John Kerry

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Imported, Feb 17, 2005.

  1. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    carolinacurious: This was inspired by Onslow in the Negroponte thread where he said:

    I thought it might be better to break this out into its own thread.

    So here's my question. What was so bad about Kerry? IMO he wasn't perfect but few are. I'm trying to figure out if the reasons people didn't like Kerry had any basis in reality. Most of the reasons I've heard so far had much more to do with 20 year old (largely inaccurate even then) stereotypes of Democrats than they had to do with the man. But I'm listening.
     
  2. KinkGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,976
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    southwest US
    There really wasn't anything "wrong" with Kerry. Don't forget, 49% of the country really did vote for him; 51% voted for bush, which is still at the very least, questionable.

    It all boils down to a VERY negative and indefensible media onslaught, largely made up of untruths and outright lies. If you say something often enough and loud enough, it becomes "truth." But hey, it's easier than thinking for ones self.

    The White House is for sale and the guy(s) with the most money, "win".

    And people say they aren't influenced by advertising and mass media. Hah.
     
  3. lapdog2001

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Albums:
    5
    Likes Received:
    2,922
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Massachusetts (US)
    I ran into a guy that believed that 100% of what the so-called 'swift boat veterans' said was the truth! He wouldn't hear it when I tried to tell him the US Navy backed up Kerry's medal paperwork and that the 'leader' of that bunch of blowhards was awarded a Bronze Star for the same type of rescue Kerry did, in the same battle, and his record says he was under enemy fire. He now claims 40+ years later that his record is wrong and that he just never did anything about it. NONE of the swifty group actually served on Kerry's boat at the same time as Kerry, and most weren't even part of the same group of boats. They were founded by a man that has hated Kerry since he protested the Viet Nam war decades ago. It was, and is, strictly a personal vendetta. against Kerry.

    LapDog
     
  4. KinkGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,976
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    southwest US
    Bought and paid for by the neocons and the GOP.
     
  5. jonb

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,308
    Likes Received:
    2
    Yanno, I actually got spam from the Swifties because I apparently saw him in Vietnam.
     
  6. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    carolinacurious: Don't get me wrong, I pretty much agree with all the responses so far and everyone is welcome to post in this thread but what I was really looking for, at least at first, was the Bush supporters opinions and even moreso, the people who weren't really crazy about Bush but still couldn't bring themselves to vote for Kerry. It's hard for me to understand how Bush got 5% much less 51%.

    I mean, I know the the NYT, the supposed bastion of the "liberal" media was by and large the paper that got us into the Iraq war. I know Chris Matthews a supposed "liberal media" poster boy thinks Reagan was awesome and couldn't lavish enough praise on the latest State of the Union.

    But I also know that there are presumably thinking people who ardently believe that we really have a liberal media, and they believe the wool has been pulled over my eyes because I believe that we don't.

    I don't think Onslow has any personal vendetta against Kerry, and the Swift Boat nonsense and so much of the rest of the negative campaigning was so transparent it's hard to understand how it got any traction despite the repetition, so I'm curious if there are other reasons that aren't apparent to me.

    So I'm asking Onslow and others into the "lions den" to try to help me see some reason that is invisible to me now. I'm certainly not going to promise not to attempt to debunk things that I believe can be debunked, but I will try to remain civil.

    I'm right there with you Kinkguy but if the lies were so obvious to us, why weren't they obvious to enough others? People who get all their news from the networks can be forgiven for not knowing much about what's going on although I'm not sure how much longer they can be forgiven for getting all their news from the networks. But what about people who get the majority of their news from the internet? I mean WTF?
     
  7. jonb

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,308
    Likes Received:
    2
    I don't know if Onslow has any personal vendetta against Kerry; I do know that most of Bush's supporters didn't know anything about either candidate. (Speaking of the PIPA report, a guy on Wikipedia tried to claim that the report saying so many Bush supporters thought Saddam had WMDs was proof Saddam had WMDs.)
     
  8. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    carolinacurious:
    One of my personal "favorites" these days are the Repub. Congressmen who keep trotting out the quote about the percentage of people under 40 who don't believe that there will be any Social Security money left for them when they retire, AS IF they ever gave a flying fuck about what the "unwashed masses" had to say about anything before. I'm generally all for listening to the people but come on, "We've mislead these people and now were going to quote them as if it was fact, AND take their word over all the people and experts who actually do understand something about the system," puh-leeze!

    If I could get one thing out to people, about domestic policy anyway, it would be about Social Security. Yes, SS does have some problems (problems that were fixed in 83 (ho hum)) and in a perfect world it would be better to fix them sooner than later, (the huge tax increase on the working poor and middle class was a bitter pill to swallow back then but IF it hadn't all been pissed away there would be NO SS problem right now and it was cheaper than any possible solution can be now) but we don't live in a perfect world AND BUSHCO is not the team to "fix" Social Security! For goodness sake they're pissing away the money from the last "fix" right now! I'm fully aware that the Democrats aren't guilt free when it comes to this mess, but really, the Republicans don't even mention the previous fix, and they sure don't point out that they're stealing it and creating the very crisis that they claim they need to solve RIGHT NOW!
     
  9. Freddie53

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,285
    Likes Received:
    60
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The South, USA
    I was an ardent supporter of Kerry. But I listened to those that were for Bush. I live in an area that the Democratic Party is still the majority party except for the Bush/Kerry election. This is what the Bushites told me:

    1. Kerry's wife. That couldn't accept her as a first lady
    3. In a war. In the South many are going to back the President if our troops are over there. It is hard to get them to even consider voting against the President. To vote for anyone but the President durng a war is unpatriotic no matter what the circumstances are.
    4. Kerry questioned aspects of the war. That menat he was an anti American. Even if he had been a hawk on the war proposing widningthe war and all, that is going against policy which translates in the South as. "Not supporting our troups."
    5. If you havn't caught what I am saying, most Bush people around here have "Support our troops." somewhere on their vehhicle. And guess who is commander in chief of the troops? President of the United States.
    6. Kerry was a Catholic who had been banned by his church from Communion plus he was from New England. That was a disaster for the Redneck South. Bush on the other hand wore his cowboy hat proudly. Not sure he really knew which side was the front, but his aides did so he came across as the simple cowhand he was not.

    Had there been no war, Bush would not have carried the South and Midwest like he did. That was one of the reasons for war, reelection to the White House.

    All this is based on what Bushites have said to me over the past months.


     
  10. BobLeeSwagger

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,481
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    I kind of doubt that a New Englander would have carried much of the South anyway. For better or worse, he just wouldn't understand them. Clinton does, but Kerry can't.

    I really think the main reasons Kerry lost are:

    1) Very few members of each party are changing their mind these days. They're slaves to parties that take them for granted. I've met some Republicans who were astonished to find out that Bush spends their tax money much more freely than Clinton did. And I've met Democrats who believe everything that MoveOn.org says without investigating it for themselves. They've decided what side they're on and they don't let facts get in the way of that.

    2) Kerry is just not a very charismatic guy, and therefore, not a great candidate. When there are very few undecided voters, it's tough to win that way.

    I do think there's something to the "Support the Troops" mantra that Freddie mentioned. A lot of the same people think that Clinton ruined the U.S. military, that Reagan's defense spending was the only thing that defeated the Soviet Union, and that it's un-American to oppose a war when our troops are in the line of fire. They believe any alleged indignity against an American soldier and seem outraged that others don't share it.

    My dad told me about one of his coworkers who was a real Bush fanatic. My dad was telling him how my brother was sent back to his army base in Germany after about 10 months in Iraq. The coworker asked if his soldier son was a Bush supporter. My dad: "No fucking way." He was baffled by that response. My dad, who had served in Vietnam, explained that soldiers commonly dislike the civilian leaders that sent them to war and away from their families, especially if it's controversial or they don't have all the materials they need to do the job. Often this isn't even a matter of partisanship. The guy was incredulous, said that Bush was a great commander-in-chief and why wouldn't they be enthusiastic about liberating Iraqis. It went downhill from there.
     
  11. jonb

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,308
    Likes Received:
    2
    I had no idea GeeDuhbya's native Connecticut wasn't part of New England. But most Bushies didn't know he was from Connecticut, much like they didn't know he was against the Kyoto Protocol.
     
  12. Onslow

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    3
    Why Bush over Kerry?
    It goes back to Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. It's the Rebublican approach as opposed to the Democratic approach. The Democrats say they will help but never do. The Republicans make clear from the start they are going to put the screws to you and that it will be painful but that's the way it's going to be. Examples? Clinton signing the Welfare Reform Bill in 1996 as added ammunition to win re-election. The sad thing here is he was never going to lose against Bob Dole, even I had no intention of voting for Dole (I abstained that year). Health care was another joke. Clinton was first elected on a platform which included telling the people that he would do nothing until a comprehensive health care plan was instated for everyone. He then handed it over to Hillary who created something which was summarily rejected and rather than negotiate, Clinton abandoned health care as an issue completely. He never again returned to it. Why would this make me a supporter of the Democrats?

    Kerry may have been attempting to present a particular appearance but the perpetual scowl was just too much. Add to this that Kerry could never stay on one side of an issue, he went from A to B to C to D and then back to B and then to D and so on. The inability to stay in one spot on any issue became infuriating to many people.

    My initial vote for Junior was based on the idea that he seemed to suround himself with knowlegeable people, people who it now turns out are clearly psychotic (I present exhibit A-Condoleeza Rice, look at her and tell me she doesn't scare you). Sadly after the second election results came in Bush went somewhat berserk and whatever connection to reality he had before then rapidly vanished. I still think that issues such as the WMDs were completely believed by Junior (he also believes in Santa Claus and the Easter bunny so...). However all this aside I still cannot find in myself any urge or reason to (if the election werre held again today) to vote for Kerry. Where was Kerry on gay rights? Bush made clear he doesn't want them, Kerry turned into a wishy-washy 'let's play both sides' ninny.
    On issue after issue I just could never find Kerry maintaining a solid stance and even though I often felt Bush was not completely on my side with an issue I never felt he was just attempting to garner votes. Could I have been wrong?
    As to the Iraq situation Kerry offered no solutions and since we were already embroiled in that chaotic disaster I didn't feel it would make sense to change leadership in midstream.

    At any rate the election has passed, I am disappointed to say the least with the people surounding Bush in round two since they don't seem nearly as sane as his first crew (Ashcroft excluded on the sane part). Disappointed, most definitely but I would still not be able to vote for Kerry, I guess the damage of the Clinton years is more severe than some people know.
     
  13. Pecker

    Pecker Retired Moderator
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    83,922
    Likes Received:
    34
    By and large the average American's exposure to the Presidential candidates over the loooonnnnnng campaign was limited to a couple of "debates," 527's and a whole lot of 20-second soundbites.

    Middle America formed its opinions, not from all that "information" that the candidates and their supporters paid big $$ for.

    Rather, it was the partisan political pundits that innundated TV news, specials and talking-head shows that cemented voters' decisions. Their proclivity for exaggeration, vitreol and just plain lies were a constant presence on the airwaves for months and months.

    Think about it. Had the candidates been able to bring their messages to the voters without all that background pundit-bickering (which ended up in the foreground) perhaps the outcome may have been different.

    As it is, a few more voted for Mr. Bush - the known commodity - rather than Mr. Kerry.

    Will civility ever return to the political process?
     
  14. KinkGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,976
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    southwest US
    If there ever is a legitimate "process" again, I doubt it. You stick with what works.
     
  15. BobLeeSwagger

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,481
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    I had no idea GeeDuhbya's native Connecticut wasn't part of New England. But most Bushies didn't know he was from Connecticut, much like they didn't know he was against the Kyoto Protocol.
    [post=284277]Quoted post[/post]​
    [/b][/quote]

    Bush has successfully cultivated his Southernness to the point that no one cares that he wasn't born there. He learned his lesson when he lost his first congressional race to someone that "outcowboyed" him.
     
  16. jonb

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,308
    Likes Received:
    2
    I think Kerry's problem was that he was too moderate. This doesn't allow one to energize an electorate. I mean, take Iraq. In light of mountains of evidence, he should've taken the chance to distinguish himself from Bush by saying the Iraq war was a mistake.

    Kerry also didn't seize on the moment to ask Bush about his connections to the Swifties and other "attack Kerry" 527s.
     
  17. KinkGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,976
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    southwest US
    jonb, but explain why the Dems were so soft? There were literally hundreds of lies and untruths told and stated, yet the candidate nor the party ever called anyone on it. Why did they decide to take such a moderate, gentle and non-defensive path when every day bombs were being dropped on them? I don't get it.
     
  18. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    clownboots19: you guys (left-wingers) are impossible..much more of these sour (loser) grapes and I may have to bring back the only man to set you guys straight,...the previously banned LPSG member, and the only LPSG member ever banned based on his strong political (conservative) views, YoungNHung19...
     
  19. Pecker

    Pecker Retired Moderator
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    83,922
    Likes Received:
    34
    So who are you? Clark Kent?

    Come to think of it, have you noticed, brethren, that we never see clownboots19 and YoungNHung19 on the board at the same time? :eek:
     
  20. KinkGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,976
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    southwest US
    Thank the Gods.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted