Kerry's Platform
 

I'm trying to figure out, in all honesty, what Kerry's platform is. So far, and this is totally serious, the only thing I'm sure of is:
1 - War hero (3 purple hearts!)
2 - Not Bush.

Where does he stand on abortion? It depends on who you ask. He's said several different things to several different groups. I'm interpolating from the batch to suspect that he's not going to make any changes in that area.

Military size, benefits, etc.? Rumors of 70,000 more troops? Does he really believe that? Does anyone else? Does anyone have an honest summary (not the stupid chain e-mail) of his voting record on military spending?

Health care? Education? Foreign policy? Homosexual marriages? Policy towards Israel, Palestine, Africa, Russia, China, etc.? I'm drawing complete blanks on all of these things, because so far the campaign has been about his war record, and when he's not bragging about his combat service, he's saying how he's not Bush. Even his speech at the DNC was like that. I just read a Reader's Digest interview last night that read the same way. "I'm JFK, the war hero, and I'm not Bush."

So can anyone clarify?

TIA,
Dan

Sliver Star.

Bronze Star.

You'll never get campaign positions from the "news." Go to www.Johnkerry.com

Sorry, Tech, forgot about the other two essential elements of his platform, there. :)

Dan

On Kerry's website, he says he's gonna save every family "up to $1000" on health insurance. He fails to explain how, but unless his wife is picking up the tab, it sounds like more taxes to me. Super.

Kerrys Platform.
#1 have a Marriage Aunnled after have Two childern. Explain that one please
#2. Hes is just a regular guy a working stiff. Gee I dont have a G-4 to wisk me to my estates around the country.
#3 I am cool I windsurf
#4 I dont own a SUV my LLC does
#5 I am not GW

He does not have a platform beyond getting elected. That is why if this guy wins, the Republican controlled house and senate are going to run roughshod over this yutz.

The press and the protestors and all the MoveOn wankers are so worked up about the presidency - they cannot see the forest for the trees..

Moses, in my industry (and everyone's), health care costs are a big issue. Rather than fight over who pays it (workers versus employer), it might make sense to deal with the larger question of what's escalating costs. And deal with it as a larger, federal issue. It's just possible, as you mentioned, that taxes may be levied to deal with that. the thing I'd point out is that it's not a question of whether you (taxes) are going to pay for it. You pay for it anyway. The question is HOW to pay for it, and WHAT are we paying for.

As far as JFK's platform, I'd like to see more "meat" also, but that's not smart in our political system. He'd be wide open for attack, which is the Bush platform. Attack! And I've heard enough people tell me to stop whining about the Florida situation and the electoral college thing because like it or not, I need to accept that those are the rules of the contest. So, before someone suggests that omitting the details of one's platform is inappropriate, hey, that's the way the game is played here. It might not be what Dubya would prefer, but whining about it would be just whining. Nothing more.

We do however, know what methods Dubya would use and what goals he would seek. Maximizing (there's an understatement) national debt, alienating the rest of the countries on the planet (except England, I guess), killing US soldiers, filling the coffers of Haliburton, destroying the environment, raising gas prices...... The list just goes on.

Kerry does not need to outline his platform. Almost any action he could take would improve our nation compared to our current position.

John Edwards did his best to make Health care priced out of reach

Supe, it seems like we did the tort reform thread not too long ago. I agree with your approach to dealing with the rising cost of health care.

But the question isn't about whether or not Superman is a good candidate for the presidency, it's about what Kerry's going to do if he's elected. Gaijinda presents a valid scenario -- since he apparently has no strong leanings, he could get run over by congress. Who will dominate congress after the election?

As to the rest of your definition of his platform, Supe, it looks a lot like "Not W." It's certainly your right to believe and argue that a crack-whore's a$$-zit would make a better president, but I have a hard time supporting someone who's strongest selling point isn't who he is, but rather who he isn't.

I read his web-page, BTW -- it reads about the same. A lot of vague hyperbole about how the country (and the world) is totally dorked up because of the last 4 years of leadership, but very little detail about what he actually plans on doing to fix it. I mean, the central theme of his webpage is even "Not W."

Am I missing something?

Dan

Kerry's platform is simple, pick an issue, he's on both sides of it. Oh and did I mention he has 3 purple hearts?

Clark Kent said:
"Almost any action he could take would improve our nation compared to our current position."

If you really believe that them please join my write in campaign for Carmen Electra. We already know that she's on both sides of one issue. She may not have 3 purple hearts but she makes up for it with T&A. Carmen 2004http://images.channeladvisor.com/Sel...MENELECTRA.jpg

Now that's a platform I could get behind! :eek:

Electra for President!

Nice post, Dan, and I cannot disagree. I would prefer to see some platform "meat" also, but politiks in this country is Looney Toons. In fact, in my naivete' I imagine that the democratic party could and should stop letting the R's steal our thunder. I'd prefer to take the battle to the front lines and actually argue public policy issues. At least over time, people would eventually be far less naive, and subject to deception like they are currently.

And if there were different candidates for this current campaign then I'd feel even more strongly about the need to actually debate the issues. The reason I am not in need of that right now is that the candidates are lining up on diametrically opposed positions, even if they are not giving us details. For example, there is an ideology at work in our society right now which seems to conclude that what's good for business is good for people. I happen to disagree with that, not just somewhat, but VIGOROUSLY. If I were emperor, we'd have an economic system that I would proudly call "capitalism," but I would dispel the myth that citizens need to make many deep sacrifices so that "business" can have the "freedom" it needs to make us all happy and secure. Our current president seems to be the most bold-faced anti-worker pro-corporation president we (hopefully) will ever have to tolerate. His world and my world are terribly different, and he and I disagree COMPLETELY on this and many other very fundamental issues. A crack-whore's a$$-zit would at least probably not wage open war on working men and women. And that's just one issue. There are many others, and on virtually all of them, he and I disagree diametrically.

And here's another thought. It has been my experience that democrats like government, use government to address problems of society, and know how to operate that kind of machinery. Republicans, in my experience, hate government and look toward private industry to solve the problems. Their hatred for government runs so deep that their efforts tend to focus on either getting rid of it, or making it work poorly so as to gain support for deregulation, paving the way for higher profits. Well, if you're going to have government, then who would you rather have in charge? A party that understands and knows how to work it, or a party of anarchists? My feeling is that if Kerry and/or the democratic party were to step forward and explain how things work, and how we would like to approach certain objectives, there would be citizens smart enough to "get it." I mean many (probably most Americans by the way...traitors to folks like Mul) citizens already "get it." The target would be the gullible ones who have bought into the fantasy that government is evil. Government is "them." Government should be abolished. The truth is, government is not "them" unless we're not participating or paying attention. Government, in truth, is "us." And government is not going to be abolished. It's here to stay. Unless you're Mul, in which case your fantasy world and your reality world are one and the same.

. . .which begs the question, do "thinking democrats" really want Kerry to win?

I mean, sure, Kerry wants Kerry to win. But he is hardly the guy to do any work for anyone but himself.

Strategically, dem's would be smart to pass on this guy Kerry.
uhmmm. .. Let's end that discussion right now. Look at the smileyhttp://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1092946701.gif Ya know, Kerry isn't so bad. Make Supermans day -Vote Kerry.

I'm not wild about Kerry either. Several other dem candidates would have been preferable, in my humble view. And heck, I probably liked Gore even less. But hey, until Amerikan Politiks move away from the current fashion-show, sound-bite tactics that are so effective right now, we're going to be stuck with pretty-boys' rhetoric while what we really need is statesmen with leadership qualities. Churchill was not pretty, and also fairly unpopular, but he was there when the world needed him.

And yes, in a rare moment of agreement with Island, I'll say that perhaps the very best thing that could happen to folks of my political ilk, would be for Dubya to get re-elected. If that happens, we'll see the full force of his greedy, twisted agenda and in four years the republicans could put Abraham Lincoln on the ticket and he'd still lose. The nice thing is that we're still a democracy. This way, when the people really get fully tired of what's going on, they can take control.

I've seena statistic that suggested that total health care costs would come down by under 2% if medical malpractice was capped. (No, I can't find it).

I don't consider 2% to be "priced out of reach".

And black helicopters....don't forget W's black helicopters - thousands of em.

I'm not talking fantasy, Mark. There are people those ideologies are VASTLY different from mine. Folks like the ones I argue with here are just trying to figure out what makes the most sense and I like to think they disagree with me out of ignorance (winking face here, but I'm not entirely joking). With Dubya, I see what I've seen on many other occasions and it's not just some misinformed guy trying to do the right thing. I know I'll never convince you, but Dubya has an agenda, and he knows what he wants to do, and he's gonna carry that out. Ordinary Joes like you and me, and other folks making six figure incomes or less, we live in an entirely different world from these other people. Dubya does not worry about fuel pumps. He doesn't even take his vehicles to the shop. He doesn't even shop for vehicles. There is no vehicle whose purchase price is the slightest bit interesting to him, one way or the other. If you asked him how much this or that vehicle costs, he wouldn't answer the question. His wild guess would likely be so far off he'd have to be embarrassed. He hold the most powerful position (arguably) of any living human. billion-dollar chunks of money are chips. troops and pieces of legislation are game pieces. And the outcome is all about him and his team members. I promise. And if you think I'm hearing black helicopters, then I just hope some day you get a glimpse into this world that I see. There are actual deals made that would curl your hair. Actually, if you just sit and think about behavior, and human nature, and your personal experiences, you'd figure out what humans do with essentially unlimited power. You think they use it to be generous and magnanamous. But you know different. You just like the everybody's honestly trying to do the right thing fantasy.

Sorry Mark. I'm not name calling. But from what I've seen, and continue to see, there are conspiracy theorists, and then there are folks living in a rosy fantasy world where the most powerful men in the world are working together to make a better community. Yeah right!

That's just the cost of claims. That is a mere fraction of the money we spend trying to avoid claims. (Unnecessary testing, paperwork, etc.) The real cost is enormous.

Fair enough - I didn't take that into account at all.

I still blame insurance companies, but let's not dilute the thread.

Supe..

Just to help your point along, Bush Senior, did not know what a "scanner" in a store did. Folks in that stratospheric realm do not do their own shopping unless they want to "slum".