An interesting common Kerry Criticism I hear is that he “speaks vaguely and doesn’t say anything.” (???)
Interesting in the fashion that I don’t get that at all. It almost to me seems a purposeful misunderstanding based on personal issues.
So, I’d love some examples (from those who view our next President in this way)
Tell me some of these ambiguities, please.
HOWEVER, if they are in the way of these criticisms:
1. Kerry says life begins at conception
2. Kerry is pro-choice
Or:
1. Kerry says he won’t give anyone else a ‘Veto” on US hegemony
2. He wants to pass a “global test”
and you think these are vague or conflictory (and an example of the reported ambiguity), NEVER MIND. I understand that criticism all too well. I’d continue in a arguemnt of it, but I wouldn’t want to build any straw men (even if they are a perfect likeness). Fucking dualistic thinkers.
Do you read the NYT? cause there’s an article in there I should find for you if not.
He was forever saying “I have a plan” to address problem X, only I never heard anything specific. There is that. Othereise, I never really saw evidence for the flip-flip charge. That was manufactured. Nor did I get ambiguity from him, other than the near constant “I have a plan” thing.
What’s funny about this is that the plan is right on Kerry’s website, easily downloadable. However, it’s 263 pages, so most people won’t bother.
Reading it, he does give a lot of specific things he’d like to do. I don’t believe he’ll be able to do even half of them, nor do I think (not having read the whole thing yet) that he discusses how to pay for things, but he does have The Plan.
Ok, I know that this isn’t what you were talking about, but I find this one interesting:
1. Kerry says life begins at conception
2. Kerry is pro-choice
Because it describes my parents’ viewpoints perfectly. They both personally believe life begins at conception (at least, last time I checked) but they’re politically pro-choice because a) Mom’s a nurse and knows about things like medical necessity, and b) both are into the separation of church & state and are aware that not everyone believes as they do. So it appears to be contradictory (and I think this was what you were getting at), but it really isn’t, necessarily.
But anyway, on to what you were really interested in talking about — the only real ambiguity I can think of is his “I have a plan” bit; I know that one can actually go read about his plan on his website, but becaues I’m lazy, I wanted him to tell me more about his plan, instead of just telling me he had one.
I almost think the “Kerry is ambiguous” complaint is sort of the catch-all complaint about liberals/Democrats, as is “so-and-so flip-flops.” I can recall people saying the same things about Clinton when he was running, that he was a fence sitter, and slick, and said things that sounded good but were ambiguous.
Pay no attention to that missing close tag!
People can’t seem to grasp the notion that ALL politicians must speak in generalizations. First, because people really don’t give a damn about the details of government (“I’m going to call my friend Bill who works in the Senate, and he’s going to make some calls, and we’ll put together a committee to discuss X, and then I’ll talk to the press and the ambassador of Guam…”) Especially when you have a 10 second soundbyte, you’re not going to explain every action you plan to take to get something done.
Second, because they are trying to be inclusive. Often to the point of ridiculousness, yes, but I’m all for acceptance.
I mean, Kerry wasn’t my first choice, nor my dream candidate (Clinton was already as close as I’m going to get–smart and trashy). But he’s smart, he’s ethical (without being moralistic), and he’s from MA, which is the new Virginia for getting leaders.
I guess I’m more willing to believe him than I am Bush. Because that’s what a president is asking: that you trust him. And Bush has shown pretty clearly that we can’t trust him at all.
Well, I never heard about it being available on his Web site, nor did I look. Which I could have done instead of waiting for it to be fed to me.
I was watching a little bit of the Saturday Night Live election special thing last night, and they had the parody from the ’76 Ford-Carter debates on. Ford accused Carter of flip-flopping! It was crazy. Jimmy Carter has to be the least ambiguous person on earth.
He did mention it in the debate, for which I noticed quite a few people slam him for.
“plugging his website! How rude!” — huh? telling people where they can find his platform is rude? Que?!
Um, he mentioned it about a million times during the debates, ADD Boy.
You forgot the H. It’s different, although some clinicians disagree.
**sits and spins
Precisely.
I mean, I think that teaching children religion (a specific one) until they understand what religions *are* is tantamount to abuse, on par with sexual abuse.
This doens’t mean I want to go and charge people with abuse for taking their children to sunday school because:
1. This is based on a non-scientific unstudied personal philosophical base.
2. Things based on personal morality that have not been shown to be factually harmful should not be legislated
3. Even things that have been shown* to be factually harmful should not be legislated against UNLESS the legislation will likely lead to the reduction of their harmfullness.
I mean, Duh! This isn’t nuclear physics. Do we really want to legislate based on cultural shifts of popular morality? I FUCKING DON’T THINK SO.
Whatever, Spaz.
People can’t seem to grasp the notion that ALL politicians must speak in generalizations.
That’s because people are stupid, stupid, STUPID
and STUPID people should not be allowed to vote (or be President).Ew. Kerry just said “God bless you.”
Yeah, He’s not great on Big Business, or “small government.” I don’t like his stand on Iraq, I’m not fond of his support of Isreal – but these are small in perspective to realistic alternatives.
Also have to consider:
1. He helped stop Vietnam War
2. He uncovered internal money-laundering at BCCI (even netting some ‘bad’ demos)
3. He uncovered iran/contra scandal
I mean: HERO, HERO, HERO. A history of speaking TRUTH to power. Even in the face of being derided, disgraced (by the baddies in power).
Now that’s what I call integrity.
BIG FUCKING HERO.
What’s even more boggling is that behind the scenes Carter and Ford are good friends. Oddly, Clinton and Dole are apparently friends as well.
yeah, that gets to me too. I’ll forgive him 😉
Yeah – I think Bush and Kerry could be friends as well. I really think bush is just being taken advantage of by daddy’s rich friends.
I don’t want to rain on parades–Kerry is far preferable to Bush and it’s almost assinine to state that at this stage of the game. He is a career politician, although he has many statesmman hallmarks and may prove to be a statesman.
However, he is a Skull and Bones man. He is married to profound wealth and connected to that wealth is power and reciprocal obligations. He is plugged into the power elite. He smacks of “good ole’ boy.” This is not to say that there are politicans available for election who are not good ole’ boys. I’m just saying see him for what he is and maybe lower expectations a bit. The last good man we had for President was Jimmy Carter. John Kerry is likely not a nice man.
I thought perhaps David’s television…issues…might have kept him from watching the debates. *grin*
It’s actually pretty interesting reading, especially while I’m sitting here waiting to get out of the office.
Actually, I am acquainted with a Virginia State Prosecutor in VA Beach. He’s a Bush-voting Republican (What makes him redeemable is he both studied and criticized The Federalist Papers) and worked as a page for the Democrats.
o_O
He was connected enough with the process that he learned about Clinton and Dole’s friendship. We were talking about this and he told me that in fact Kerry and Bush dispise each other. I didn’t get far enough into the conversation to ask how exactly he knew that.
MmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmAYBE!
Yeah, I don’t know if he is nice or not, but his record certainly shows habits of being a damn decent statesman, in spite of his wealth and power. Which is at least potentially promising to me…
in spite of his wealth and power.
No. Because of it. But, there are reciprocal obligations connected to that power when he taps it. He will pay the piper.
As has been pointed out by others, he did mention it commonly during debates, and also whilst stumping around the nation.
I’m actually kind of impressed by Kerry’s apparent conviction, but I’m hardly a zealous supporter. Too skeptical and suspicious of everyone for that.
Still – criticising him for not going into his plans in depth? Bah! Any plan which can be detailed sufficiently within a two minute debate spot or even a half hour rally speech isn’t going to be a functional plan. Anything of such magnitude must be involved, etc. etc.
Besides, the attention span of the american masses is such that they would never pay attention *anyway*, and would in fact lambast anyone who spelled out such a plan in functional detail for being too wordy, too brainy, too whatever. And then launch into the ‘fuck you, you fuckin’ fairy, go move to Russia’ critiques which are just oh-so-extremely sophisticated. . .
——-. Don’t mind me, just slipping unobtrusively through your journal before getting into unnecessary rant mode…
Oh, uh, hi
Let’s not forget that Kerry voted for the Patriot act, too.
That’s the main thing I can’t forgive.I am not fan of Bush, but to me, Kerry is just another version of Bush, (albeit one you can take out to public without a bib.)
Why is Ketchup money less evil than Oil money? I actually use oil.
Perhaps the necessity of it is why it is evil.
Crap. I have to leave for an appointment so will respond more fully later, but
1. Kerry is just another version of Bush
Based on what I know and have seen to date, I can’t go quite this far.
2. Why is Ketchup money less evil than Oil money?
I thought ketchup was a vegetable . . .
Well, thanks to his marrying really well, he has plenty of cash to pay the piper. I think it really gives him an advatnage. I mean, the man is connected to wealth beyond what is imaginable. And it’s ketchup. There’s no ketchup lobby! No one is going to war for ketchup!
It really means he doesn’t have to worry about being bought. He’ll do the buying.
Plus, we really need a taller president. It looks bad on tv, and we should be taller than other foreign leaders. It’s a psychological advantage.
Well, I’m pretty sure you won’t be deployed to Mexico to fight for our ketchup rights.
We’ve all seen how far an outsider gets in elections (Ross Perot, anyone?) so htere’s no point there.
catsup comes frum tuhmaytoes!
donchu know anything?
Everybody knows them tuhmaters is froot!
Dummy!
Let’s not forget that Kerry voted for the Patriot act, too.
Oh, I haven’t forgotten. A great many of those fuckers voted for the damn patriot act. Many people did stupid things after 911 (
Damn, I totally forgot to mention that in my Presidential Rants.
So fucking pissed that I went to war and my gas isnt any cheaper. what the fuck is that?
At least when Billy sent me to war, I came home to gas under a dollar a gallon.
Mmmmmm
Ketchup.
Kerry will go a long way towards earning my trust back if he helps repeal the Patriot Act.
It would be so much more entertaining if Bush was part of Best Foods money or something similar condimenty.
Damn, now I’m hungry for french fries.
That’s one of the only things i *like*. I want gas to go higher.
Higher!
Higher!
$4.00 a gallon!
hahahahahahahahahahaha
Maybe then people will start using it wisely – you know, the invisible hand of the market or some such capatlist bs.
37 entries and no examples yet.
Is there a French family fortune? The Mustard Mogul! Bush Jr should have married better, like his daddy.
Heh heh, see that proves it!
He is so vague, we can’t even quantify it.
I also understand that the anti-incumbent is always prone to making broad inclusive statements. Statements like “No New Taxes” come back to bite you in the ass. (To Un-partisan my comments a little.)
I’ve timed out everytime I’ve tried to post.
From the interview with the Advocate: Kerry, “I support civil unions. What other presidential candidate has supported civil unions?”
Check here. No mention of civil unions, gay rights, DOMA, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, nothing. All talk, no action. It doesn’t even say he’s opposed to a constitutional amendment opposing marriage defined to a man and a woman.
I mean really, he’s mentioned Maria Cheney so much, but is Kerry really doing anything to help her? Oh wait, Kerry is going to help women. So Maria will be helped because she’s a woman, NOT because she’s a lesbian.
And just a minor comment that civil unions haven’t ever been a presidential issue before. In 2000, it was Marriage, not civil unions. It wouldn’t be an issue if it wasn’t for Massachusetts (and others). So really this is the first time it’s been an issue. That to me suggest rhetoric rather than conviction.
Too Easy! I humbly suggest that you are incorrect.
From: http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/lgbt/equalrights.html
While he is a bit too soft, he is in the correct direction:
civil unions and gay rights, DOMA
Don’t Ask Don’t Tell:
Next?
I still ask, so what is he gonna do about it? What action is he taking?
Sending a real mixed message about Firearms and Second Amendment rights
http://www.ohioccw.org/article2401.html
Here is another one. Same issue.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1252390/posts
Didn’t anyone remind him about dukakis and the tank? That shit backfired on Mike.
Apparently that connection was not lost on others:
http://www.discriminations.us/storage/002721.html
Now you are being purposefully obtuse. Dude, It’s ok to be wrong. You made a claim, I showed you that you were wrong. Learn from it instead of being defensive and trying to equivocate and back-pedal. Did you even read through http://www.johnkerry.com? I mean, the LBGT stuff was super-easy to find.
What will he do? I suppose he will continue to support and promote civil rights as he has. As president it will be by suggesting legislation and/or vetoing legislation he disagrees with. It will be by requesting appointments of Judges who support the Civil Rights act of 1964. (gay rights are a subset of sexual discrimination: you cannot discriminate against someone becuase they are a male partner of a male instead of a female partner of a male)
All that is needed is the Civil Rights act of 1964 and it’s enforcement. There really isn’t anything else needed (as MS and the attempts at state constitutional ammendments have shown us).
I know you aren’t this ignorant. What is the REAL issue?
yeah, there’s some abiguity there.
Doesn’t interest me personally there though because
1. Don’t agree that 2nd ammendment give citizens rights to have guns
2. Am fine with people having guns
basically, it’s a non-issue one way or the other becasue:
1. Take off your tinfoil hat. No one is going to take your guns away.
2. Guns really don’t kill people, poverty and racism and culture wars kill people.
It’s not that big of a deal fellow Lefties. Let the crazies have their sutpid guns – it’s not an important issue. I mean — bad food kills more people than guns. What’s really important.
He’s just trying to sooth the gunTards that he’s not going to take away your shiny happy dick replacements.
Except if it’s an automatic weapon. Want one? Join the tards in the military.
Well, I’m not sure if money will exempts him. I mean there is the connection between money and power, but sometimes it’s influence that’s desired, not money. But by saying that money is not the be-all and end-all, I’m intimating that I’m not republican, so what do I know?
Plus, we really need a taller president. It looks bad on tv, and we should be taller than other foreign leaders. It’s a psychological advantage.
Heels can compensate for that. I’d pay money to see dubya in drag.
P.S. I like this icon of you too.
P.P.S. You look so hot–I can’t wait for Battlestar Galactica this December.
I’ve got a sun dried tomato-hern ketchup recipe I was thinking of making and sending you for Xmas.