Bush v. Kerry: The Official Elections 2004 Thread

I would have to be at a computer without my "banging head against brick wall emoticon.gif" wouldn't I?

DM, are you being obtuse or do I need to redefine the "go it alone" concept, yet again, for you?

E_S

 

No, you need to cite reality, E_S.

The United States did not in fact 'go it alone' - we went without the UNSC, without France and Germany and Russia. However, there were others that have helped us - and I'd like you to tell the family members of the troops that died in Iraq helping us to liberate that country that the United States 'went it alone'. That's complete nonsense. You want to characterize it that way to make it seem that the United States is isolated and alone, when we are not. Tell that to the British families who lost love ones, tell it to the Italians and others.

-------

Anyway, back on topic of a domestic election for my counterparts:

Politics as art and science - or dishonesty?
Cal Thomas

March 17, 2004

The high-minded definition of politics is: "the art or science of government; the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy." It is only when you keep reading in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary that you get closer to the truth: "political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices."

Many politicians change their minds or flat out lie in order to win or stay in office. Some announce their work is "not finished" and run again after pledging to limit their terms in office; others promise not to raise taxes and do; still others claim to be pro-life and then switch to the other side as a strategy to protect their political lives. Flip-flopping, shading the truth and denying that he said what he is on the record as having said are also expected in politics. It seems the one you want in office is the one who does these things less frequently than his opponent and on issues of less concern to you.

This brings us to John Kerry, whose sole attraction appears to be that he is the candidate the Bush-haters have settled on to limit the president to a single term. Not many seem enthusiastic about Kerry, the man. He is merely a tool, and an elitist one at that. If he were a hammer, he would be made of sterling silver. He'd be Tiffany & Co. to President Bush's Wal-Mart. Like an intern in the Clinton White House, Kerry is to be used for the pleasure and purpose of the Bush-haters. He inspires no commitment, no loyalty. He is just a ticket-to-ride.

What should concern principled Democrats is Kerry's record. He has a long history of changing positions on almost any issue, and so fast that he is on the other side of where he previously stood before most people notice.

The Washington Post took notice of Kerry's dangerous and constant shifts in a March 11 editorial. After observing that President Bush has shifted his positions on some issues such as nation-building and that "flip-flops aren't always bad," the Post got to the heart of the Kerry problem: "It's not always clear what, if anything, he's committed to.. Where are the bedrock principles that would guide him in office?"

A few days ago, a grinning Howard Dean appeared with Kerry; Dean reportedly is close to endorsing his former rival. The former Vermont governor now says the things that unite Kerry and himself are more important than the things that divide them. Does Dean mean that, or is he simply playing the cynical political game? As recently as Feb. 1, Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press" reminded Dean what he had told the New York Times the previous week: "This is what you said.'(Dean) defined the nomination battle as a choice between (himself)' and 'a Washington insider who shifts back and forth with every poll.' Who is that?" "That's John Kerry," responded Dean. Asked "On what issues?" Dean responded, "Iraq, for one. He couldn't make up his mind whether he was for Iraq or not for the longest time. No Child Left Behind, he voted for that, didn't have the nerve to stand up against that when I did a long, long time ago."

One wonders what "important" things Dean has in mind - other than defeating President Bush - because he has criticized Kerry's positions and behavior on so many issues, from taking special interest money to talking about

 

Er, I wouldn't think anyone citing "The Daily Show" would be criticizing other people's sources.

I guess that poll that said more people get their news from Carson Daily than from the major news networks just hit home. Wow.

This can't be serious!! Oh well.

Maybe it's the Daily Show that has convinced people that this Kerry thing about foreign leaders is a "smear campaign" by Bush. ? Can something really be characterized as a smear campaign, when the whole thing started with an egregious statement made voluntarily by the victim, and then boasted about after the fact???????

Kerry is shooting himself in the foot, and it's only March. Maybe he's trying the Dean approach: stimulate your core base to the maximum potential, and don't sweat the swing voters. I think that's a lousy strategy, but what do I know?

 

...I wouldn't think anyone citing "The Daily Show" would be criticizing other people's sources.

The Daily Show was mentioned for its humor, not as a "source". Relax.

...when the whole thing started with an egregious statement...

There is nothing egregious about it. There is nothing wrong with it. The Bushies have been boasting about their stiff-arming of the UN for the last two years, so I'm shocked anyone would think it isn't true. It's a non-issue.

So are you in favor of Bush producing fake Medicare news or against it?

 

Darth Mischievous:
Like TripleB said, it is perfectly legitimate for Bush to be defining Kerry for what he is - a liberal, weak on defense, and for tax hikes to pay for spending programs (such as that 900 billion dollar health plan Kerry's proposing).

I'm not sure how fair a characterization of "weak on defense" is. Regardless, it is also perfectly legitimate for Senator Kerry to be defining President Bush for what he is - a conservative, weak on diplomacy, and for not paying for spending programs (such as that $400 billion dollar Medicare benefit - or was it $535 billion? Bush can't seem to make up his mind - Bush signed into law last fall).

The federal deficit's being funded quite nicely, though. Kudos to Bush for that.

Funny how these same individuals didn't give the slightest care to the fact that Clinton was a real draft-dodger, yet they're now touting Kerry's record (even though Kerry himself said it shouldn't matter back in '92) and calling Bush a 'deserter' and 'traitor', et cetera. Quite hypocritical if you ask me.

I thought we already settled this a long time ago...2004 is slightly different from 1992. Foreign policy and homeland security are somewhat more important than they were twelve years ago. Bill Clinton would probably not win if he were the Democratic nominee this year but had the same political experience he had back in 1992.

ShaneP:
Yeah, the republican congress would really go for that.

I like it when a politician tells the country what he wants he wants to do and what he wants his party to help him do, because voters may very well respond by giving him a friendly Congress.

Sen. Kerry should stick to his guns no matter how unrealistic they are to pass Congress. Who knows, maybe the pressure of the ballooning defict might just convince a few wayward Republicans to jump ship and vote for tax cut repeals for $200K and above.

Hah! Corporate coffers are too seductive to democratic politics.

Well, we'll let the course of events decide. Kerry has already made this huge promise; any fudging of it will lead to greater political consequences than any betrayal of corporate benefactors.

Mr44: This is why I'm always reluctant to bring up the USA PATRIOT Act, or the issue of civil liberties for that matter, because I just know that you'll come in and say all the criticism of that Act is bunk. Now, you obviously have the right to do so and I welcome your opinion, but the problem is that I can't know for sure because I myself have not read that legislation yet. And I've resolved to do so, but I've had work up the wazoo (I'm sacrificing valuable free time right now just writing this post) and moreover, I've heard that the Act is hell to read. So I think for now, it'd be best if I lay the issue of civil liberties off the table and defer to the expertise of you or anyone else on this thread with a good knowledge of the issue.

He voted for the initial Iraq action, but now doesn't agree, but won't pull the troops out.

He is against same sex marriage, but didn't support the DOMA, and now wants the states to decide...

Honestly, do you keep on bringing up these same hackneyed lines in the hopes that if people hear them enough, they'll start believing it?

I can't talk about the death penalty and Iraq "suppliment" comments because I don't know anything about them. But, seriously, we've touched these points half a dozen times already on this thread alone, let alone the original elections thread.

He voted for the Iraq resolution to arm President Bush with a threat to take to Saddam Hussein. He did not want war. And of course he won't pull the troops out - the job's not finished.

He is indeed against same-sex marriage but voted against DOMA because he did not want the Senate to be involved in this issue - as he told the Senate on the floor at the time. He's still for keeping this issue a state issue, which is why he opposes the FMA.

As for your assertion about "definitions" about Senat

 

DM, go it alone doesn't mean the US acting solely without any other nation. It refers to the US crafting what is basically an accomodating unilateral position; that is, the US charges forward and if it's lucky other nations will jump on the bandwagon. It refers to the USA basically not trying to build international consensus. Iraq was a case of this; and it's classical Dubya rhetoric. Look at it this way; was Dubya's main goal building consensus? No. That's what we mean by "go it alone"; the onus is on other nations to follow the US, rather than the US to build a coalition.

E_S

 

Tell that to the British families who lost love ones

And they'll agree.

 

The big question: Is Bush a liar? Well he may not be, but apparently his ads are. (sorry if anyone brought this up before)

It's from the NY Times.


A Watchdog Sees Flaws in Bush's Ads on Medicare

WASHINGTON, March 10 ? The General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said on Wednesday that advertisements and brochures prepared by the Bush administration to publicize a new Medicare law, although not illegal, misrepresented the prescription drug benefits that would be offered to millions of elderly and disabled people.

The fliers and advertisements do not violate restrictions on the use of federal money for "publicity or propaganda purposes," but they are flawed by "omissions and other weaknesses," said the legal opinion by Anthony H. Gamboa, general counsel of the accounting office.

For example, Mr. Gamboa said, the administration did not point out that beneficiaries might be charged up to $30 for drug discount cards that become available in June. Likewise, he said, the administration incorrectly suggested that the law set a premium of $35 a month for drug coverage, beginning in 2006. That amount, he said, is only an estimate and ignores the penalties that could be imposed on people who delay enrolling.

The administration plans to spend more than $22 million on the advertisements and brochures, which publicize drug benefits, new coverage for preventive health services and new insurance options. Medicare officials said the advertisements and fliers were a way to educate beneficiaries, as the law requires.

Democrats said the advertisements were campaign commercials for President Bush, who has taken credit for delivering drug benefits long promised by lawmakers of both parties.

The accounting office said the multimedia campaign did "not violate the prohibition on the use of appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda, because the Department of Health and Human Services has explicit authority to inform Medicare beneficiaries" about the changes. Moreover, it said, the materials "are not so purely partisan as to be unlawful, in light of our prior decisions and opinions."

The flier is being sent to all 41 million Medicare beneficiaries. The administration has already revised parts of the leaflet that the Democrats have criticized. For example, it has deleted a section on tax-free savings accounts that can be used to pay medical expenses.

An earlier version of the flier told beneficiaries, "If you are happy with the Medicare coverage you have, you can keep it exactly the same." The last three words of that sentence have been deleted. Democrats had complained that some beneficiaries would have to pay more for existing coverage and might be forced into managed care plans.

Since its creation more than 80 years ago, the accounting office has issued thousands of authoritative decisions on the legality of federal spending. Nine Congressional Democrats, led by Senators Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, asked it to review the advertisements.

Mr. Lautenberg welcomed the report as confirmation of his view that the materials were misleading.

"The G.A.O. agreed with us that the administration sugarcoats the drug discount cards and overstates the benefits of the prescription drug plan," he said.

Mr. Kennedy said the report confirmed that money from the Medicare trust fund was being used for advertisements full of errors and omissions.

"The more senior citizens learn about the bill," he said, "the less they like it."

But the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, said the report showed the administration was "following the spirit and letter of the law."

Tommy G. Thompson, secretary of health and human services, said, "We are encouraged that the G.A.O. has affirmed our efforts to educate seniors."

He promised to continue providing "fact-based information."

In a letter to all beneficiaries, Mr. Thompson says that the new law made "some of the most significant improvements to the program since

 

You want to characterize it that way to make it seem that the United States is isolated and alone, when we are not. Tell that to the British families who lost love ones, tell it to the Italians and others.

Are you so certain all those families support the war, DM?

 

After observing that President Bush has shifted his positions on some issues such as nation-building and that "flip-flops aren't always bad," the Post got to the heart of the Kerry problem: "It's not always clear what, if anything, he's committed to.. Where are the bedrock principles that would guide him in office?"

Ah, so when Bush does it its ok but when Kerry does it its a bad thing. Baa baa, black sheep.

Actually DM, let's assume for a moment your entire Kerry argument is true. Tell me once again how precisely Kerry's 'flip-flopping' will harm the US as a nation. Especially when Bush does it himself.


And while you're at it, I'll even pose something you want to answer and give rhetoric to: tell me why Kerry's private conversations with foreign nationals are your business if no money changes hand and no public endorsement is forthcoming?

 

And while you're at it, I'll even pose something you want to answer and give rhetoric to: tell me why Kerry's private conversations with foreign nationals are your business if no money changes hand and no public endorsement is forthcoming?

Actually there are many reasons that would apply to ANY leader, not just Kerry..

1)It's election time. In the general sense, the more information all the voters have about the candidates, the better.

2) Specifically for Kerry, it matters because who he talked to indicates what kind of administration he will have.

I'm sure anyone can see the different consequences between Kerry talking with Britian, France, and Australia, or talking with North Korea, Syria, and Indonesia.

3)It illustrates a larger indication of his character. I'm not syaing he made the whole thing up, but without specifics, what if he made the whole thing up?

It is easy to make bold claims during an election, especially if you don't back them up..Let the voters decide how they view who he talked to.

Like I said, this entire matter wouldn't be a big deal, if he, himself, kept it private.

But, he was the one who mentioned this publically, and then acted surprised when people want specifics?

What next? <possible press conference>

Kerry: "I fully support this bill"

Reporter:"Which bill, Senator Kerry?"

Kerry: "You don't need to know, just trust me.."

 

Mr44:
JF, what alliances have been absolutely sacracficed? ...Our Iraqi action was certainly unpopular in some countries, but to suggest that our alliances are broken beyond all redemption is certainly a statement born out of hyperbole.

Mr44, I think you misread me. Here is what I posted:

So am I, but I am also absolutely opposed to sacrificing our alliances with outher nations for the sake of pursuing wars that are not for our safety or national interests.

I was absolutely opposed to sacrificing alliances, not opposed to absolutely sacrificing our alliances.

What I was trying to say is that Iraq was not worth the discord caused to our alliances around the world.


Darth_Zidious:
Catch the Daily Show tonight with a great send up of the Bush "fake medicare news". It's hilarious.

The Daily Show Rulez!

Darth Mischievous:
CNN today didn't even show Cheney's speech until the very end of it (Fox News and MSNBC carried it), and had the audacity to pre-empt it with Kerry's speech that took place previously that day. It is blatantly obvious that the elite media and all the networks, including CNN and MSNBC, are going to do all they can to spin Kerry in a positive light.


Yeah, but last night CNN was the only one reshowing the speech. Fox and MSNBC where off on their opinion pieces.

By the way, the AARP endorsed the Medicare Bill that passed.

Now I don't know much about medicare, but millions or AARP members tore up their membership cards and Bush said the medicare program was going to be 130 billion dollars cheaper than he knew it to be.

We didn't 'go it alone', unless you're trivializing the contributions that our coalition has made: including the 15 Italian troop deaths, your Australian contingent, and the other nations contributing.

DM, I do believe the U.S. has more injured troops from Iraq than the Italians or Australians combined have in Iraq.

(side note: I think France better be prepared for some trouble after that Islamic scarf ruling they made).

I agree there.

 

I was absolutely opposed to sacrificing alliances, not opposed to absolutely sacrificing our alliances.

? Bill...Is that you? (seriously, I kid....)

What I was trying to say is that Iraq was not worth the discord caused to our alliances around the world.

I accept that view, but each side can certainly be debated.. In the larger sense, I am certain that this was an extremely effective manuver.

However, my point is that it was still a single issue. Opponents are trying to characterize the world through Iraq.

France didn't support our action in Iraq..fine.

France didn't seem to mind our joint operation in Haiti, or our international agreement in Libya, or IAEA inspections in Iran, and so on...

 

France didn't support our action in Iraq..fine.

France didn't seem to mind our joint operation in Haiti, or our international agreement in Libya, or IAEA inspections in Iran, and so on...


Mr44, We all know Iraq was the big issue. It was a divisive issue. Those other issues are footnotes compared to Iraq and they are exceptions to the rule.

Unless, of course, you are trying to imply that the majority of Europeans view American foriegn policy favorably?

 

Regarding coverage of Kerry/Cheney's speeches, I am holding in my hand today's Washington Post. A headline on the front page: 'Cheney enters campaign fray'...underneath says 'VP, Kerry promote parties' visions of national security'. The picture with the article is of Cheney. Oh my god, such liberal bias!

Regarding the 'Kerry-foreign leaders' deal:

Mr44 - With all due respect my good friend, I think you are making a bigger deal of this than it really is.

It illustrates a larger indication of his character. I'm not syaing he made the whole thing up, but without specifics, what if he made the whole thing up?

I posted an article a few pages back (from the AP) that indicates that it may indeed be accurate.

On msnbc last night, Joe Biden backed up Kerry's assertion. I know, hes a Democrat too.

What next? <possible press conference>

Kerry: "I fully support this bill"

Reporter:"Which bill, Senator Kerry?"

Kerry: "You don't need to know, just trust me.."

And the Bush administration isn't exactly known for their, um, opennness (is openness a word?)

Possible press conference:

Cheney: "You don't need to know who shaped our energy policy, just trust me."

And from the AP:

Asked on NBC's "Today" if he thought Kerry was weak on defense, McCain said: "No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense...

When asked on "The Early Show" if Kerry's election would compromise national security, McCain responded: "I don't think that ? I think that John Kerry is a good and decent man. I think he has served his country."

 

This election is going to be about National Defense, count on it.

 

Those other issues are footnotes compared to Iraq and they are exceptions to the rule.

Exceptions? I would suggest that Iraq was the exception. Decisive? perhaps..But its not like Schoeder is refusing to take Bush's phone calls or something..

SFOR is still operating internationally in Bosnia

NATO is still operating jointly through Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan

There is the previously mentioned joint Haiti-operation

and so on and so on....

In fact, I think the world leaders have moved on, even if the press hasn't:

HERE

Unless, of course, you are trying to imply that the majority of Europeans view American foriegn policy favorably?

OK, but this is nothing new either...

Remember the mass protests over what was seen as continual occupation by the US in the 40's?

Remember the mass protests over US based nuclear missles during the cold war?

Remember the mass protests during the 90's against our action in Kosovo?

Unless the US bases its policies off of not offending the popular opinion in Europe, this isn't going to change, and I'm sure another issue will arise over something new.

EDIT: for DS77-

I just want to hear Kerry say it, that's all..

It is my biggest beef with him..So far, he just doesn't seem like he stands up for what he believes.

I'm not saying that he doesn't, that is how he appears whenever I see him, and it started during the primary.

If Kerry has European support, I want him to stand up and say " Yeah, France and Germany love me, because I've talked to them about a workable Iraqi plan"

Instead, he always speaks in vague terms.."Some countries support me, but I can't say who, or why they do.."

So far, Kerry isn't proving himself to be an alternative..He still is the anti-Bush, for anti-Bush's sake..

That might work in the primary, but he needs to show what he stands for, and why.

 

Actually there are many reasons that would apply to ANY leader, not just Kerry..

1)It's election time. In the general sense, the more information all the voters have about the candidates, the better.

Does this mean we're entitled to know what transpires between Bush and foreign leaders abroad? I mean hey, if you suspect Kerry's a traitor and should be under criminal investigation, have at it. If you seriously think he's lying (and the endorsements of Spain's new leaders would point to that he is not), then have at it. If you think he's accepting illegal funding, have at it again. But why should you have the 'right' to know just becuase? A person's right to privacy is his right to privacy. And this is not even Kerry's right to privacy we're speaking of, but someone else's.

Hey, maybe this isn't the sort of thing Kerry should say in a speech or in a debate. But he wasn't saying it to the public, he was just saying it at, if I recall, a fundraiser. It was a private conversation as far as I can tell, in a public environement, about something that by all accounts looks to be true. So then why is this seriously an issue to do with Kerry's presidency? Because he's valuing someone else's rights to privacy over a nation's nosiness? Hey, if Kerry had been shouting this from the ramparts, maybe he'd deserve it. But it wasn't even something that was intended for Republicans or even the average voter to hear, and neither is the content of those discussions a big secret. The secret is that the other parties have something to lose by being named, because they are foes of the Bush administration. The administration could conceivably retaliate against them specifically as they have done to other specific individual in the past (Valarie Plame). And even if they wouldn't do it, why do you want to know? If the supporter turned out to be the Prime Minister of India, who gave no money or endorsement, why is that important?


2) Specifically for Kerry, it matters because who he talked to indicates what kind of administration he will have.

And how does this specifically reflect that? That it will be an administration that keeps information from the public? How can we possibly get a more closed administration than we have already?


I'm sure anyone can see the different consequences between Kerry talking with Britian, France, and Australia, or talking with North Korea, Syria, and Indonesia.

And if he said those representatives were not of those countries, would that be sufficient? No, I didn't think so. Even if Kerry was speaking with leaders of any of these first-world countries people would still be labeling him as weak. Especially if he was talking to France.


3)It illustrates a larger indication of his character. I'm not syaing he made the whole thing up, but without specifics, what if he made the whole thing up?

Why would he need to make the whole thing up? It's obvious from the international situation Bush is not well-loved in the majority of countries, and the countries that have gone along with his policies have done so -- even Britain -- at the disapproval of thier populations. Spain is not exactly a lone case here: were the government to change in Italy it also would likely pull out of Iraq. The same would probably hold for Australia and Japan as well. Sure, had Kerry made a big issue out of this to the public, he should provide specifics. But he didn't. He just mentioned this to somebody as far as I can tell. A reporter with a tape happened to be nearby. Even in his own words he says the people involved can't come out and say this publically, so by forcing him to name names you're possibly trying to turn him into a rat.


It is easy to make bold claims during an election, especially if you don't back them up..Let the voters decide how they view who he talked to.

I'm not sure this will be a big deal during election day. Maybe it would be, again, a bigger deal if he had made the fact of him actually talking to these leaders a major issue.

Like I said, this e

 

Mr44

Since you are so knowledgable (I am being serious)...I'd like to ask a few questions:

How many foreign troops are in Iraq? How many total troops?

How much of the war are we (the U.S.) paying for?

How does this compare to past endeavors? Both recent (Kosovo, Gulf War 1, etc.) and not so recent (WW2, Korean War, etc.).

Thanks.

 

move along, double post...

 

just so you know, I added an edit above for you (in case you missed it )

Before your new post, that is...

 

So Gonk, Kerry is bragging to someone in front of a reporter that foriegn leaders want him to win and it's only afterwards he gets concerned with their privacy?

How very statesman like of him.

I'd like to know what's Kerry's position in the executive branch that he can negotiate with foriegn powers to support his canidacy.

 

Thanks Mr44

I thought I already answered the whole vagueness/sanitized thing a few posts ago?

And I believe that I answered the whole 'Kerry-foreign leaders' thing in my previous post.

Anyway, I have heard Kerry being accused both as 'incredibly far to the left' and 'all over the map'. Thats a contradiction itself.

Kerry isn't proving himself to be an alternative

Again, I think this has shown repeatedly not to be the case. Bush and Kerry are quite different...raising the minimum wage, expanding health care, their approach on foreign policy, abortion, the death penalty, the budget and taxes, etc.

From a campaign strategy POV, sure, he needs to be more concise when he speaks. But Bush ain't perfect either.

 

DS77-

Here is a breakdown of the coalition forces in Iraq:

GS.O

It is pretty current, with some minor differences. (Japan is sending 1000 more troops. Spain, of course, may pull troops out)

Additionally, CENTCOM's page shows specifically what those units are doing.. (CENTCOM is the major command in charge of the theater)HERE

 

"Oh right...and who should we have nominated?

We (Democrats) can nominate anybody and the Republicans/conservatives on this board and in this country would be all over him anyway. I don't think who we nominate makes any difference in that regard.

What does make the difference is that our nominee is experienced, solid on all the issues, and, most importantly, a fighter. Senator Kerry is all three."


Who? I would have suggested Senator Edwards. If Edwards was President, I really wouldn't mind very much. But Kerry, no. I see nothing in Kerry. He's another VERY (the richest) wealthy, East coast, liberal. The last kind of person I'd want in there. At least I feel Edwards could connect to me.

And he's solid on the issues all right, hell he's on ALL sides of the issues. The guy's a waffle. Remember he voted for the Iraq suplement before voted against it.

-QR