March 3, 2004 7:53 AM
Yesterday was thoroughly depressing. Today is worse.
John Kerry?
Democrats are fucking stupid. No, wait... I figured out the spin! We nominated Kerry just to show that because Bush is so bad, we can beat him with the worst possible candidate. Yeah... that's it!
But seriously, not only is Kerry a terrible candidate, Mickey Kaus makes a compelling case for just how terrible his presidency would be. "As a Democrat, I have two big fears about John Kerry. The first is that he'll lose. The second is that he'll win."
The saddest part? I'm one of the most motivated people you can find to get rid of Bush. I've spent the last year and a half documenting his lies and foreign policy agenda. What he is doing to this country terrifies me. Yet I can't imagine myself pulling the lever (or turning the jog wheel) for our nominee in November.
Kerry could really mess things up. He's gotten nearly zero meaningful legislation passed in his 20 Senate years. Two were about marine research and protecting fisheries, the other involved grants for women starting small businesses. 20 years! And this is the guy that's going to not only work with but lead, what realistically will be, a Republican-controlled Congress? At least Bush knows how to get stuff done (lie, bait-and-switch, unilateral action).
John Kerry. Fuck.
This is our nominee? (03.03.2004)
Next Entry: Iraq's 9/11. How will they respond? (03.03.2004)
Previous Entry: Comparing the misspent youth of Kerry and Bush (02.27.2004)
I'm not sure if this is just regurgitating what Dean claims he will do with his organization now but I think it is in our best interest to take our passion and anger that has been boiling over with the Bush administration and redirect that to Kerry after he wins. (assuming)
I think it would be a shame if we all just sat back on our heels after Kerry wins and think everything will be alright.
Wed Mar 3 2004 8:51 AM
Paul Stone:
It does seem unlikely that Kerry can both get elected, and serve 4 years with a Republican Congress without crashing and burning. I hope he picks a good VP, so he has someone to crib speeches off of.
Wed Mar 3 2004 10:46 AM
dhermesc:
I'm a hard core republican (no really!!) but had decided that if Edwards (first it was Lieberman) was the democratic nominee I would vote for him (no significant legislation for 4 years is better the rubber stamp Bush has been getting). John Kerry is bad enough to make me hold my nose and vote AGAINST him. The guy just pisses me off.
Although Kerry's current handling of Al Sharpton might just be enough to derail his campaign in the station. Sharpton wants the same recognition and deferance given Jesse Jackson in 1992. But no way is Kerry going to do it - especially with Jesse learning over his shoulder. Instead of gracefully stepping aside like Edwards just did I think we're going to so Al on the ballot in several key states in November.
The DNC was worried about Nader - Al is a much bigger nighmare that hasn't been dealt with yet. Sharpton may not get all that many votes - but he might also drive away several black voters that won't vote against him. When about 8% of the voters decide the election every point counts.
Wed Mar 3 2004 11:53 AM
Ryan:
Please. John Kerry is not the worst possible candidate in terms of the goal of beating the incumbent. It was him or Edwards, and that Kerry crushed his only real opponent by so great a margin does not indicate that democrats are "fucking stupid." At worst it means they are uninformed as to where and by whom this election will really be decided, (swing votes). In this day when the average citizen doesn't know what's really going on, or who really has the better chance of getting elected, who can blame them for this ignorance?
For example, you seem to have seen Edwards as the more electable. Yet, like Kerry, Edwards' electibility is perceived, not real. Neither man has been elected yet; we are all only making informed predictions. I say to you: are you so sure your reasoning is so much stronger than everyone else's? I don't mean you should bow to the popular belief. But I suggest you consider while you ponder if you could pull the lever for Kerry.
It's time to get behind the nominee whether we like it or not.
Wed Mar 3 2004 1:54 PM
I can blame democrats for their "ignorance" on Kerry's electability when the only reason they voted for Kerry was because they thought he was more electable. I could deal with this if they voted for him because they liked him or his message or whatever. What infuriates me is that they voted for him for no other reason than they thought he was electable! And why do they think he's electable? Because he can "go toe-to-toe with Bush on national security." Why!? Because he saved someone's life in Vietnam? Huh? He has yet to manage much of anything in his life, or lead in any real capacity, and now he's going to lead the country because he saved some guy's life?
Yes, I'm absolutely sure my reasoning is far stronger than theirs.
And another thing. I'm sick of this "it's time to get behind the nominee" crap. Don't stray from the Democratic party line, no sir. Isn't that stifling dissent? Sorry, doesn't fly with me.
This is colossaly stupid, and I'm pissed.
Wed Mar 3 2004 2:19 PM
dhermesc:
""it's time to get behind the nominee" crap. Don't stray from the Democratic party line, no sir. Isn't that stifling dissent? Sorry, doesn't fly with me."
That's why a Sharpton run could be so damaging. Some of the democratic voters might not be so inclined to get behind Kerry just for the sake of toeing the party line when there is a protest candidate to choose from.
Hardly any differant story with Bush. He has so alienated his base with the huge deficits that they may just stay home instead of voting at all.
Wed Mar 3 2004 3:00 PM
foov2:
Kerry certainly is a disaster. I fear that the Clintons wanted a weak candidate to get the nomination and ultimately lose to Bush to pave the pay for a Hillary run in 2008. Hillary is a guarantee to get the nomination in 4 years if Bush wins reelection. Gee, Hillary would have gotten it this time but she needs to finish at least one term in the Senate. And, who will the republicans put up in 4 years? Jeb? lol.
Just can't imagine what Bush, et. al. can do with four more years. Scary. It is going to be a long four years.
Wed Mar 3 2004 3:46 PM
pissed:
Oh brother! Tell me what meaningful legislation has Bush passed? If you want another 4 years of Bush stay home come next November. Picking a president is less about "electability" than it is emotional, and you will see how Dems rally behind Kerry to get Bush out of office. Tell me, are you going to let Bush further run our economy into the ground/try to appoint more judges who are anti-abortion/lie/allow Rummy to continue doing what he does so well/etc? Stop your pouting and look at what is at stake . Have you read where he stands on issues? Is his stance closer to what issues you believe in or is Bushs? Is presidency is more about what you have done in the past or more about what you want to do with Americas future?
Think about everything that went on with Bush campaign in 2000. Most pundits thought he had a very slim chance of pulling off his run for presidency...Go vote Nader. Ill vote Kerry cause Im truly dedicated to getting Bush out of office.
Wed Mar 3 2004 4:59 PM
pissed - What does Kerry stand for?
Wed Mar 3 2004 5:17 PM
pissed again:
Voted YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted YES on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted NO on school vouchers in DC. (Sep 1997)
Repeal of Bush tax cuts WITHOUT repeal of child tax credits.
Higher education tax credits.
Wants to keep jobs in the call center market here in America, trying to keep more manufacturing jobs here in America.
sits on the 'Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee' wants to promote small businesses.
'Update our spectrum rules for WiFi technology.'-Kerry at Stanford
This is a partial list, theres more out there. Think about the cabinet positions that Kerry will have to fill, will they be filled with Bush's conservative ideologues or more progressive democrats.
Have you read any of his speaches do you know anything about his record, first hand?
Wed Mar 3 2004 5:56 PM
My point is there is no real action behind any of this. His votes frequenly amount to nothing but carefully-calculated, poll-tested, political grandstanding. Read this post from January.
1. "Voted YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors." -- DIDN'T PASS
2. "Voted YES on funding student testing instead of private tutors." -- PASSED IN AN ALMOST STRAIGHT PARTY LINE VOTE
3. "Voted NO on school vouchers in DC." -- DIED IN SENATE
The rest is all meaningless stuff that he "wants." Yeah, I want to promote small business, update our spectrum rules, and keep call center and manufacturing jobs in America too. Yay!
There's no evidence he actually wants to get anything done, he just wants to be president.
Wed Mar 3 2004 6:15 PM
shareef (angry):
You miss the fact that we have a president who has never written an academic paper, who has a failed business and yet still made it to president. Politicians are self serving, Bush wanted the exact same thing, and unless you believe that it was callen upon him by god. Where's the difference? Right now we have a president who comes to conclusions before getting facts and if you would rather keep him in office fine.
We have a governor in office with high approval ratings who wanted to do nothing more than become governor, and he has a high approval rating? Who did he replace? Dear old Davis who has had colossal short comings. And let me ask you this, what did conserves do in that election, they rallied behind SCHWARZENEGGER once he became the front runner even though most still supported MCCLINTOCK. This is not a time of division its now time to oust Bush.
Kerry is an excellent debater and we will see that given the right opportunity he will be able to get those swing votes. As for you, if you wish to remain an ideologue, its your choice.
Wed Mar 3 2004 7:30 PM
I don't want to keep Bush in office, that's why I'm so pissed we nominated Kerry. Duh!
I've yet to vote for a candidate I actually wanted. With so many presidential candidates, it seemed like there just might be a chance I could get behind someone wholeheartedly this election. It didn't turn out that way, and, Lieberman aside, we ended up picking the one guy I really disliked for reasons that were completely misguided.
I'm allowed at least a couple days to bitch before the Democratic Party Police slaps me upside the head and makes me fall in line. Right?
And yeah, Schwarzenegger had it all planned out. First, he'll become the biggest body building star in the world while glorifying his gang-banging days, then he'll become the biggest action movie star in the world while harassing female colleagues, then waltz to the governorship, amend the Constitution, and save his adopted homeland from fiscal disaster. Clearly, that's a calculated political career.
If Kerry turns out to be as effective as Schwarzenegger is turning out to be, I'll eat a shoe-shaped chocolate cake.
Wed Mar 3 2004 7:57 PM
shareef (pissed and angry):
LOL I'll keep you too your words. ^__^
Wed Mar 3 2004 9:33 PM
shareef for for the last time tonight:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A22260-2004Feb7¬Found=true
http://www.orlandoreport.com/profiles/john_kerry_voting_record.htm
Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee
Wed Mar 3 2004 10:08 PM
paz:
Once again, i feel like there is a contradiction between your misson statement and your attitude, except for the fact that you have said you will vote for the democratic nominee.
You claim to have backed Dean because he had the best shot, that a vote for him was 'settling', but the fact is that he ran his campaign for nominee on every hard-core liberal platform there is (except the elusive gay marriage). Didnt that make you question his electibility? Think carefully about why you, clearly a hard-core liberal, were so energized by him--the war opposition, the in-your-face attitude towards washington and the right-- THAT is what got you so energized about him. Every Dean supporter I know is a hardcore liberal--his views (and i mean the ones he campaigned on, not the centrist governor he has been) and general fiery attitude do not appeal to most people.
And now that he is gone, you hate Kerry. Originally, you said that you didnt want Kerry to win because he was a typical massachusetts liberal with no chance and no electibility... I dont believe you any more. If Kerry had come out with an unabashedly anti-right campaign (as Dean did), you would love him.
I see you dont give the people of America much credit, but why, why, did they think kerry was electable? because he told us so? every candidate tells us that. because he fought in vietnam? its just another of the points he scores against bush. why, do you think, did people buy his big 'electable' scam? might they be the same reasons other people (in the general election) would vote overwhelmingly in his favor?
Thu Mar 4 2004 7:25 PM
On Super Tuesday, Kerry did not do all that well among swing voters:
Yet even in California, Kerry did not run nearly as well with independents who were eligible to vote in the Democratic primary as he did among party members.
This trend was more pronounced in Tuesday's voting in Ohio and Georgia, according to exit polls conducted by Edison Media Research/Mitofsky International.
In that way, the results underscored Kerry's ability to mobilize Democrats and the challenge he may face with independents as the campaign's focus shifts to the battle against Bush.
"The story for Kerry so far is mostly one of strength," said Elaine Kamarck, who was an advisor to 2000 Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore. But, she added, Kerry's showing among independents "is obviously something we need to worry about."
Thu Mar 4 2004 8:57 PM
I'm a lot less emotionally involved in all this political stuff these days. I'm still following it, because it's interesting, but I'm not attached to the outcome any more. It's like watching "Friday the Thirteenth", where you know everybody is going to die with the exception of one person, but you're still going to walk out of the theater OK afterwards (maybe a little shell-shocked).
I feel a lot like Church Guy. I'm pretty much through with politics. However, I will continue to participate in politics in one way at least. I'll continue to donate money to worthy causes. Small amounts mainly. Twenty dollars here, twenty dollars there. If we all continue to participate in that way, I think we can still make a difference.
It goes without saying that Kerry is getting squat from me. But, I do hope that he is able to raise at least $100 million.
Thu Mar 4 2004 9:17 PM
Dave:
All democrates are crazy, stupid and will end up in hell.
Sat Mar 6 2004 7:43 AM
paz:
luckily the correctly typed democrats wont face the same fate... they'll just be crazy.
Sat Mar 6 2004 1:57 PM
"All democrates are crazy, stupid and will end up in hell."
What an insightful comment. Bush winning the next election is looking a lot like hell to me.
Mon Mar 8 2004 4:17 PM
dave:
1. Bush (or any single person on Earth) has driven our economy into the ground...
2. Kerry (or Bush) can/will save our economy...
Please tell me this is just partisan bickering...cause none of you should be this naive.
Please go back to school if you believe either fallacies 1. or 2.
Mon May 10 2004 2:34 PM
paz:
dave:
If bush or kerry were the only person we were voting for every election, you would of course be right. However, with each president or nominee there exists something called an administration. These additional people work on bills, come up with plans, make decisions, write speeches, strategize, talk to other nations, and generally do all the work running the government that one lone man could not do. So sometimes people when they talk online like to simplify it to Bush and Kerry rather than mentioning all those other hard-working people; it is easier to talk about just the figureheads and left it unspoken and understood that they come with an administration. The policies these groups make and run and push for do actually have the power to save economies, or to ruin them, because they are the most powerful executive branch in the world.
More obvious explanations available upon request.
Wed Aug 4 2004 12:30 AM
Email:
   
|
  
 |
