John Kerry is not better than Bush

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
http://slate.msn.com/id/2094399/



He's a typical special-interest Democrat that votes in the driection of whatever way the wind is blowing. He's recieved more money from lobbyists than any Senator in the past 15 years.



Exchanging one liar for another is not progress.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 32
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Given your standards, name someone who is better. Someone who doesn't like tax shelters for corporations and who runs an open government, ferinstance.
  • Reply 2 of 32
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    So you've shattered your illusion of purity in politics. Welcome to the real world.
  • Reply 3 of 32
    homhom Posts: 1,098member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    Given your standards, name someone who is better. Someone who doesn't like tax shelters for corporations and who runs an open government, ferinstance.



    John Edwards. He's for closing off shore tax shelters, hasn't taken a dime from lobbyists, and has a very strong policy proposal for making the lobbying process more open i.e. stopping the revolving door from Congress to lobbyist.
  • Reply 4 of 32
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    Kerry is better than Bush on at least one fact.





    He's not Bush.
  • Reply 5 of 32
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    1. Kerry=Bush

    2. Gays, guns, religion.

    3. Bush wins.



    It's all in the playbook, people.
  • Reply 6 of 32
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Latest match-up poll:



    Kerry = 51%, Bush 43%. None of the other Dems are beating Bush.



    To be honest, I really don't know what the hell happened to make everyone fall in love with Kerry in the last month.
  • Reply 7 of 32
    Quote:

    Originally posted by HOM

    John Edwards. He's for closing off shore tax shelters, hasn't taken a dime from lobbyists, and has a very strong policy proposal for making the lobbying process more open i.e. stopping the revolving door from Congress to lobbyist.



    Don't make me laugh. Maybe not dimes, but certainly large checks.



    http://www.opensecrets.org/president...283&cycle=2004



    John Edwards, who claims to come from humble backgrounds and fight for the poor, never did any pro-bono work (free, charity, etc..) when we was a trail lawyer fighting against corporations and making millions.
  • Reply 8 of 32
    homhom Posts: 1,098member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Existence

    Don't make me laugh. Maybe not dimes, but certainly large checks.



    http://www.opensecrets.org/president...283&cycle=2004



    John Edwards, who claims to come from humble backgrounds and fight for the poor, never did any pro-bono work (free, charity, etc..) when we was a trail lawyer fighting against corporations and making millions.




    Right, and where does that show that he took any money from lobbyists?



    http://www.JohnEdwards2004.com/clean...washington.asp
  • Reply 9 of 32
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Existence

    Exchanging one liar for another is not progress.



    If your only standard is absolute sainthood, I guess there isn't much difference between Kerry and Bush. But short of Diogenes-finds-his-man honesty, there are degrees of honesty to think about.



    My impression so far is that, while less than perfect, Kerry is a more honest than Bush, and (more inspiring of trust for me) he's more driven by thoughtful analysis of particular issues than by ideology and cynical Karl Rove-like political calculations.



    And even apart from that, I'd much rather have a scoundrel who's pushing a policy agenda that's good for the public than a sincere saint driving the country in the wrong direction.
  • Reply 10 of 32
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by HOM

    John Edwards. He's for closing off shore tax shelters, hasn't taken a dime from lobbyists, and has a very strong policy proposal for making the lobbying process more open i.e. stopping the revolving door from Congress to lobbyist.



    I like Edwards more than Kerry. I'd also prefer Clark over Kerry. I'd prefer Lieberman, but he's out. My only hope now is that Dean, from 4th place, will suicide bomb Kerry and people will put Edwards or Clark in.
  • Reply 11 of 32
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Kerry has Bush squarely beat in at least one area: the ability to think things through on his feet and speak intelligently about them without having to reherse first. IQ must count for something. Furthermore, I wager the cabinet Kerry would put into place would be easier to stomach than the one we currently have.



    I am however, concerned about any election where the alternatives are different in name only and party name only. Lot's of these guys take money from corporations, that's how they beat down all the other candidates of equal ideals, but who refused special interest money.



    It's a big game, and let's face it, everyone on Capital Hill knows how to play it, or they wouldn't be there. Likeable in their ideas / votes, or not.



    As for Edwards, the guy was a bigshot malpractice lawyer. You could argue very convincingly, that his ilk are the biggest single reason healthcare costs are so out of control (though certainly not the only reason). And there was a NYT editorial (I believe) a day or two ago that pointed out how he *has* taken special interest money during his political career. So the real trick is to see whether he will persist in his comments about "taking no money", or if he will be a little more honest about it and explain it / give it context.



    That would impress me a lot more than denying it.
  • Reply 12 of 32
    homhom Posts: 1,098member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Moogs

    As for Edwards, the guy was a bigshot malpractice lawyer. You could argue very convincingly, that his ilk are the biggest single reason healthcare costs are so out of control (though certainly not the only reason). And there was a NYT editorial (I believe) a day or two ago that pointed out how he *has* taken special interest money during his political career. So the real trick is to see whether he will persist in his comments about "taking no money", or if he will be a little more honest about it and explain it / give it context.



    That would impress me a lot more than denying it.




    Maybe we should have an Edwards thread and not derail this Kerry thread, but one last comment. He said that he hasn't taken money from lobbyists, I take that to mean registered lobbyists. I think that it's a loaded phrase to indicate that he is free from special interest moneys which he is not. However, after reading his "Cleaning Up Washington" policies, he seems to really have a good set of ideas to add more transparencies to political system.
  • Reply 13 of 32
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    Latest match-up poll:



    Kerry = 51%, Bush 43%. None of the other Dems are beating Bush.



    To be honest, I really don't know what the hell happened to make everyone fall in love with Kerry in the last month.




    You took the words right out of my...um...fingers. I don´t get it either.



    Kerry seems like the candidate that will fall into the Washington rigorious trap. If he wins both elections I have a feeling that he will be remembered as "president who?" No real ideas at all and no karma whatsoever. He´ll be a great administrator but is that really what you elect presidents to do? He need that vision thing.



    At least Edwards emits energy and Dean vision (even if it looks a bit unpolished and raw). Kerry emits bureaucracy.
  • Reply 14 of 32
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Quote:

    From HOM:

    He said that he hasn't taken money from lobbyists, I take that to mean registered lobbyists. I think that it's a loaded phrase to indicate that he is free from special interest moneys which he is not.



    Right... I think that is essentially correct. He's playing the words and hoping people are dumb enough (which by and large they are) to buy it sight unseen. Once they sick Jim Lehrer on him in a debate or PBS telecast, he'll have to own up.



    As for derailing, I hereby promise to speak no more of this thing they call Edwards, in this, the almost-greatest of all Kerry threads.



  • Reply 15 of 32
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Man I think the threads on this subject range from the laughable to the pathetic! All I can say is the conservatives must be worried if they have to go to this much trouble. As groverat would say : " Politics as usual ".
  • Reply 16 of 32
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Moogs

    Kerry has Bush squarely beat in at least one area: the ability to think things through on his feet and speak intelligently about them without having to reherse first. IQ must count for something. Furthermore, I wager the cabinet Kerry would put into place would be easier to stomach than the one we currently have.



    I am however, concerned about any election where the alternatives are different in name only and party name only. Lot's of these guys take money from corporations, that's how they beat down all the other candidates of equal ideals, but who refused special interest money.



    It's a big game, and let's face it, everyone on Capital Hill knows how to play it, or they wouldn't be there. Likeable in their ideas / votes, or not.



    As for Edwards, the guy was a bigshot malpractice lawyer. You could argue very convincingly, that his ilk are the biggest single reason healthcare costs are so out of control (though certainly not the only reason). And there was a NYT editorial (I believe) a day or two ago that pointed out how he *has* taken special interest money during his political career. So the real trick is to see whether he will persist in his comments about "taking no money", or if he will be a little more honest about it and explain it / give it context.



    That would impress me a lot more than denying it.




    Look, when you're stuck with the worst possible scenerio anything looks better.
  • Reply 17 of 32
    so the elections gonna be: "X Democrat is no better than Bush. Lets keep our mediocre president."

    this nation has gone to hell.



    when rome falls.
  • Reply 18 of 32
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    when rome falls.



    It took over 1000 years for the Roman Empire to finally fall....
  • Reply 19 of 32
    ok. the french republic has been through what 7 incarnations in the last 200 years.



    its just an expression.
  • Reply 20 of 32
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    So you've shattered your illusion of purity in politics. Welcome to the real world.



    <neo>"You mean, none of this is real?"</neo>
Sign In or Register to comment.