 2000 are now endorsing Kerry. More and more Republicans and conservatives are doing the same. For example, see today's enorsement from WIlliam Milliken in today's blog entry.
By Norma, at 5:30 PM
Norma
You are grossly mis-informed.
I'm not supporting John Kerry because he's anyone but Bush, I'm supporting John Kerry because he is John Kerry. I'm a former constituent and have a great deal of admiration for John Kerry and his life long committment to service. I've been involved with the Kerry campaign since spring of 2003. There's thousands of people like me all across the country.
Furthermore, John Kerry is not wealthy, compared to the standards of Bush. Kerry's "wealth" comes from his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry. Teresa Heinz Kerry inherited her wealth from her first husband, John Heinz, who died in a plane crash. Most of Heinz Kerry's money is tied up in trusts that her sons (from her marriage to Heinz) will inheret. Last year, Teresa Heinz Kerry OVERPAID her taxes. Her overpayment is being applied towards this years taxes.
The empty suit is the one that George W Bush wears. There's nothing inside... no brain... no heart... NO COMPASSION!
Great post Pamela!
I too am not voting for Kerry, because I "hate" Bush. I live in a poor city in Michigan and don't have very much money myself. What is Bush going to do for me? I haven't heard him say that he would stand by and help the middle or lower class at all. We can all keep going back and forth on this blog and say what we believe in, but it doesn't really matter, we're going to vote for who we want to vote for. But still we pose the question, "how can anyone vote for Bush?" After all that he has done to this country. After 9/11 no one cared about being "republican" or "democratic" we all stood as 1 at that time and helped each other through a great tragedy. I can't believe in my little poor neighborhood how many signs are out there supporting Bush. If Bush wins, it will only be because people are steered the wrong way because of his twisting words on Kerry.
Sarah
I just heard Bush say that come November 2nd, the "politics of fear will be defeated". Is he predicting his own defeat?
Regarding the Swift Boat Vets /POW wifes and all: Have they ever considered that Kerry's testimony actaully HELPED end the war, and thus got them (POW's) freed sooner than later?
Let's face it, he was telling the truth. We were trained to kill yellow skinned, slanty eyed Asians. Our b asic training used dummies that looked oriental so that we would learn to hate them so it would be easier to kill them. We all saw the Green Berets wearing belts of VC ears they cut off. It's all true.
All For what?
Re the "confusion" above on the politics of fear quote:
The poster appears to have forgotten the general rule for following the Bush campaign--everything is opposite to the truth.
Bush fails to stop a preventable terrorist attack due to failing to read warnings, and then botches response, so he runs fear campaign accusing Kerry of being weak on terrorism.
Bush runs up huge deficit, outspending Democrats and squandering surplus, so he runs fear campaign claiming Kerry will spend more and raise taxes.
Bush's health care policies reduce choices for doctors and patients, so he runs scare campaign falsely calling Kerry health plan a government-run plan.
Bush weak on Vietnam record, having used family connections to get into Nationl Guard, and then failing to fulfill obligations, so he has surrogates run dishonest campaign to discredit a legitimate war hero.
Bush runs fear campaign, so he tries to portray Kerry's campaign as a fear campaign. It's all part of the same pattern of deception.
Of course Kerry's actions were to help those in Vietnam, as well as the POW's. We realize it. The problem with the Swift Boat Liars (beyond the fact that many are just paid political operative s who will say anything, or Republican hacks who will back the party even if it takes lying) is a matter of mind set. To that mind set, criticizing the government's actions is umpatriotic. Never mind if the government's acts are countary to our interests and based upon lies.
Of course this is contrary to the very principles this country was founded upon, but some people will never understand this.
Let's talk about truth. Kerry doesn't just stretch the truth, he creates a whole new reality. Start with his Christmas in Cambodia, which had to be recanted by his staff. How about his meetings with world leaders urging him to beat Bush that were proved to have never happened. Now we have him claiming to have had a meeting with the entire Security Council of the United Nations before he voted to give the president authority to go to war; not a single member of that council has confirmed that claim, most have outright denied such a meeting ever took place. He threw away his medals..no, it was his ribbons...no, it was someone else's medals. And finally why won't he sign Standard Form 180 and allow release of ALL his military records. Because people, he's a FRAUD.
Post a Comment
<< Home