Why did You Vote for Kerry?

But if one analyzes their answer – Because they hate Bush, I suddenly realized that their hatred to Pres Bush has more weight that what Kerry or Edwards had offered them as a reason for voting. If this is not case, their answer should have been because Kerry or Edwards will do this or this or this or this.

I disagree on this; I think "because I hate Bush" is a perfectly valid reason. To me, it is far more critical to get Bush out of the White House then it is to put someone super-special in. I don't care if Kerry is a mediocre president or even a crummy one; I am confident that whatever he is will not be as bad as Bush.

To make a very silly analogy, it's like asking me if I want a piece of white bread for dinner or a moldy piece of white bread for dinner. Sure, a piece of white bread is a shitty meal, and I don't have anything great to say about it, but it sure as hell beats the moldy one.

Those all seem like pretty good reasons to me. And it's not like the right doesn't have their own playbook of answers to those issues with conservative slant.

[quote]To me this President does not flip and then flop. He knows the meaning of consistency![/qute]
Sure he's consistent....consistently bad, or doing the wrong thing, in the judgement of a great many people.

BulbousHead and bluejazz (Unregistered User)

Your comments makes me laugh! The election was on March 2, 2004. Wake up it's not November yet! The ballot did not carry Bush name. The ballots carried Kerry, Edwards, Sharpton, Dean, etc. otherwise I would have asked "Why did you vote for Kerry against Bush?"

Such an answer is kinda childish, asinine, senseless, halfwitted that only liberals can understand.

I like your comments when you said you don't care if Kerry is a mediocre President or a crummy one for it reflects what the Democrats have been doing when they elected Liberal Presidents like Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. Democrats lost the Congress in 1994 and you guys will never get it back. You are starting to lose the Senate, I predict that complete annihilation will happen in a larger scale this November.

And if you ask the regular Joe SixPack and Jill SixPack they will tell you that they would never elect a mediocre or crummy President or a Massachusetts liberal - they will tell you - Never - Nada - Zilch! There are still more proud Americans in this God blessed country who haven't lost their wit and they will re-elect George Bush inspite of the negative campaigning that the liberals are doing.

Identify what is bad against Bush and let's debate them - let's compare his actions aginst what your candidate's actions should have been based on his voting record in the Senate or against the records of Johnson, Carter and Clinton. And if you wish let's debate Kerry's military record in Vietnam and when came back!

Have a Nice Day!

aconservative

I agree, for the most part, with aconservative.

Not only do many Kerry supports have ZERO ideas of what they want him to do or change... Kerry doesn't really either.

So far in this campaign he has basically told us how bad we, as Americans have, and how much worse it will get with another four years of Bush. It makes you wonder if three years ago the US was in the best shape on it's life and Bush came and turned America into a waste land. I just don't see it.

Bush came out in the last 24 hours and named Kerry, explaining how he has been in Washington long enough to be on both sides of virtuallly every issue and the facts back Bush up here. Look at Kerry's voting record.

The truth of the matter is that when debate time comes, Kerry is going to get squashed by Bush. It's going to take a miracle for Kerry to look anything but silly, wishy-washy, vague, and out-of-touch with the rest of America. Bush is running on issue and policies. Kerry is running on scare tactics and socialism.

I agree, i think Kerry is a spineless idiot. while bushed saved on account of a spine, he's a bigger idiot. tough choice. go nader.

Of course, you could go and look at JohnKerry.com and figure out what his views are.

But that would take more effort than making asinine statements.

Cheers

The truth of the matter is that when debate time comes, Kerry is going to get squashed by Bush. It's going to take a miracle for Kerry to look anything but silly

Have you ever heard the President speak off the cuff??? It's horrifying.

No kidding, have you watched the democratic debates? Kerry and Edwards were the most comprehensible men at the table, but Kerry was clear, consise, and somthing Bush has a problem with, comprehensible.

Cheers

Do not be mistaken, just because I expressed my views on this topic doesn't mean I voted for Kerry. I never said I did. I haven't particularly been impressed with him, but I'll still vote for him in November because he's closer to my views than Bush. As for your playbook, that seems to mainly be calling anyone who disagrees with you a socialist. Resorting to name calling gets old very quick.

That being said, I voted for my candidate based on his stance of the issues, not some nebulous idea of "electablity" as determined by the press. That's the easy way out. I prefer to follow the issues pick who I will vote for based on who's beliefs I agree with the most. Flip-flopping on issues is hardly an indictment of somebody. Frankly, I would HOPE that people would be allowed to change their views on things as they grew older and their life experience changed how they view the world. Close-mindedness isn't what I would consider a good trait, especially for a leader.

As for "complete annihlation", I doubt it. But if it did happen, eventually the pedulum would swing back the other way again, I'm confident of that. I'm not convinced that "Joe SixPack and Jill SixPack" will ALL side with Bush this year. The polls (at the moment) either say that Kerry will beat Bush, or that the nation is split 45/45/10. "The Great Uniter"/"Compassionate Conservative" has done nothing but divide people.

And I stand by my comments. They're valid complaints that non-conservatives have. Consistancy isn't the only factor that defines good leadership.

otherwise I would have asked "Why did you vote for Kerry against Bush?"

You're right; I will clarify. I voted for Kerry because I believe that he has the best chance of defeating Bush.

for it reflects what the Democrats have been doing when they elected Liberal Presidents like Johnson, Carter, and Clinton.

Clinton was mediocre? The majority of the country disagreed for eight straight years. Clinton was the best President since Kennedy.

Democrats lost the Congress in 1994 and you guys will never get it back. You are starting to lose the Senate, I predict that complete annihilation will happen in a larger scale this November.

We'll see! The country is losing its pseudo-patriotic fascination with Bush's rhetoric. Only November will tell.

And if you ask the regular Joe SixPack and Jill SixPack they will tell you that they would never elect a mediocre or crummy President or a Massachusetts liberal

I wouldn't wear the vote of Joe SixPack as a badge of pride.

are still more proud Americans in this God blessed country who haven't lost their wit and they will re-elect George Bush inspite of the negative campaigning that the liberals are doing.

More proud Americans voted for Gore; don't forget that. And as far as campaigning goes, nothing is dirtier than using pictures of the destruction of the World Trade Center for political gain.

Identify what is bad against Bush and let's debate them - let's compare his actions aginst what your candidate's actions should have been based on his voting record in the Senate or against the records of Johnson, Carter and Clinton.

Johnson, Carter, and Clinton are irrelevant, unless you're prepared to defend Nixon. In the meantime, joeuser.com is rife with my complaints about Bush. You know what the Democrats' beef with the President is.

And if you wish let's debate Kerry's military record in Vietnam and when came back!

Not a wise move until the President clarifies his National Guard (tee hee!) story.

Order Please! (Hammer hits the table).

I haven’t heard a valid reason or the real reason. Let’s regroup and define the problem.

Problem: Why did you vote for Kerry, because I Hate Bush.

(Let’s establish a situation why Liberals hate Bush. Let’s pick the invasion of Iraq.)

The liberal hates Bush because what he did, he invaded Iraq. (Are you with me so far?)

Liberal answers: “True”.

So I ask the same question to a conservative and his answer is he likes Bush even tho he invaded Iraq.

The question that we should ask ourselves then - is why does the liberal hates Bush and the conservative likes Bush for the same situation. Did Bush create the hate? Did Bush create the love? Obviously, not.

These feelings are caused by how each individual perceives the situation based on his core beliefs. Liberals hates Bush because they perceive that invading Iraq is wrong. Conservatives like him because they perceive that he is freeing people who lost their freedom.

Your perception triggered the hate. Nobody else. (Is there a “shrink” in the house?)

So to answer the question – “Why did you vote for Kerry?” Correct answer: It was my decision.

(This article would not have been written. – Ha Ha!)

Alrighty then aconservative, how about this, why did most republicans vote against Clinton the second time? Because they hated him. And to be honest it was a pettier hate than democrats feel towards Bush. After all, Clinton only lied about Sex. How many men in the United States have lied about Sex? Admittedly, most of us lie about having More Sex than we really do, but alot of us have lied about it. Bush misled people about Iraq. That's a good deal bigger issue thinks me.

Besides, I'm voting for Kerry because I think tax cuts for the wealthy are irresponsible, I also think that endangering the environment by allowing big polluters to continue polluting is irresponsible and dangerous. I am not voting for Kerry because of his stance on Iraq. I think that was a war worth fighting, just not for the reasons that Bush gave.

How bout them apples?

Are those good enough not hating-Bush answers? or are you going to dismiss me as a Bush hater because it suits your biased interest to do so?

Cheers

jeblackstar

I agree to all what you said. You make a decision not to vote for Bush because you decided to that. His actions did not make you do what you want to do. It is your decision.

I will vote for Bush because it is my decision. It is my perceptions that make me do what I want to do.

If your wife blames you that you made her angry, you answer her, "Sweetheart, nobody can make you angry. You are angry because you decided to be angry." Use my example above.

As human beings, this is the thing that separates as from other animals, our own free will. A free will to make a decision. The trainer can make Shamu, the whale, do what the trainer wants Shamu to do, because Shamu does not have its own free will. As humans we do.

Included with this free will of ours is a word that many don't even know. It's RESPONSIBILITY.

Anything that happens to us today is a decision that we make yesterday.

Social ills of our community are the result of people not accepting responsibility. I fervently wish that this word (Responsibility) is emphaized more in our schools, churches and wherever we congregate.

Let's take a high school drop out.

If his teacher inplants into his mind that if he ever drops out of school, there is a big, big chance that he will end up poor. I say "chance" because the richest man in the world was a college drop out. But when a kid drops out from school, goes into drugs, have babies before they are 18, then they are destined to the poor house. Those who say, "Don't worry the government will take care of you." are also guilty of being irresponsible.

I am not trying to redicule the poor, the homeless, etc. We, the people, (not the government) should get more involved in alleviating their miseries. If the government wants to help, the money should be given to faith institutions and churches, because this is their line of work. The ministers, priests, deacons, and other evangelical professionals exist because they decided to go into a profession to help other people. Compare them to the case worker that works for the county. You'll agree that there is a lot of difference.

When the government gets involved, the task becomes politicized, and the people we are trying to alleviate, will never learn and understand that Responsibility is part of the solution. This is happening today. Politicians expect a show of gratitude if they are forced to help the downtrodden. They are helping the poor because they want their votes.

The minister will do it because he loves those whom he is helping. There are no deja vus to worry about.

Help me spread the word.

aconservative

You are angry because you decided to be angry

Ludicrous. No one has 100% control over his or her every emotional response.


The rest was a semi-coherent, completely tangential rant on which I decline to comment...

Gonna have to go with bulbous head on this one.

Jeblackstar,

You don't have to believe me, but if you know a "shrink" who teaches Anger Management, ask him. Since you are with academia there must be a "shrink", the PhD type near you. Then let me know what he says.

Studies have shown that man, unless he is mentally unbalance has complete control of himself. I haven't tried yet but maybe there is such a thing in WebMD or some health urls.

It's really hard to believe because of what happened to tobacco suits, but I am sold on it. I'll research this and let's compare notes.

aconservative

I fail to see your point. You're over simplifying. Of course who your vote for is your decision, and people have reasons for their decisions. It would be more accurate to say "I voted for because I hate Bush and I think would do a better job." This doesn't just apply to Kerry. I don't like Bush's job performance, but I also didn't vote for Kerry.

As for your rant about making choices based on emotion, that's a two way street. Depending on your beliefs a President's decisions will either make you happy, or they will anger you. It seems to me that you're trying to say that the only valid emotional response is a positive one. People have a right to get angry OR happy. Maybe the husband actually DID something supid or assinine that's worthy of the wife's anger. Is the wife just supposed to smile and take it all the time? If he's abusing her, is she supposed smile and shrug it off? Are democrats/liberals just supposed to say "I think Bush has been a horrible President, but I'm just going to happy anyway"? I DON'T think so.

And I don't believe that bull about people being poor or homeless SOLELY because of irresponsability. People become poor/homeless for many many reasons, and to say that it's all because they were irresponsable is oversimplification again. Yes, SOME of it is bad choices and irresponsability (which I would NEVER defend...bad choices are bad choice)...but not ALL of it.

BTW.... how the hell do you quote on this thing? Somebody enlighten me please.

No kidding, have you watched the democratic debates? Kerry and Edwards were the most comprehensible men at the table, but Kerry was clear, consise, and somthing Bush has a problem with, comprehensible.

The jokes you see about Bush on the Tonight Show and SNL might be funny, but they are rarely based in fact.

Conservatives in the 20th century are routinely portrayed as stupid, uneducated, bumbling fools. Reagan was supposedly an idiot, but after clobbering democrats at the polls, he was somehow able to push a congress that was against him a majority of the time to pass his legislative ideas on a routine basis.

Bush has taken just about every debate away from the democrats in Congress; so much so that they only things they have had left to complain about is WMDs and gay marriage. Yet they make him out to be a dumb Texan who can't add or subtract. All this, and Bush's approval numbers have routinely run MUCH higher than the last democrat in the oval office who's poll numbers were enhanced by sex appeal.

After all of this, it must hurt A LOT MORE for democratic party supporters to continue to take a beating in debate and at the polls by some one as "stupid" as Bush. I guess that is a good enough reason as any to quickly jump on board the boat of the first person who comes along that can get Bush out of office, no matter what the believe.

Disliking George Bush is a very good reason to vote for anybody else. The real question is why do you dislike bush so mush? Is it because he has no real domestic policy. maybe because he has weakened virtually every evironmental law on the books. Or it could be because his poor international policy had angered virually everyone of our allies except England. Maybe its because the people really resposible for 911 go unpunished. I mean yes we went to war but we picked the wrong people. Does everyone forget the BinLaden is a Saudi citizen and that all of the Hijackers were Saudi Citizens. Yet nothing has been done to Saudi Arabia. I could go on but I wont.

The jokes you see about Bush on the Tonight Show and SNL might be funny, but they are rarely based in fact.

http://slate.msn.com/id/76886/

Conservatives in the 20th century are routinely portrayed as stupid, uneducated, bumbling fools.

Uneducated, no. Their fathers get them into good colleges.

Bush has taken just about every debate away from the democrats in Congress

Not difficult when your party controls the House and sometimes the Senate.

All this, and Bush's approval numbers have routinely run MUCH higher than the last democrat in the oval office who's poll numbers were enhanced by sex appeal.

Misleading. They were sky-high immediately after September 11 and immediately upon the dawn of war in Iraq. In between those two events, and since the second one, they decline steadily. Clinton had no problem getting reelected; Bush has a contest on his hands.

After all of this, it must hurt A LOT MORE for democratic party supporters to continue to take a beating in debate and at the polls by some one as "stupid" as Bush.

In polls, yes. In debate, no. Bush speaking off the cuff is a joy for Democrats to behold. Bush winning polls weakens my already shaky faith that the average person knows the right thing to do.

I guess that is a good enough reason as any to quickly jump on board the boat of the first person who comes along that can get Bush out of office, no matter what the believe.

I agree. Bush must go.

Again, I'm glad bulbous beat me to the punch. Everything he says is right on.

Cheers

Alright guys on Kerry Side!

I have not seen one comment that explains how Kerry will be a better President than Bush. Let's take Homeland Security or Iraq or select your subject. Explain to us how Kerry would be better in action rather than - he said so. Remember you are hiring this guy to be the President. You are a member of the board of governors who choose. Give some facts that had convince you to vote for him.

If you have access to the New York Times (March 6, 2004), the number one (numero uno) liberal newspaper in the country, they have an article titled "Kerry's Shifts: Nuanced Ideas or Flip-Flops?" by By DAVID M. HALBFINGER.

I used the term "flip flop" in my original article. Perhaps you should write to Kerry and ask him what this is all about. And if they wouldn't tell you, write to the Republican National Committee and they will send examples of how Kerry "flipfloped" 30 times. They called the report "Kerry vs Kerry".

Chao!

aconservative

First off, it's spelled Ciao, I think your little diatribes ares some of the best examples of uneducated conservative ranting that I have ever had the privelige to read on this or any other political website.

But to your point. What would Kerry do better? If you haven't seen things we "liberals" have written then clearly you haven't been reading are responses in this and other blogs. If you had, you would know what we think Kerry would do better. He would eliminate the tax cuts for the wealthy, therefore allowing funding to occur for a democratic transition in Iraq and continuing the national defense against terror, he would eliinate those sections of the Patriot act which limit certain American Civil Liberties, he would cut out corporate loopholes allowing them to dodge taxes and destroy smaller competition.

Oh, and he wouldn't propose some lame ass amendment on "protecting the sanctity of marriage." The last thing I need is the US government sticking it's nose into something like that. The best way I can protect the sanctity of my marriage is to love my wife and be faithful to her. If you conservatives are so threatened by a group of people who love their partner more than you love yours, then perhaps you deserve to have your marriage "destroyed".

Cheers

I voted for Kerry because it turns out that I'm still a Democrat. I should fix that soon.

jeblackstart

Promises and "I think will" are not the same as accomplishments. In simple terms "what kerry did" and not "what kerry will do." Would you hire a man because "you think" that he is good and prmised that he can do the job?

Every thinking person would hire a man because of his accomplishments.

Tell me what your man did to benefit you personally when he came back from Vietnam and his years in the Senate?

And you believed a "flip-flopping" senator?

aconservative