Ten reasons why you won't vote for Kerry

[Beethoven]

I'm supposed to write an article for a German newspaper on the election campaign. I'm thinking this board is as good a place as any to get a sample of reasons why you wouldn't vote for Kerry. The more articulate the reasons the better.
I'm not asking the same question for Bush because that's not a question for most Germans

[sammyg2]

Because he's a bleeding heart liberal, tax and spend, take away from those who earned and give to those who haven't, democrat who hand is just itching to get at my wallet

[Beethoven]

Hey Sam, I didn't mean THAT artculate!

[fintstone]

He seems to not have any true convictions. He says he will do...or is for... whatever the particular group he is speaking to that day supports....even if he told another group the exact opposite the day before.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

So far I haven't heard any reasons that are specific to Kerry - they are equally applicable to Bush.

[island911]

Because Kerry wants power for the sake of having power.

He has no proactive, creative solutions, or ideas. . . .he is vacant, with but one exception; He has a long history of undermining the military. (one of the few places the Fed-govt should be strongly supportive)

Marrying a Billionaire heiress, Kerry has ABSOLUTLY no clue as to the working mans world, and yet he is supposed to represent the "democrat voter" . . HA!. . what a fraud.

There. . .so when do we see the "new improved" Kerry spots?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Once again, not specific to Kerry.

Bush HAS a clue to the "working man's world"?!?!?! Oh please.

Try again.

[island911]

Yes, Porsche-O-Phile , we all know Kerrys biggest strength is that he is NOT GW Bush.

. . .wow, can he put that on his resume? ...what an accomplishment.

Ya know. . .If I didn't know better, I would say you are trying to turn this question about Kerry, and make it a question about Bush.
Of course we all know that Kerry is such a strong leader that this election will be all about Kerry.

[fintstone]

His voting record which strongly favors increased taxes and a weaker military and weaker intelligence agency.

That he lied under oath when testifying to Congress in the eary '70s.

[nostatic]

actually I think GW *has* convictions (other than the drunk driving one). The problem is I don't agree with many of them.

Can't tell you why I won't vote for Kerry becuase I likely will vote for him...but it is a vote against GW instead of for JK.

Can we revive the "none of the above" campaign?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I agree this is another "lesser of two evils" campaign, but clearly G.W. has blown it and blown it big over the last four years. ABB (Anybody But Bush) IMO. Unfortunately I can't vote for Nader either, as much as I'd like to - I'm not about to let him split the vote in this election. There will be a time to enter a third or fourth or fifth party in our system, but now is not it.

I say give the guy a shot and if he (like GW) blows it, then it will be fixed in four years. I imagine it's pretty hard to screw up worse than GW though. . .

[einreb]

helmut,

I sort of have to rephrase your question to qualify to answer it, but here's 10 reasons for me to not vote for Kerry

10. I get convicted of a felony and can't vote.
9. I can't find the polling booth.
8. I punch the wrong button.
7. Hanging chad (sic?).
6. I die before the election.
5. Kerry drops out of the race.
4. McCain somehow gets the republican nomination.
3. GWB balances the budget, solves 'healthcare', et cetera.
2. I'm in a coma.
1. Kerry chooses Rush Limbaugh as his VP.

[Dantilla]

If I were to sum it up in one word, integrity.

George Bush is not articulate, but he knows what he believes, and does not waiver.

Kerry has no foundation. He flip-flops more than a fish on a hot sidewalk. Who knows what he will say tomorrow, much less November.

[pwd72s]

Ronald Reagan, in his farewell address of 11 January 1989 said:
"as government expands-liberty contracts". I couldn't agree more. Kerry's entire political career is an effort to expand government. 'Nuff said, I don't need 9 more reasons...

[turbocarrera]

The contraction of liberty is a terrible thing indeed. We all know that when the gov't takes something away, you can almost bet the farm they will never give it back. Kind of like the temporary income tax for the war effort. George Bush's idea of liberty was the Patriot Act.. nuff said..

[island911]

Originally posted by turbocarrera
. .. George Bush's idea of liberty was the Patriot Act.. nuff said..

Good point, Tony, *IF* you have ANY reason to believe that Kerry would be less invasive.

IMO, Nader would have a better chance, of that, than Kerry.
(tho' should this all should have its own thread. . .remember this thread is not about Bush)

[lendaddy]

Even the most flattering look at his life shows a man with little to no integrity.

Though his words would leave you guessing, his actions (read voting record) show him to be the most liberal legislator in the land.

[Beethoven]

Lendaddy,
this last point you make is the one I'm trying to understand for a long time. On the hand, people accuse Kerry of flip flopping. On the other, he is accused of having the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Now, unless you presuppose that being a liberal is in itself a dishonest position, wouldn't you at least have to admit that Kerry had the integrity to vote his liberal conscience? Wrong--maybe. But no integrity? That seems contradictory to me.

[ajackson]

People acuse him of having no integrity because many of his statements now are in direct opposition to his entire voting history. He comes out and says I believe this and this and this, but his voting record doesn't back him up.

I won't vote for him because he hasn't given a clear plan for how he will lead the country other than "Not the way bush is doing it".

[dd74]

Before this thread cascades into the usual drivel, I'll give my two-cents' worth:

One reason to not vote for Kerry is this war Bush has conjured up. The problem with voting Bush out coincides with those in his cabinet - namely Rumsfeld and Rice. Cheney will be (supposedly) leaving, so he won't be as much a player after November. Nevertheless Rumsfeld in particular is one of the main architects of the Iraq war, and to eliminate the president along with the so-called architect might spell disaster via inheritance to Kerry. The war is being handled no better than it was when first started. There is an Iraqi government that is being forced in place without whole-hearted acceptance by the Iraqi population. There is also a June 30th deadline that is being met only for political reasons. And lastly no one knows if January '05 elections in Iraq will truly see the light of day. In short, the Bush Administration has made no tangible headway toward the resolution of this conflict. More troops are being introduced to the war, infrastruture in Iraq is spotty at best, and there still is no exit strategy.

The war is America's concern right now. It overshadows the economy, education and civil rights - which are also large issues. But as Iraq is such a hot topic, many people's voting decision might hinge on how the war is being handled. It is a quagmire - I challenge anyone to say otherwise. And being that it is a Bush-orchestrated quagmire, I wonder if the wisest choice is to bring an unsuspecting "new guy" in to resolve it and possibly create more damage because he obviously does not have the inside scoop on Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice's reasoning for going to war. In short, Bush created this mess. Maybe what needs to be done is have him in the White House for another four years so that he can either repair it, allowing for a Democrat to be voted in by a war-weary U.S., or Bush can sink himself deeper into the hole.