or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Why should i vote [B]for[/B] Kerry?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why should i vote [B]for[/B] Kerry?

post #1 of 7
Thread Starter 
while i'm siting here in cosy central europe, awaiting my overseas ballot, i have been following the discussions here on AIAOPO a bit and find it quite surprising that all the arguments basically center on how bad the other guy is.

doesn't anyone have anything positive to say about their candidate of choice?
why should i give my vote to either of the 2 main candidates, since they seem to be nothing more than lying, deceiving, two-faced power-hungry monsters that will be the downfall of the human race?

so, please help me out folks and post your arguments pro kerry in this thread (there is another one for the pro bush arguments).

oh, and please: no bickering, no counter-arguments! there is plenty of that in the other threads ... just plain positive talk about each candidate!
post #2 of 7
I sort of understand where you're coming -- looking for positives instead of negatives -- but I think you're missing the fact that it's almost impossible, and perhaps not even that desirable, in a race between an incumbent and a challenger to get away from each campaign talking about what they think is wrong with the other guy.

A challenger has to express the idea that he's going to do something better than the incumbent is doing it. That he'll handle the economy better, the war in Iraq better, national security better, the environment better, etc. Well, how on earth to does a challenger point out what's better about how he'd do things without pointing out what he thinks is wrong with how things are currently being done by the incumbent?

Similarly, an incumbent can't help but express negatives about the challenger when contrasting how what he's done, and what he plans to do in a second term, are better than anything the challenger offers.

I'd definitely like to see the campaigns get away from stupid distractions, like what the candidates were doing 30 years ago, but I have no problem with honest negative commentary on the plans and records of one candidate by the other.

My personal feelings about Bush are such that "anybody but Bush" (within reason) is a perfectly adequate stance. I consider Bush so incompetent, so mindlessly ideological, and so dishonest that any of Kerry's good qualities are merely icing on the cake when it comes to why I want Kerry to replace Bush.

For example, I'd like to know: How could I, to your "be positive" standards, express why I think Kerry has a better chance of making things better in Iraq, without pointing out what a mess Bush has made of Iraq?

You have to know what's wrong about Bush's handling Iraq before you even have a reason to want someone new handling Iraq. You have to have some negative-sounding information, which can't help but be very anti-Bush, in order to get past the rosy-tinted spin the Bushies try to paint about Iraq, in order to even know there's a serious mess that needs cleaning up, and to realize that, no matter how difficult (and perhaps even impossible) the job of fixing Iraq is, that it's better to hand that ugly job over to someone with a new approach, rather than leave the job in the hands of the man who created the mess in the first place.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #3 of 7
Thread Starter 
thanx for your thoughts shetline,
however, the war in Iraq - while certainly a high-profile issue - it is not the only one that will be shaped by the next president.
but even if we stick with the topic of Iraq, as the numerous threads on this matter have shown the discussion tends to deteriorate into nitpicking about whether any given source of information is trustworthy or not. and what is blatantly missing is a (civilized) discussion about the broader perspetive: foreign policy.

so, in the case of my request, a Kerry advocate might say:
one of the positive things about Kerry is that he understands the importance of solving international problems through international decisions. that he acknowledges the need to rely on the expertise and abide by the decisions of international agencies/institutions in order to create a safer world. etc.

whereas a Bush supporter might say:
one of the positive things about Bush is that he understands that the cumbersome decision-making of international institutions is no longer an adequate means of dealing with the problems of our fast-paced world. that the goal of security justifies the means of swift unilateral military actions. etc.

the idea is to keep the 2 sides apart to avoid the usual scream-fest that these threads deteriorate into. instead, each side gets to paint a comprehensive picture of their candidate.

well, it was just a thought ...
post #4 of 7
Personally, I wish Kerry would take the same position Howard Dean took during the primaries. I realize he has adopted a lot of Dean's rhetoric, but he's not delivering it decisively or appropriately. This is why I supported Dean and not Kerry.

But I also believe in what Clinton said: it's okay to fall in love with your candidate during the primaries, but during the general you need to fall in line. While I'm not "in love" with Kerry, I grow to like him more every day. The more mud that gets thrown at him the more it strengthens my resolve.

Unfortunately, when it comes to Iraq, we are already there and have already opened Pandora's box. So Kerry's in an unenviable position of being damned if he does and damn if he doesn't. But let's not forget that this is Bush's mess. I don't envy any future president who inherits this quandary.

I don't know what "police matter" means. If by "police" you mean that we will use covert actions, political maneuvers, stealth special forces and surgical strikes then I would say yes. If by "police" you're referring to a toothless security guard that only barks up the UN tree, then no. I also believe Kerry will make Afghanistan a priority again (this is very important to me and a place where I would've support spending $100-200B).

But here's the fundamental reason I HAVE to vote for a Democrat for president. Bush has painted himself into a corner with regard to the world stage. We cannot afford to fight the war on terror with only our blood and treasure. It was the United States responsibility to rally the world and remind them that this is everyone's problem.

Bush tried to do this. But he failed miserably.

His personality and styles alone alienates much of Europe (whose treasure we need the most). His inability to articulate his policy alienates the rest. His stubbornness has only exacerbated the problem. This is where John Kerry comes in.

I truly, truly believe that the world will re-embrace the United States once a more liberal, more democratic president is re-instated into the oval office. I know you don't agree, but I believe this to core of my being. This is where Kerry would be more successful than Howard Dean. I know that Kerry's been taking a lot of cheap shots about his bourgeoisie way, but this is truly an asset in world politics.

[note: previous posted in another thread]
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #5 of 7
Crawford, Texas Paper ENDORSES KERRY

Excerpts from The Lonestar Iconoclast:


Kerry Will Restore American Dignity

2004 Iconoclast Presidential Endorsement

Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would:
  • Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.
  • Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans' benefits and military pay.
  • Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent.
  • Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure.
  • Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids.
  • Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and
  • Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay.

These were elements of a hidden agenda that surfaced only after he took office.

The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda.

Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry, based not only on the things that Bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to normality that Kerry says our country needs.

<edit>

In those dark hours after the World Trade Center attacks, Americans rallied together with a new sense of patriotism. We were ready to follow Bush's lead through any travail.

He let us down.

When he finally emerged from his hide-outs on remote military bases well after the first crucial hours following the attack, he gave sound-bytes instead of solutions.

<edit>

Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction trained on America. We believed him, just as we believed it when he reported that Iraq was the heart of terrorism. We trusted him.

The Iconoclast, the President's hometown newspaper, took Bush on his word and editorialized in favor of the invasion. The newspaper's publisher promoted Bush and the invasion of Iraq to Londoners in a BBC interview during the time that the administration was wooing the support of Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Again, he let us down.

Once and for all, George Bush was President of the United States on that day. No one else. He had been President nine months, he had been officially warned of just such an attack a full month before it happened. As President, ultimately he and only he was responsible for our failure to avert those attacks.

We should expect that a sitting President would vacation less, if at all, and instead tend to the business of running the country, especially if he is, as he likes to boast, a "wartime president." America is in service 365 days a year. We don't need a part-time President who does not show up for duty as Commander-In-Chief until he is forced to, and who is in a constant state of blameless denial when things don't get done.

<edit>

Kerry's four-point plan for Iraq is realistic, wise, strong, and correct. With the help from our European and Middle Eastern allies, his plan is to train Iraqi security forces, involve Iraqis in their rebuilding and constitution-writing processes, forgive Iraq's multi-billion dollar debts, and convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq's borders and non-interference in Iraq's internal affairs.

<edit>

The re-election of George W. Bush would be a mandate to continue on our present course of chaos. We cannot afford to double the debt that we already have. We need to be moving in the opposite direction.

John Kerry has 30 years of experience looking out for the American people and can navigate our country back to prosperity and re-instill in America the dignity she so craves and deserves. He has served us well as a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and has had a successful career as a district attorney, lieutenant governor, and senator.

Kerry has a positive vision for America, plus the proven intelligence, good sense, and guts to make it happen.

That's why The Iconoclast urges Texans not to rate the candidate by his hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to take the country.

The Iconoclast wholeheartedly endorses John Kerry.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #6 of 7
I believe Kerry will handle the Iraq mess more effectively than Bush, and I agree with his position on the war (1). I like how he's not afraid to talk about what's really going on in Iraq.

I really, really like the following portion of his education plan:
Quote:
Offer National Service Opportunities.
John Kerry will make a new deal with hundreds of thousands of young people: If you will serve America for two years-working in a school, a health center, or strengthening America's security-we will make sure you can attend four years of college tuition-free. (2)

He did an interview with MTV where he talks about this, and he seems to genuinely care about getting kids to work in the community (3).

(1) http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky...04/9743494.htm
(2) http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/education/college.html
(3) http://www.johnkerry.com/video/playe...4_chooseorlose
post #7 of 7
Health Care.

1. Kerry proposes to let the government absorb catastrophic costs. These are the reason for most medical bankrupcies (which account for almost half of all bankrupcies) and, when the insurer does pay, raise premiums substantially for the rest of us. It's a brilliant idea, and it will very directly improve the lives of millions of Americans - those who no longer have to worry about an accident or a sudden illness leaving them bankrupt.

2. Kerry proposes to require Medicare to negotiate lower prices with pharamceutical companies as part of the new benefit. He also proposes to permit re-importation of drugs. Both will go a long, long way to reducing the absurd premiums we Americans (and only we Americans) pay for our drugs.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Why should i vote [B]for[/B] Kerry?