The Official John Kerry Thread
Discuss:
1. His real war record and support for the military, including his participation in an anti-war group.
2. His APPEARANCE changing. When I saw this, I first thought Matt Drudge was insane. But look at the pictures...something is VERY different. He had to have somethng done. His wife has had botox, by the way.
3. His chances at the nomination.
4. His chances of defeating Bush.
5. Overall strengths and weaknesses.
I'll be back. Time to go do some actual work.
1. His real war record and support for the military, including his participation in an anti-war group.
2. His APPEARANCE changing. When I saw this, I first thought Matt Drudge was insane. But look at the pictures...something is VERY different. He had to have somethng done. His wife has had botox, by the way.
3. His chances at the nomination.
4. His chances of defeating Bush.
5. Overall strengths and weaknesses.
I'll be back. Time to go do some actual work.
Comments
It's way too early to figure out what his chances at the nomination are. We'll know more on Tuesday, but 2 wins does not wrap it up by any means. Tuesday is a big day, but Kerry won't run the gauntlet. Clark is up in Oklahoma and Arizona, Edwards is up in South Carolina, etc.
If Edwards gets beat in South Carolina, and if Howard Dean doesn't win anything, their campagins are in trouble. They've spent huge amounts of money to consistently lose.
If Kerry is the nominee, however, he'll have a decent shot at beating Bush. He'll have to defend his voting record, and defend his positions behind his votes to be successful. If he wins the nomination, he'll have a tough time in the south, but he has a chance of winning New Hampshire and West Virginia, and if he wins those 2 states, he can win the election.
More later, I still think that Clark is our best chance.
2. Typical attempt by Drudge at character assasination. He's had prostate cancer and and surgery in the past 18 months. He had a very nasty cold/flu about 3 months ago. No doubt his health is simply better today than it was 3 months ago.
3. High
4. Low
5. Strengths: Smarter than Bush, etc... has stolen several of Dean's lines
Weaknesses: voted with Bush for political reasons. He will seem boring, slimy, ineffective and weak minded.
Well, that settles it then...
Originally posted by ShawnJ
NO, TALK ABOUT THE ISSUES, SDW.
That would be telling!
Don't get me wrong, there's a 99% chance I'd vote for him over Bush, but he'd be about 4th on my list for the primaries if I lived in one of the next set of states.
He is tall though. My wife says that's important.
Big ****ing deal. The guy can have all the work done that he wants. How this is important or relevant in any way is definitely something that needs to be explained to me.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
This thread has not the right title. I don't see how this thread is Official. I think that it's the official SDW 2001 Jonh Kerry Thread
b/c I have made it "official" by calling it "official". That's pretty much my whole case.
Now to Kerry again:
On his appearance, I'm not saying it matters. I think it's just interesting how different he looks. And I'm telling you...when I first saw the Drudge thing...I was like "wow...that's crazy". But then I saw more pictures on other sites and geez...the guy REALLY looks a heck of a lot different.
His military experience and experience with Veterans Against the Vietnam War (I'm sorry I don't have the exact name) could play a factor. That group got fairly extreme in my understanding, and he was part of it.
Shawn, as far as issues, what should we discuss? I know you disagree with the President on a great number of things, but what can Kerry use to his advantage? He might get some leverage out of the job market...but that depends. Running on the economy is going to be hard....as will running on Iraq deaths....especially since he voted for the war. He's not going to live that down easily, and his explanation of "I voted for only the threat of force" is just ridiculous. He won't be able to run on medicare, no matter how bad the bill is. What's left? The environment? "Bush destroying international relations"? The deficit? He's going to need a real message and agenda...what will it be?
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. His real war record and support for the military
I worry about this. Rove & crew managed to successfully tar John McCain as unstable, and Max Cleland as a coward. So what if Kerry was wounded in combat three times, and once led his boat into the teeth of a Viet Cong ambush, leapt off, and personally shot one of the ambushers, putting himself at great personal risk and winning a bronze star? He's still a cowardly, insane, efete, eastern liberal. Meanwhile, Dubya looks good in a flight suit and lands on aircraft carriers. Yea, there's a real man's man!
I really really hope the media makes a serious issue of these guys' respective military service records. Especially if it means giving Dubya's alleged Vietnam-dodging and AWOL'ing a full airing in the mainstream media. It'll never happen, but I can dream. Instead, I imagine we'll be treated to lots of replays of Kerry throwing his medals away at a protest, and of Flight-Suit "Top-Gun" Bush thronged by sailors.
Nice article about Kerry's anti-war activism here.
Originally posted by Towel
I worry about this. Rove & crew managed to successfully tar John McCain as unstable, and Max Cleland as a coward. So what if Kerry was wounded in combat three times, and once led his boat into the teeth of a Viet Cong ambush, leapt off, and personally shot one of the ambushers, putting himself at great personal risk and winning a bronze star? He's still a cowardly, insane, efete, eastern liberal. Meanwhile, Dubya looks good in a flight suit and lands on aircraft carriers. Yea, there's a real man's man!
kerry could show up at the debates with his purple hearts in a box under his podium, and if the president questioned his patriotism he could whip 'em out and say "i got three hearts, whaddya you got?"
i don't think president bush will go near that issue face to face, it will all be done via innuendo and third parties.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Discuss:
1. His real war record and support for the military, including his participation in an anti-war group.
....
Support for the military? Hummmm? I heard and interesting run down of the weapons systems Kerry voted against. Things like the Apache, the M1 tank, tomahawk cruse missile, B1 B2 F15 F16 ... He also voted time and again to cut the military spending and gut the effectiveness of the armed forces.
Sounds like bad judgment to me.
Originally posted by Scott
Support for the military? Hummmm? I heard and interesting run down of the weapons systems Kerry voted against. Things like the Apache, the M1 tank, tomahawk cruse missile, B1 B2 F15 F16 ... He also voted time and again to cut the military spending and gut the effectiveness of the armed forces.
Sounds like bad judgment to me.
That's what I'm saying. He's not Mr. War Hero.
Originally posted by SDW2001
That's what I'm saying. He's not Mr. War Hero.
Then one wonders why he is trying to pass himself off as one.
Sure, he served in Vietnam and it seems everyone knows about his gunboat story (parallels with a certain Kennedy anyone?) but is he really still the gung-ho war hero?
And I'm also not trying to suggest that we need a gung-ho war hero in the Oval Office.
Originally posted by Scott
Support for the military? Hummmm? I heard and interesting run down of the weapons systems Kerry voted against. Things like the Apache, the M1 tank, tomahawk cruse missile, B1 B2 F15 F16 ... He also voted time and again to cut the military spending and gut the effectiveness of the armed forces.
Sounds like bad judgment to me.
Cutting military spending does not equal gutting the effectiveness of the armed forces. The pentagon is a stunningly wasteful bueaurcracy largely shielded from budget scrutiny by the rhetoric of "who's soft on defense", which is kept fresh by an ever changing cast of "bad guys" posited to be far, far mightier than they actually are.
Originally posted by job
Then one wonders why he is trying to pass himself off as one.
Sure, he served in Vietnam and it seems everyone knows about his gunboat story (parallels with a certain Kennedy anyone?) but is he really still the gung-ho war hero?
And I'm also not trying to suggest that we need a gung-ho war hero in the Oval Office.
I think you're confusing "war hero", a description Kerry earned by behaving heroically during a war, with "saber rattling ninny", a description bush has earned by being a saber rattling ninny.
Originally posted by SDW2001
That's what I'm saying. He's not Mr. War Hero.
Interesting. So voting to reduce Pentagon spending magically erases his actions in Veitnam, causing Sen. Kerry to retroactively lose any claim to being a war hero. It's amazing how history works. If Dean ever proposed to restructure Medicare, would they revoke his MD? Oooh, I got a good one. If Bush ran absurdly high budget deficits and proposed to reduce government revenues even further at the peak/trough of those deficits, would they retroactively kick him out of Harvard Business School?
Originally posted by Towel
Interesting. So voting to reduce Pentagon spending magically erases his actions in Veitnam, causing Sen. Kerry to retroactively lose any claim to being a war hero. It's amazing how history works. If Dean ever proposed to restructure Medicare, would they revoke his MD? Oooh, I got a good one. If Bush ran absurdly high budget deficits and proposed to reduce government revenues even further at the peak/trough of those deficits, would they retroactively kick him out of Harvard Business School?
OK..."take a pill"...as they used to say.
1. He voted to cut spending. It's going to hurt him politically.
2. He was a member of a rather extreme anti-war group.
Yet, he's portrayed by the media as some sort of gun slinging war hero. That's all I'm saying.
I won't even address your other ridiculous comments. They're just unreasonable.
Originally posted by addabox
Cutting military spending does not equal gutting the effectiveness of the armed forces. The pentagon is a stunningly wasteful bueaurcracy largely shielded from budget scrutiny by the rhetoric of "who's soft on defense", which is kept fresh by an ever changing cast of "bad guys" posited to be far, far mightier than they actually are.
Ummm...I think you left out the phrase "IN MY OPINION".
I agree there is a large amount of waste by the Pentagon. That needs to be addressed. But, at some point effectiveness IS reduced. It was certainly reduced under Bill Clinton, who cut spending dramtatically. Pilots' hours were cut back, there were practice ammo shortages and equipment was in disrepair. It absolutely affects effectiveness.