NY Times on Kerry: Liar! - Page 4

Ogie Oglethorpe · March 8, 2004, 12:52

John F'in Kerry.

Ned · March 8, 2004, 13:13

Kerry swears like a sailor.

Sava · March 8, 2004, 13:19

sigh... Kerry's "dishonesty" doesn't even hold a candle to Bush's... still the LESSER OF TWO EVILS!

DinoDoc · March 8, 2004, 13:20

Isn't the lesser of two evils still evil?

Sava · March 8, 2004, 13:21

yup... I don't like it, but that's the way our system is set up.

DinoDoc · March 8, 2004, 13:22

There are these wonderous entities that I believe refer to themselves as 3rd parties.

Ned · March 8, 2004, 13:28

Sava, I think Bush is reliable and somewhat predictable. I have no idea what Kerry is about anymore. He was against our intervention in Vietnam, in Gulf War I, and in the war on Saddam. But then he lays into Bush for not unilaterally intervening in a civil war in Haiti? He says he is a tough guy and willing to use force unilaterally.

But, what are his standards? He was willing to go to war in Haiti without an UN resolution and without an act of Congress.

Who is this man?

Ogie Oglethorpe · March 8, 2004, 13:38

The only thing one can say about Kerry is that he will be consistently critical of Bush during the campaign even if that highlights his own inconsistencies. That of course means we, as voters, get no real sense of what kind of leader he is.

Ned · March 8, 2004, 14:13

Ogie, I understand there are a lot of folks in the Democrat party machinery who really can't stand Kerry for one reason or another. He really is not a likable kind of guy and is all over the map on his positions. No clarity, no fundamental beliefs. Just endless oportunism.

Sava · March 8, 2004, 14:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Sava, I think Bush is reliable and somewhat predictable. I have no idea what Kerry is about anymore. He was against our intervention in Vietnam, in Gulf War I, and in the war on Saddam. But then he lays into Bush for not unilaterally intervening in a civil war in Haiti? He says he is a tough guy and willing to use force unilaterally.

But, what are his standards? He was willing to go to war in Haiti without an UN resolution and without an act of Congress.

Who is this man?

Bush is reliable all right... reliably bad. You can't talk about jobs, wages, education, or health care with Bush; so you harp on this Kerry "flip-flopping" BS. I've heard Kerry explain his positions. They are consistent and he's stayed true to them. I don't believe you are honestly evaluating Kerry's positions. You are just an attack dog.

If you want to attack Kerry on legitimate issues... look at his closeness to special interest money. Other than making the mistake of trusting Bush would do the right thing when it came to Iraq and the Patriot Act, Kerry's closeness to special interests is the only other legitimate issue Kerry can be attacked on. Everything else; this "Hanoi" John bullshit, this "flip-flopping" bullshit... it's all garbage. And each time the right attacks Kerry on STUPID and illegitimate issues, it makes me like Kerry more.

If you want to look at Kerry critically and objectively... then fine. I'll have that discussion with you. But I'm not going to listen to any more of your garbage.

Ogie Oglethorpe · March 8, 2004, 14:20

Ned,

I agree he is often characterized as an elitist and as such is not fan freindly when it comes to the Dems vision of a candidate.

We had a funny little story about the Kerry campaign in GA. Seems Kerry had a quick drive through stop at a local truck stop in Atlanta. Media was to cover the event. Kerry staffers, detained all local print, radio and television media and had them stay in a room while they decided hwo they should be situated to cover the event. Meantime all the national media was allowed fulll access to Kerry. The entire local media was NEVER allowed access to Kerry.

Local media was extrememly miffed saying in essence Kerry was using the GA stop as a forum for national coverage but realizing GA was a wasted effort (long term) decided it wasn't worth the effort of allowing local coverage. Seems Kerry will continue to hold to his earlier statement that he doesn't need the south to win. In effect not even bothering to appeal to the local media.

Not especially fan friendly if you get my drift.

Ned · March 8, 2004, 14:24

Sava, I just happen to think that Bush is right on virtually all issues. I have some question on his support of the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment.

On Iraq, I agree with both McCain and Lieberman who were hardliner anti-Saddam types. Saddam had to go, no ifs, and or buts about it.

CharlesBHoff · March 8, 2004, 15:04

Ned Kerry have nothing to do with America turning against the Viet Man War. I know some WWII vertan who where against the war also( these guy service in combat unit on the front line), my Uncled who fought in the Koren war and sent one year in Viet Man when he came back an he told me "If I needed help in beating the draft or going to Canada he will help. He told me that the Mi Lia mass wasnot the only one or than iolate case it was widespead.

rev · March 8, 2004, 15:37

Personally, I am not a fan of Kerry and am still on the fence about voting for him or for an independent candidate (NOT Nader). Why? He's a politician and he will say and do whatever it takes to lure in votes, including flip-flopping on various issues. He's an 'image' politician -- renting a Harley to ride it onto Jay Leno's show, for example.

But for many of you to say that Bush's message has been consistent and Kerry's hasn't is astoundingly hypocritical. Before I go into the details, I'll say this: Bush, like Kerry, is an image politician, and what he says and does before the cameras may be radically different than what he does with the powers of his office or when the spotlight isn't on him.

The one thing Bush has been consistent on is tax cuts. He presented that idea to Americans before the elections, Americans liked that idea and voted him into office (however you feel about Florida, bear with me on this). Bush came through with the tax cuts he promised. Good for him! I do, however, believe that he led Americans to believe the tax cuts would benefit the majority of the tax-paying citizens of this country, directly and indirectly. Direct in that most would be getting a hefty tax burden lifted off their shoulders and indirect in that it would create jobs. This is wrong in several ways: 1., most Americans didn't get much of a tax cut; 2., nearly a year later, the tax cuts haven't produced a tenth of the jobs the White House predicted they would; 3., many are paying more money at a local and state level because of program cuts and the still-faltering economy, so any of their tax cuts are negatable.

Now, onto flip-flops. Bush was against the Department of Homeland Security when it was originally proposed by the Democrats, pre-9/11. After September 11th, Bush was enthusiastically for the DHS, though he does deserve some credit given the importance of the attacks.

One of Bush's themes throughout the 2000 election was that he was against "nation-building". A few weeks ago, the president appeared on "Meet The Press" with Tim Russert, who pressed Bush to resolve his pre-election statements and the fact that we are "nation-building" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush's response was nearly incoherent, the justification being that nation-building is OK when there's a war at hand.

While this one is debatable, Bush has flip-flopped on his "honor and integrity" election promise. Now we're back to games of semantics: "well, he never specifically used the words 'imminent threat'", etc. Not to mention the mere idea that if the president meets with more than select members of the 9/11 commission for more than an hour it would violate "executive privilege". Even Bush's father and *Bill Clinton* have agreed to meet with the ENTIRE commission for as long as they're needed.

Then there's 9/11 itself. Firefighters were promised better funds so that they'd have better equipment to deal with another such catastrophe (e.g., hand-held radios that could transmit from inside buildings). These funds were promised in the first post-9/11 "State of the Union", but they've yet to be delivered, even as the Bush re-election campaign hires non-firemen actors to play firemen in ads.

Bush was against the 9/11 commission in the first place, until public opinion was against him. Flop.

Carbon Dioxide emissions? Flop.

Fiscal restraint and responsibility? Flop.

In 2000, Bush said gay marriage was up to the states, now he wants to ammend the U.S. Constitution. Flop.

Granted, things change -- 9/11 was a huge factor. A good leader will know when they're wrong, or to change their stance when the facts change. But don't say that Bush or Kerry haven't changed their stance, ever. And keep in mind that Kerry's flip-flops are coming from decades of public life, while Bush's come from a much shorter time period.

rev · March 8, 2004, 15:47

Quote:

I checked that anti-Bush, lie site. The first four or five stories of lying were on Cheney, Rumsfeld and the like. You really had to dig deep to find anything on Bush.

Why? Because he's the most inaccessible president we've ever had. When he does a press conference and answers questions, that alone is news. When he actually DOES interviews (e.g., MTP w/ Tim Russert), he bumbles his way through it and can't answer the questions. Reading an actual transcript of Bush talking without prepared remarks is a headache -- he's completely incoherent.

Sava · March 8, 2004, 17:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Sava, I just happen to think that Bush is right on virtually all issues. I have some question on his support of the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment.

yes Bush's economic plan is working

Bush's health care plan is working

oh wait a minute...

I wonder what is in the water in the Nedaverse.

Quote:

On Iraq, I agree with both McCain and Lieberman who were hardliner anti-Saddam types. Saddam had to go, no ifs, and or buts about it.

why? Saddam was trapped... he had no conventional military capability, so far it looks like he had no WMD's... even Colin Powell said in February of 2001 that Saddam was effectively powerless. In terms of killing his own people, the worst days were long gone... and not coincidentally, he killed the most people when the US was supporting him. Saddam was NOT a threat... there was NO REASON to go to war to get him out. You, along with the rest of the Bushies, were effectively duped. I'm glad to see most of America is starting to see the truth. Hopefully you will too.

Ned · March 8, 2004, 20:38

rev, Bush clearly was against getting involved in Yugoslavia as American interests were not at stake. I am sure you would agree that Afghanistand and Iraq were entirely different as American interests were heavily involved.

9/11 changed everyone's opinions on Homeland Security.

I don't know about funding firefighter equipment. We did get a lot of money for NY reconstruction. I am surprised that the firefighters got none of it.

As to the tax cuts giving us more jobs -- well the economy did turn around when the tax cuts were finally implemented. Jobs are a lagging indicator and they too are coming around.

WITHOUT the tax cuts, you can be sure there would have been a DEPRESSION, just like we had when Hoover balanced the budget after the crash of '29.