Why is Kerry trailing?

[SRISER]

I do not think that Kerry fought in Viet Nam to bolster his political record just like I didn't fight in Desert Storm to do so. I was called and went. Kerry is trailing because he has no platform, no accomplishments as senator, no solid ideas, just rhetoric. I have read his economic ideas and they are very contrary to sound economic principles. His other ideas appeal to the emotion rather than the intellect, thus appealing to those at the mean or one negative standard deviation away...IOW's, they are hairbrained ideas bent on social engineering.

[jm951]

In order for a human being to move, the muscles are attached to bones. Those bones are moved by nerve impulses that change the chemical energy of the muscles to mechanical energy, and acting as motive force on the "levers", the bones. This is a great concept but for it to work properly, there needs to be a spine that the bones use for a fulcrum. And a spine is just what Kerry is missing boys and girls, that's why he never met a side of an issue he didn't like, depending on which focus group is listening. He just flops around like a largemouth bass on a hot skillet.

The part the libs are missing is that there aren't many folks dissing Kerry's war record, I wish McAuliffe could take that hint. What conservatives don't like about Kerry is his liberal voting record in the Senate. And that is likely what will turn off many voters about Kerry. He's voted against nearly every weapons system the military currently uses including the F15, Apache helicopter, Predator, Sparrow and others. Imagine just how effective our military would be today using Howdy Doody era technology. Kerry promises to get international cooperation in Iraq. From who, the French? the Germans?, or Russians? THE UN??? Let's see let's get the same guys who were on the take from Saddam over the Oil for Food program to help in Iraq again. Many liberals pride themselves on being "intellectuals" but it's another case of common sense being an uncommon trait among the libs supporting Lurch Kerry.

[jm951]

And while we're at it, how about Lurch's number one supporter in the Senate, Teddy "The Lifeguard" Kennedy, more people have died in Ted's car than Three Mile Island. If you aren't old enough to remember this one, google Chappaquidick

[Beethoven]

That's really pathetic. First you accuse Kerry of not having a spine, an at the same time you accuse him of voting consistently liberal.
It might take muscles to move, but it still takes a brain to think.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Beethoven
That's really pathetic. First you accuse Kerry of not having a spine, an at the same time you accuse him of voting consistently liberal.
It might take muscles to move, but it still takes a brain to think.

Apparently Kerry has neither. he has voted consistently liberal...so liberal that an independent agency rates him the "most" liberal senator. At the same time he changes his voiced position depending on the group he is speaking to. Even the more liberal television networks are starting to mke fun of him. Just last week, ABC exposed him in an outright lie by playing his own words back to him.

Kerry's brain problem is normal. Once you start lying..you have to remember the earlier lies you told...

His spinal problem is that he is knows he could not be elected to dogcatcher without buying votes by taking more money from those who earned it and redistributing to others.

[Bleyseng]

Well, GWBush is a big fat liar too! Over and over again this GW has lied to the American public about everything, WMD, Iraq, 9/11, on and on just to keep this public image going. He has no balls to take a real stand on anything including his National Guard service. Atleast Kerry SERVED Honorably in VietNam instead of drinking his time away like GW who never has had a "real job" its all image! Again Kerry wants to SERVE his country before this GOP born again BSing fool ruins the country doing nothing about Al Queda and chasing after Saddam.
Does service records count, heck yes. This is from Sen Glenn about service in time of war...

Subject: John Glenn on the Senate floor

Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange Between Senators John Glenn and Sen. Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu
speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men
and women in the Armed Services do what they do for a living. This IS a
typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the
Military.

Senator Metzenbaum to Senator Glenn: "How can you run for Senate when
you've never held a "real job?"

Senator Glenn: "I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 9 missions. My plane was hit by antiaircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the Space Program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my Life on the line. It was not a nine to five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank.

I ask you to go with me ... as I went the other day ... to a Veterans Hospital and look those men -- with their mangled bodies -- in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job!

You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee...and you
look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DADS didn't hold a job.

You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery,
where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch
those waving flags. You stand there, and you think about this Nation, and you tell ME that those people didn't have a job?

I'll tell you, Howard Metzenbaum, you should be on your knees every day of your life thanking God that there were some men - SOME MEN - who held REAL jobs.. And they required a dedication to a purpose -- and a love of country and a dedication to duty -- that was more important than life itself. And their self-sacrifice is what made this country possible.

"I HAVE held a job, Howard! ---What about you?"

[Moneyguy1]

Words to remember......

THe uninformed vitriol from both sides, the character assassination; reminds me of the words in "Deteriorata"

"Remember..a walk throught the ocean of most souls would scarcely wet one's feet." Shallow thinking, guys....Try to really understand the motives of the "other guy" before you try to squeeze him into your preconceived mold.

Idealouges....the bane of progress.

[djmcmath]

Bleyseng, I love that speech. Where did you find that? I had to read it twice, once out loud to my room-mate. Very nice.

[fintstone]

Yes Bleyseng, nice speech by Glenn. Clearly a "military career" is a "real job." However, is a few months in Vietnam the same as a full career? If you value military service so much, did you vote for GW Sr over Clinton too, or is it only for the rare liberal with a military record? Gosh, maybe I should run for president too. I served a heck of a lot longer than Kerry.
It is interesting how every time Kerry's voting record or his apparent inability to tell the truth is questioned, someone pulls out the old "but he was in Vietnam" which is somehow is supposed to immunize him against his own record or to change the subject.

If that doesn't work, out comes the "Well, Bush is a liar too." or "deserter"...charges we already know are not true.

It must be difficult to support a candidate with such a long voting and speaking record that cannot tell the truth and has voted so far liberal that his own liberal supporters try to cover it up.

[SRISER]

The libs need to stop trying to support somebody who they really don't want to support. Just give the nomination to somebody else! Then, your problem will be solved. You will still lose in November for other reasons, but at least your heart will be in it. Kerry just ain't the right guy.

[jm951]

The part I'm still trying to figure out is why the libs insist that without "true" military experience, a candidate isn't fit to run the country. Let's look at a few with no military experience-

FDR (D)- WWII, had polio as a child and no military experience
Lincoln (R)- Civil War, no "real" military experience
Wilson (D)- WWI, setup the League of Nations
LBJ (D)- seriously escalated Vietnam
Nixon (R)- got us out of Vietnam, but had problems with his personnel
Truman (D)- WWII, convinced the Japanese to call it quits

So, I find the entire argument over military experience from both sides of the aisle to be specious. But if we're calling the Iraq war a "new Vietnam" let's just remember which party got us into it and which one got us out. History lesson time, pay attention class. Gulf of Tonkin, trumped up by Kennedy (D) to justify sending aid and advisors to SV to halt the "domino theory" of communism. The troop and aid levels were dramatically increased by LBJ (D) who micromanaged the war. LBJ, along with McNamara, would choose individual targets for air raids. They also thought that if they just bombed the NV enough, they would quit and agree to peace. That is the falsehood of liberalism when military operations are involved, you gain peace by winning, not negotiating. It took Nixon (R) to finally extricate us from the mess the (D) libs started in SE Asia, and if you look even deeper, the Civil Rights legislation was passed mainly with (R) support. Your homework assignment for today, Who were the "Dixiecrats" and what party did they belong to, what party did Gov. George Wallace belong to, and what was current (D-WV) Sen. Robert Byrd's rank in the KKK? Yes, he was a Klan member, where's the ACLU, NAACP, Jesse and Al S on that one and why aren't they demanding an apology and his resignation? If they crucified Sen. Lott for a remark about another Senator's service, they should be burning Byrd at the stake, but not a peep. Yet more double standards on the left.

[Moneyguy1]

Whoops....

1. FDR's polio had an adult onset

2. Harry served in WWI

[Moneyguy1]

Forgot one..

3. Richard M. Nixon was a Lieutenant in the Navy in the Pacific during WWII

[jm951]

I stand corrected on Nixon and Truman. Neither's service is touted in the literature as a "feature" of their presidential qualifications and if said service was of a non-combat nature, would the modern democrats rule it out as not having been there, done that?

[speeder]

The problem w/ your argument has nothing to do w/ which presidents served or did not, your argument fails w/ an earlier lie, as they usually do.

No one here, (or elsewhere), has said that "without 'true' military experience, a candidate isn't fit to run the country". It seems that you just pulled that out of your ass as a pretense for your (incorrect) listing of previous presidents' military records.

The discussion that is occuring in this campaign has to do w/ Kerry's service and medals, and it's a big mistake by the Republicans since Bush avoided service in Viet Nam by getting into the Texas ANG through family connections and then possibly never fulfilled his obligation there. No one yet has been able to answer the question of WTF Bush did in the Air National Guard!

Normally, a candidate's miltary service is not all that important, but it's being used here as a character guage, and it's a big mistake by the GOP. Their guy was getting drunk and laid stateside during his "service", going AWOL and leaving the program early while Kerry did 2 tours of Viet Nam. If they had half a brain they would STFU, and if you had any respect for people on this board you would not try these dumbass arguments here.

[jm951]

And what exactly did Clinton do during the same time period? Your point is meaningless without looking at both sides, Clinton was off smoking dope and protesting the war in front of the US embassy in Moscow, or didn't you catch that part. About the only thing he didn't do was run to Canada. In addition, what's wrong with service in the ANG, NG or Reserves for that matter? Those guys got just as dead or wounded when shot at as the draftees and volunteers who went. Were the ANG group any less American? So from your respose, I take it you are/were a Clinton supporter who thinks that character doesn't matter. Another sad moral dilemma. In addition, it is the Kerry campaign that wants to remind us at every opportunity he is a "war hero". Nobody is denying he went and served, what I have a serious problem with is his voting record in the Senate since being elected, or is his record not an issue with you? Do you suck down the political pablum from the DNC, or do you look at how their guy really has acted and performed in the past 20 years? If you refuse to acknowledge the character flaws and records of both sides, why in the world should I have one shred of respect for you or others who act similarly? Get out of the heat over there, you're getting delusional.

[Beethoven]

What does Clinton have to do with anything in this election? He's not a candidate, last time I looked. Waste of time to discuss this, IMHO.
What's inconceivable to me is that everybody knows that Bush boozed it up, and used the NG to get out of going to Vietnam (to say nothing of his creepy VP who boldly declared he had "other priorities" than military service during that time). W. himself admits as much when he talks about how he was born again, stopped drinking, and cleaned up his act. So why not say 'hey, I was wrong then, I changed, and cleaned up'? After all, most of us have done pretty stupid things in our earlier days. Because then you would have to grant the other person the same priviledge, and you'd lose all the righteousness with which the Bushies run this campaign.

[lendaddy]

Beethoven, That's exactly what Bush has said from the beginning. Having done stupid things in your past does not disqualify one from speaking the truth now.

[speeder]

Plenty cool in the apartment here, but thanks for your concern. It is an oven outside.

Seriously, I don't think that glorious military service is a requirement for leadership, and most people agree. The lack of any combat experience comes into play w/ the current crowd of Bozos since they are so intent on starting wars in foreign lands for dubious reasons, and for most leaders a thourough understanding of (recent) history would be a sufficient substitute for actually living the war part of history. In Bush's case, he was neither a scholar nor a soldier, he is no more qualified to send young people off to die than PeeWee Herman.

Since you brought up Clinton, (HTF do you right-wingers manage to insert him into any political discussion??), he was a great scholar and historian, like most notable leaders. There is an old saying, "not all readers are leaders, but all leaders are readers". Except Bush. His Dad was, Nixon was, etc., so it's not simply an anti-GOP thing for me. Your guy is ignorant, and dishonest to boot. Clinton was very loathe to sacrifice young blood for political means when there was any other possible way to go, so he is off the hook in the sissy-hawk department, unlike Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et. al......

The "War on Terrorism" is a joke....., they haven't even secured the borders of this country or airplane cockpits yet. A frikking joke. They are invading countries that were planned out before 9/11, completely unconcerned and ignorant about the costs of war, these clowns need to go! I'd vote for Martha Stewart against these A-holes, but I also think that John Kerry is a great guy.

[SRISER]

Nixon was a Navy Supply Corps Officer...just like Regis Philbin and Roger Starbach...well, and one other very important person...