John Kerry-Too Much Like the Teacher Trying to be Buddy

Senator and Mrs Kerry, as well as Senator and Mrs Edwards, spoke here in our area yesterday afternoon. My thoughts were that they both know how to whip a crowd up to a fanatical frenzy, but that I wasn't hearing much of substance. Senator Kerry went on and on about how we need to work with the other countries of the world, and not strike out on our own...but I didn't hear him offer any thoughts on HOW we would work with the other countries. Senator Edwards has a lot of charisma, and "sex appeal"....but is that really what we need when it comes to a leader? Kerry said it himself..."We're the ticket with the best hair". Well, bully for them, you know?

I'll be watching and listening closely to both sides...at this point, neither of them are impressing me.

We're the ticket with the best hair".

Gotta have your priorities right?!

I personally haven't ever found any US politician sexy.

Jilluser:
I am an undecided voter, but I wonder what you think the Kerry people would do different in terms of this issue than what is being done now? I almost sounds like you are saying the current administration is "preventing" terrorist attacks. I'm not sure (just saw Tom Ridge talk about possible attacks before the election) and it seems to me like what I heard was the old "well, don't say I didn't tell you" stuff. Or am I missing something?

Senator Kerry went on and on about how we need to work with the other countries of the world, and not strike out on our own...but I didn't hear him offer any thoughts on HOW we would work with the other countries

Did he mention WHY we need to do this?

I think the average American is naive if they don't consider the fact that all nations around the world are constantly competing. We have trade disputes with our closest allies. If we start acting conciliatory to a Europe that is doing it's best to consolodate and rival the US, I'm not sure that is in our best interest.

Granted, there's probably a couple of fences to be mended, but I really don't care if they get mended. I certainly wouldn't accept any infintessimal hardship in the process.

Senator Kerry went on and on about how we need to work with the other countries of the world, and not strike out on our own...but I didn't hear him offer any thoughts on HOW we would work with the other countriesDid he mention WHY we need to do this?

I don't remember his exact words, but the general idea was so that they wouldn't get angry with us...so as to not ruffle feathers, I presume. He just struck me as saying that the US needs to be best pals with virtually the entire world, and I don't see that being in the best interest of the American people.

I am an undecided voter, but I wonder what you think the Kerry people would do different in terms of this issue than what is being done now?

I am worried that Kerry would close GITMO. I am worried that Kerry would end agressive interrogations of detainees.

I think that if Kerry was in office, we would not have invaded Iraq, and Saddam would still be in power.

I have to comment here because of what I have learned from my schooling and political science classes.  It's common and even expected for the candidates to be obscure about their positions during their campaign. George Bush was obscure himself when he was campaigning back in 2000.  I especially noticed this after watching a documentary that followed George Bush around during his campaign in 2000 on HBO called "Journeys with George" believe it or not.  It's basically due to the fact that during the campaign the candidates are trying to appeal to a wider base than while in office so they try and speak in broad terms.  This has been known to have come in to affect since the late 1960's when television and campaigning became synonymous.  As far as invading Iraq that is something that I couldn't say Kerry would or would not do but truth be told I would rather have an experienced war veteran making decisions on war than someone who has no prior experience.

I would rather have an experienced war veteran making decisions on war than someone who has no prior experience.

Did you vote for Bob Dole?

Just because you have been a soldier doesn't mean you can be a good leader.  There are many veterans that don't think too highly of John Kerry.

As far as candidates speaking in broad terms, duh!  I am just trying to correlate his stance ( I use the term loosely) as Senator with what he would do as president.  I don't like what I see and I am not hopping on the "anyone but Bush" wagon.

CrispE, I agree with Madine.  Also, I think plenty of attacks have been thwarted during the years since 9/11.  Bush has made it quite clear that terrorism will not be tolerated by the US.

Just because you have been a soldier doesn't mean you can be a good leader. There are many veterans that don't think too highly of John Kerry.

Right, right can't disagree with you there, on the same token I think I can also say that being idealic doesn't neccessarily make you right.  As far as veterans not liking Kerry that can be said about the incumbent as well, I quote an article on Msnbc.com that was in newsweek, "27 retired senior government officials released a statement Wednesday morning claiming George W. Bush’s foreign policy has damaged the United States’s reputation abroad...".  That article was published June 16th and it included retired government officials such as Adm. William Crowe, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under George H.W. Bush.  Here is the link to the article on the website if you'd like to read it Link  When Clinton and Dole ran against each other we weren't at war and my decision in that election was during a time when we did not have 150,000 troops in a sovereign nation.

I am worried that Kerry would close GITMO. I am worried that Kerry would end agressive interrogations of detainees.

My problem is that aggressive interrogation of detainees can get out of hand, as we've seen recently.

I am just trying to correlate his stance ( I use the term loosely) as Senator with what he would do as president. I don't like what I see and I am not hopping on the "anyone but Bush" wagon.

I don't have my file of info right here at hand, but a couple of things I can remember regarding Edwards as a senator:
He is against the ban of the partial birth abortion.
He is pro-death penalty.
He is against age restrictions on violent videos.

Right there are three good reasons for ME not to vote for a Kerry-Edwards ticket.

When Clinton and Dole ran against each other we weren't at war and my decision in that election was during a time when we did not have 150,000 troops in a sovereign nation.

Clinton sent our soldiers to fight and die all over the world (Bosnia, Samalia).  You are voting in a Commander and Chief whether we are currently at war or not. 

 

My problem is that aggressive interrogation of detainees can get out of hand, as we've seen recently.

I wouldn't consider the activities at Abu Gharaib "interrorgation" and I have not seen them described as such. Agressive interrogation is not abuse.

Clinton sent our soldiers to fight and die all over the world (Bosnia, Samalia). You are voting in a Commander and Chief whether we are currently at war or not.

I guess I should have elaborated.  That statement as well as this one is on a personal note.  The world has changed much since 9/11 and I have adjusted in the way I think like many people all around the world have.  At that time domestic issues were more important to who I wanted to win than foreign-policy.  Post 9/11 my viewpoint has changed and I have learned that our foreign policy right now is being scrutinized.  The main thing that alters my support is the justification that was given for the war in the first place.  Considering none of those justifications have been proven to be substantial or true, I cannot agree with a pre-emptive policy on Iraq.  Now that we are in Iraq and have to stay I see more importance on bringing our allies closer to us during this occupation because it will help American interests in the long run.  Looking back on Bush's record and life even John Edwards, considering his bid in the Senate, brings more experience in foreign policy to the table than Bush did in 2000.  I also cannot understand how any man who can have the most staggering execution record in the country profess to be Christian, but that is like I said on a personal note...

P.S. As far as Clinton sending troops to Bosnia he embraced a nato peace-keeping force which was made up of many other nations and not as comparable as the brunt of our military in one country.  I quote CNN here..."The soldiers, trained in logistics and communications, will head into Bosnia in the next few days. They will form part of a 2,500-strong NATO enabling force charged with laying the ground work for NATO peacekeepers. The majority of U.S. troops -- some 20,000 soldiers -- will be dispatched after the Bosnian peace treaty is signed December 14 in Paris. They will join 40,000 troops from 25 other countries."  Here is the link Link

If the economy had been worse during Clinton's terms, I'm sure that a bigger deal would have been made about him sending other people's children to die in an war in a sovereign nation that Europe could have probably handled on its own. I'm also sure that people would not be as upset with Bush concerning Iraq if the economy was better, but since they are, Iraq's the perfect excuse.

Mr. Villagomez, I'm sure that comment was referring to myself so I will address it.  There are multiple positions that I disagree with this administration about.  The reason I'm talking about Iraq in this blog is due to Jilluser offering a different viewpoint specifically on that issue and we are simply debating about it.  I also stated that Bush lacked experience with foreign policy in this blog but that also is not the only thing that I find he lacks.  I think informed people are upset with Iraq not because of the economy but because the justification that they provided was found to be insubstantial and inconclusive as well as their being no connection with Al Qaeda or 9/11, emphasis on informed.  If we are going to talk about sending other people's children to die in war I can see no worse case than a war that was led under false pretenses.  I am happy to see Saddam out and Iraq heading towards a new democracy but can we say the end justifies the means? 

Madine:
I am not sure how the invasion of Iraq applies to what he would do if Kerry became President.

Jilluser:
I doubt he would close or change what we are doing in terms of "terrorism suspects" already caught. I mean, the guy fought in a war. I think he saw Viet Namese prisoners arrested and held. I think he has more backbone than simply to say, "oh sorry, we made a mistake." I think some people may be confusing Kerry (the guy who served in Viet Nam) with the guy who didn't.

I think some people may be confusing Kerry (the guy who served in Viet Nam) with the guy who didn't.

I would not be such a person...ever.  Again, just because someone has been a soldier, doesn't mean they can be a good leader.

Here's the deal, I care about our country being safe from terrorists.  I care far less about making nice with other countries.  You might think that Kerry has backbone but I sure haven't seen it.

psychx, I'm glad you see this as it is meant.  Simply me putting forth my opinion.  If noone offered a differing opinion to debate upon, it would be quite a boring thread.  I have no desire to bring the economy into this.  Like I said, my main concern is our safety from terrorism.  I merely brought up Dole vs Clinton because military leadership should always be a consideration in who you vote for whether during war time or not.  I simply find it hypocritical for anyone who discounted the whole "he served and he didn't" during Dole vs Clinton and then use it as a talking point for Bush vs Kerry.  You simply can't have it both ways.

As far as our reasons for the war in Iraq are concerned, it is a war on terrorism.  It is no secret that Saddam has it out for the US.  There is much debate over the whole Iraq-Al Qaeda-9/11 hook up.  I was never under the impression that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.  I do believe that Saddam has been linked with Al Qaeda though.  As far as I'm concerned, you don't have to be one of the terrorists responsible for 9/11.  You just have to be a terrorist.

Over all, I am just thoroughly depressed that our only options are Bush and Kerry.

Jilluser:
Well, what I was trying to say is that we can't know what Kerry will do, granted, but we know his background and know that he served in battle so has seen what soldiers face. I think too many people are associating Kerry with Clinton in terms of leadership. I don't think there is a good basis for that. They should be considered very different men in terms of who they are who have similar ideas in terms of democratic party philosophy (i.e. pro-choice, pro-union, pro-national healthcare, etc.)
I think we need to get into the debates in the fall before we know better how Kerry would handle the issues of Iraq and terrorism. Until then I will keep an open mind. The election is a long time from now. No need to make the choice 5 months in advance.

I think too many people are associating Kerry with Clinton in terms of leadership

I don't know of anyone who does this.  For one thing, Clinton was far more conservative than Kerry.  The only similarity I see between the two is party affiliation.  Kerry is no where near as charismatic as Clinton.  I think if Clinton would have kept his brain out of his pants, he would have been remembered as one of the top presidents of modern times.                                                                                      I am looking forward to the debates.  As far as making the choice 5 months in advance, that would depend on what your main concerns are.  If you think that taxes are working in the right direction currently, then you probably can already plan to vote for Bush because you know for certain that Kerry will make changes to taxes.

Kerry is no where near as charismatic as Clinton.

IMO, Kerry has been showing a little more charisma this week...maybe having Edwards around to model himself after will be a plus in that department. He was very animated and energetic here in Dayton the other day, and certainly whipped the crowd up into a frenzy!

I am looking forward to the debates.

As am I....I never thought that I would actually find myself on the fence this year, but GWB has made a few choices that have me doubting whether I want him representing my interests in the world arena, or on a national level.

Helix: Kerry came home from fighting Vietnamese and then protested the war.  He even went to the trouble to throw medals back over the fence in Washington, but later it ended up the medals weren't his, lol.

So now he can brag about his military service and brag about his anti-war stance.  He can sympathize with soldiers that agree with him and vilify those that don't as war mongers. 

Kind of funny, huh?

I think the democrats waived their right to use military service as a talking point about their candidate.  I laughed out loud when I saw Hillary Clinton on The View.  She said (in respect to Kerry) that she feels that since he had actually seen war time action, unlike Bush, he would be a better source of leadership for out troops.  Well, hello!  Again, Clinton vs Dole.  Dole was a war hero who sacrificed the use of his arm for the good of our country and the world.  Like I said, either it is important or it isn't.  You can't pick and choose for the given race.  "Oh, this time our guy is the one who went to war.  It's a good thing if it is our guy.  It's irrelevant if it's the other guy."

 

Jill,
I think your fears WILL be unfounded. The world knows the U.S. can play rough, now they need to know that the U.S. can play fair.

Good hair, humor from candidates: yes, that can't be allowed.
I've not heard The Johns or the Mrs Johns up close & personal, and it pleases me to hear that they can work a crowd. Thanks.
I've heard them speak via the TV. I've heard them give specific methodologies.
I've heard the Bush Bunch speak via the TV. It apparently pleases half of American voters that they take a stand and stick to it. It doesn't seem to matter that the Bush Bunch repeats the same lies day after day, because at least they're not changing their stories. It also doesn't seem to matter that, in fact, the Bush Bunch flip-flops on issues of importance regularly. And Bush? Gosh, he has humor. Doesn't he? Isn't that weird vocabulary he affects some kind of funny?