Why do you SUPPORT Kerry?

[Rogue]

Throughout the various threads I have only heard reasons people dislike Bush. Are there reasons to vote for Kerry other than he's not Bush?

[jeff]

Because he has a 30 year or so history of service to this country, has moderate and reasonable policies that will be good for this country, is knowledgeable, has demonstrated personal integrity and courage - including risking his own life when he easily could avoided it.

Being able to speak complete sentences is a plus, too...

[Iwant2bafencer]

Easy, I don't.

[Peach]

Some of them, obviously, would appeal more to me than to others. Kerry supports:

-- allied initiatives, rather than ignoring other countries and going it alone.
-- investing in the middle class
-- lessening dependence on foreign oil
-- cutting middle-class taxes and holding the wealthy more accountable
-- encouraging businesses to keep jobs in the United States
-- a cleaner and healthier environment (he has a good track record)
-- increased emphasis on diplomacy and outreach initiatives in relations with other countries.
-- equal pay for equal work for women, and the right to choose.
-- encouragement of technological progress and less government restraint on scientists.
-- eliminating capital gains taxes for long-term investments in small businesses
-- creating a National Education Trust Fund to support schools, and building incentives into the No Child Left Behind Act, which presently depends on sanctions and is underfunded.

Kerry of course says all the things his opponent says about winning the war on terrorism, settling the war in Iraq, and supporting our armed services.

In other words, Kerry is for me an excellent candidate, with a good track record, and he's consistently stood for the things I value.

Of course, I'm also a lifelong Democrat.

[Aeric]

Are there reasons to vote for Kerry other than he's not Bush?

That's 99% of the reason. Who Kerry is has nothing to do with it, just as long as someone takes out the other guy.

And on further evaluation, I do the vast majority support Kerry's policies. But that's only a bonus.

[felicote]

Throughout the various threads I have only heard reasons people dislike Bush. Are there reasons to vote for Kerry other than he's not Bush?

Are there reasons to vote for Bush?

[Max]

As long we're on this track, Edwards needs that mole removed. Mooolie moliemoliemolie. Moliemolie. Moliemoliemole.MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOlie molieoliemolie.

[dreadfoily]

I can't support Kerry at this time until the Gaza strip goes back IN toto to the Palistinians. It would never happen with Kerry. It's starting to happen, but naturally there are howls of protest. It was their land, and they really need to have it back. I realized last night - those people were literally 'lost in the desert for over 40 years' the same as moses. It's ironic and in modern times unacceptable. I feel peace will evolve in a natural way as more people are reintroduced to their native soil, and reestablish their land. Bush will defend it.

Also, Kerry's wife, is a persona gaffatta, she told someone to "shove it". For the wife of a political candidate, it's no way for a lady to behave. Sorry, it's something people can say lightly to arch enemies through a third party, but it's completely incorrect in her position.

[Max]

eh, it shows spunk.

[Epee_Pox]

Because anyone with his truly disconcerting record, who can still get the nomination because the party somehow thinks he's the most electable person they've got -- well, he must have some divine protection. Far be it from me to take sides against the gods. Go Kerry.

[zeissg]

Why do I support Kerry - compare and it becomes obvious:

Kerry has - Bush has
Brain - No Brain
Pragmatic - Dogmatic
Centrist Democrat - Right Wing Nutcase
Teresa - Laura
Nuclear - Nuculur
Cooperation - Crusade
Onshore - Offshore
etc. - etc.

Supporting GWB is a No-Brainer - that's why I support Kerry

[Inquartata]

Why, because a Kerry Administration will solve all our problems, while simultaneously giving us a national health care system, a bigger military, and eliminating the deficit, while building Camelot III and making the lion lie down with the lamb---and make that handful of wicked rich people ( not him or his wife, of course, or those who are supporting him, but the others that are left, you know, the Republican ones ) pay for it all.

What? Well, yes, of course 2% of the population can afford all that. What are you, a wise guy? Michael, this guy is asking questions, make him watch your movie over and over again until he too sees the light!

Don't worry, ye poor and oppressed, ye disaffected and envious and lazy of America! Government, er, I mean hope, is on the way!

[Maeve_Mari]

Why do I support Kerry - compare and it becomes obvious:

Kerry has - Bush has
Brain - No Brain
Pragmatic - Dogmatic
Centrist Democrat - Right Wing Nutcase
Teresa - Laura
Nuclear - Nuculur
Cooperation - Crusade
Onshore - Offshore
etc. - etc.

Supporting GWB is a No-Brainer - that's why I support Kerry

Here, here!

[esskreemr]

What? Well, yes, of course 2% of the population can afford all that. What are you, a wise guy? Michael, this guy is asking questions, make him watch your movie over and over again until he too sees the light!

I'll have to say that, typically, your parroted view of "How the government should run" as promoted by Joe Republican normally just draws a "Oh God, here he goes again". I'll have to say that you now have crossed the borderline into morally offensive.

I don't know what's more disturbing, the Bu****es' view that "The poor are poor because they are lazy," or the fact that there are a large number of conservative democrats who are willing to take one for the team (more like give one to the team) just so they can get more "conservative" judges on the bench.

Honestly, statements like "Don't worry, ye poor and oppressed, ye disaffected and envious and lazy of America! Government, er, I mean hope, is on the way!" make me ill. I come from a working class family, I have earned money from working since I was younger than 12. I had a paying job when I was 15. I put myself through College and earned 2 degrees by shouldering the debt burden and paying for it out of my OWN pocket. I now earn a modest living in a highly technical field that has NOTHING to do with my degree (for your close-minded "let the plebes eat cake" view I will insert the fact that it takes a constant effort just to maintain the information needed to perform my job).

Let's contrast this with someone like George Bush. His father was wealthy from oil investments (not necessarily a bad thing), he was born with a silver spoon stuck up his ***, given the opportunity for the best of education (I'm sure daddy paid for it), barely graduated, skipped service in Vietnam by using his daddy's pull to get in the Air National Guard (for the record, the National Guard is great, the way he got in stinks), then started a company backed by several of his daddy's investors (most happen to be Suadis, look it up for yourself), and then ran that company in the ground. After several more business failures and a period of Alcoholism and drug use, he turns himself around.

So which one of us is the "Lazy" one? How about the Hilton sisters, Nicole Richey. Born into a life of luxury, given everything they need to continue that life, one does a porn video, the other is a cocaine addict.

I'm NOT *****ing about my plight in life. But for you to blatantly state that poor people are poor because they are lazy sickens me. I'm also COMPLETELY disgusted that Americans have gotten away from the idea of a classless society where everyone is given the opportunity to advance themselves. I know it was just a pipe dream for white, working-class males like myselves, but at least everybody seems to have agreed at least in principle to the idea.

[Craig]

I support Kerry because he espouses the ideals and platform of a "Roosevelt Republican". He is for conservation, giving tax breaks to those businesses who bring more jobs into the US, and for eliminating the loopholes that let a US corporation set up "headquarters" in the Bahamas so that they don't have to pay their dues.

I also support Kerry because he projects an air of stability and thoughtfulness. I feel that he will think through the consequences of his policies before acting wheras the image Bush portrays is someone who shoots from the hip worries about consequences later.

Bush, with a Republican Congress and Senate, has increased non-defense spending more than any other president in the last 50 years. That kind of fiscal irresponsibility isn't what is needed. Bush never vetoed or even threatened to veto any spending bill. What I see from Kerry is a return to fiscal responsibility.

All in all - I just respect Kerry more. If it was McCain and not Bush in the White House, then I would be a bit more divided as I like a lot of what McCain's platform was when he was running for the nomination.

Unlike others - I'm not going to stoop to non-factual quips that parrot what the partisan "hounds" would have us say. I would ask that others refrain from similar use of one-liners. We have the intelligence (I hope) to engage in more meaningful discourse.

Craig

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Check out the big brain on Craig!

[Peach]

What Craig says made me laugh ruefully--although I have remained a Democrat all my life, meanwhile the Democrats have become the Republicans, and the Republicans have charged off in another direction entirely. So I guess after all, though I denied it, I fulfill Churchill's famous statement:

Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains. -- Winston Churchill

[Inquartata]

I'll have to say that, typically, your parroted view of "How the government should run" as promoted by Joe Republican normally just draws a "Oh God, here he goes again". I'll have to say that you now have crossed the borderline into morally offensive.

Oh, dear me, however shall I live with your disesteem?

"Morally offensive". Brother.

I don't know what's more disturbing, the Bu****es' view that "The poor are poor because they are lazy,"

Well, I don't really think that's their view...but of course, how should I know, I'm just a parrot...

But seriously, and speaking ONLY for myself ( if you can wrap your mind around the concept of someone arriving at a conclusion without reading it from a Party playbook, you know, kind of the way you arrive at your positions by thinking about issues independently rather than having them spoon-fed to you by Terry McAuliffe ), I do not adhere to such a simplistic view. Though I realize it's easier to attack a clever sound-bite caricature of a complex position than the actual position, or to refute an argument you WISH had been made rather than the one that was.


Rather, I think there are many reasons why people are poor. It is just that I do not subscribe to the theory that, whatever the reason for their condition, the poor have some innate right to be made less so with the resources of those who are not. That is, poverty may be an injustice, but for government to attempt to rectify it by perpetrating another injustice is not a legitimate answer. Two wrongs do not make a right, and "wealth redistribution", insofar as it involves an involuntary taking, is to me a wrong.

Honestly, statements like "Don't worry, ye poor and oppressed, ye disaffected and envious and lazy of America! Government, er, I mean hope, is on the way!" make me ill.

Sorry, I didn't realize I was dealing with such tender sensibilities. Allow me to restate, for the irony-challenged.

John Edwards started out poor. His father was a mill worker. He swept floors as a young man. Then, by dint of hard work, he pulled himself into the professional class, became an attorney and by all accounts a very skilled one, and made himself a wealthy man thereby. Yet he seems to be telling us via his "hope is on the way" parables, or examples of struggling people, that THEY cannot possibly do likewise. THEY are incapable of helping themselves, so the government must do it for them. His own example, apparently, is not to be followed---no, instead his vision of the government will take from those like him and give to the...shall we call them the lesser-than-Johns?

Is this his prescription for making a single America out of his proverbial two? Not by encouraging one to rise to the level of the other, but by forcing one DOWN to the level of te other, or to meet it halfway? Not to pursue economic policies which would stimulate incentives and make more widespread prosperity possible---and I have seen no specific policy initiatives from the Kerry camp aimed at this goal, only glittering promises of giveaway programs----but to tax away more income from the most successful and transfer it to the less successful.

As HL Mencken said, "When A takes something from B on the pretense of giving it to C, A is a scoundrel." ( And I might emphasize "pretends", because by its very nature any middleman---especially a governmental bureaucracy---is going to bleed off a substantial portion of the monies which pass though its hands. Expenses. Overhead. The same sort of things businesses cite, except that with a business you can decline to transact with them. Not so with government. And let's not even start on the outright waste in which it traffics. )

I come from a working class family, I have earned money from working since I was younger than 12. I had a paying job when I was 15. I put myself through College and earned 2 degrees by shouldering the debt burden and paying for it out of my OWN pocket.

And of course, you assume that I do not, did not and have not---because of course I could only hold the views I do if I were to the manor born, right? Couldn't just be convinced by the force of economic theory, or a slightly different idea of social justice than your own?

My father was a cowboy. My mother was a secretary,. I got through college on the GI Bill and by working as a security guard. I gross under $27,000 a year.

Just call me Mr. Howell.

Let's contrast this with someone like George Bush.

Yes. By all means let us not contrast it with someone like John Forbes Kerry. Or John Edwards. Or Ted Kennedy. Or George Soros. Or Bill Gates. Let's definitely stick with the one person you most want to demonize...

he was born with a silver spoon stuck up his ***,

My, what a nice young man you are.

So which one of us is the "Lazy" one? How about the Hilton sisters, Nicole Richey. Born into a life of luxury, given everything they need to continue that life, one does a porn video, the other is a cocaine addict.

Fallacy of composition; hasty generalization; extrapolating from anecdotal evidence.

If I can show you three lazy, coke using poor people, can I draw a rule from them? Or might they simply be exceptional? Is a characteristic displayed by one member of a class invariably common to all members of that class? But you DO expect us to believe that your dramatic choices represent the average person of wealth, I suppose.

But for you to blatantly state that poor people are poor because they are lazy sickens me.

Straw man. Perhaps what really "sickened" you was someone forcing words into your mouth some time?

Perhaps what you need is some fresh air. You might go looking for the Questing Beast of where I made that statement, Sir Pellinore.

I'm also COMPLETELY disgusted that Americans have gotten away from the idea of a classless society

You're disgusted by reality, then. There has never been a "classless society", and until the change in human nature envisioned by by communism occurs there never will be.

where everyone is given the opportunity to advance themselves.

This is another matter entirely. And as I believe John Edwards' example proves, that IS possible. But "opportunity" is not synonymous with "assistance". It is not synonymous with giveaways. It is not synonymous with guaranteed outcomes. It is not synonymous with Nanny Government, taking care of us from cradle to grave and making those opportunities out of whole cloth.

I know it was just a pipe dream for white, working-class males like myselves, but at least everybody seems to have agreed at least in principle to the idea.

I don't think "everybody" has ever agreed to ANY idea. Unanimity, like perfect equality of circumstance, is a purely noetic concept.

[Tireur]

To qoute Maeve Mari,

HERE, here!

[HilandDoug]

Couldn't have said it better myself, Inq. Very well written.