This Kerry is a waffler and Bush is steadfast crap is getting old. First because it's just a lame way to attack any candidate if you can't cite specifics, which no one has done to date for Kerry. Second, and most important, it's simply not true, particularly with regard to Iraq, whereas the Bush team has practically screwed themselves into the ground pre- and post 9/11. If you want to actually understand how the two candidates and their running mates differ read the following articles.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/192908_cheney29.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/192828_joel29.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/23/MNGQK8TI8O1.DTL

So true.. Don't take the media's word for it, educate yourself!

At least this guy is hitting them both..

http://indieish.com/category/features/postcards-from-the-campaign-trail/

I think someone else posted it further down but, it bears repeating.

From the site above.. these just keep getting better.

Cheney/Edwards CSPAN prayer meeting video is false, says fox news.

...From Fox news ?

I wouldnt trust them to report whether the sun's up, without beforehand reading the "day's message to push" from RUpert Murdoch.

Case in point: Every time they show Kerry, he's looking slovenly. Every time they show Bush, he's looking grand and presedential. It's intentional.... it's NOT the way those two people look, on average. Hell, I've known 10-year-olds with better brains than Bush's.

So you want people to read a Seattle and a San Francisco newspaper writing about political candidates for an unbiased, factual article? Is this some sort of joke?

hehe, i was thinking the same thing.

All the proof of Kerry's waffling can be found at http://www.rushlimbaugh.com ... I'll believe an "analysis piece" from sfgate as soon as you concede that "rush is right". :)

If you want to quote a Seattle newspaper, at least let it be the Seattle Times. The PI is a bunch of garbage written to appeal to the average left-wing idiot Seattle resident who wants their news to be what they want to hear, not what the truth is.

So basically, what Fox News is for right wing viewers?

I was all set to vote for Kerry until his speech at the Nat'l Convention. You know the one where he said we would increase military spending, increase health care spending, shore up social security and balanace the budget.

It was then that I really saw Kerry the hopeless politician for the first time.

After 6 weeks of being disconsolate I think I'm back to voting for Kerry again.

Thanks KH4K for providing this forum

I feel the same way, after reading the text of an anti-Bush speech by Al Gore, quoted in full on Bruce Springsteen's website.

I read through the speech and said to myself "WHat the... ?! Al Gore isn't calling Bush's bluff on any of the hard questions ! No 'why war in Iraq ?' No "attacking civil liberties'. No '$7,000 worth of debt added to each citizen's life'. No 'paranoid about terrorism, yet INCREASING the risk of terrorism.'"

It was really disheartening. But... the nation's a pendulum. Once it starts swinging AWAY from Bush, I expect the media will start being a bit more fair and balanced on issues & investivative reporting, and we'll see the democrats stop hiding behind pseudo-Republican platforms.

I, for one, am a disaffected conservative, if not a disaffected republican.

What happened to fiscal discipline? What happened to no more nation building? What happened to compassion?

Ah well, sigh, if a vote for Kerry is what it takes to have any hope of bringing deficits back under control and having a reasonable energy policy, I guess that's what I'll have to do. But I won't like it!

You're dead on correct..

Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough almost have integrity but not quite.. They moan the drunken sailor spending in DC without acknowledging that the Republicans control everything.. house, senate, president , supreme court etc..
and then try to say it's okay to keep this titanic sailing because of "judges",....even wing nut scalia himself yesterday said gay marriage and abortion are for congress not the courts..

the Fiscal disaster belongs completely at the Republican doorstep and George Orwell Bush (freedom is slavery etc.. if you caught that joke).

Having Kerry surrounded by all the drunken Republicans in the Congress will bring back fiscal discipline and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

I agree comletely. I was a Bush 41 delegate and a strong McCain supporter. Kerry sucks, but I'm casting an institutional vote for gridlock. Kerry will veto an extension of Bush's tax cuts and Republicans will filibuster his programs. Result: fiscal discipline.

AMEN!

Our country works best when 2/3 of the congress has to agree on something.

GRIDLOCK = FISCAL DISCIPLINE

Yeah!

Two Desperately Needed Measures:
1] Constitutional Amandment banning deficit spending
2] Constitutional Amandment holding the registered voters for a president personnally liable for any malfeasance commtied by that President.
If you vote for bad expenditure, you'll pay for it...

What happened? Are you high, or just spending too much time in the vault counting your money?

9-11 happened...perhaps you were out of town, but it was a big deal for some of us.

Some think Kerry has a better policy approach, others favor Bush's distinctly different strategy. But get with the program Moneybags: nothing else matters if you're dead.

When was there an attack before 9-11, when has there been an attack after 9-11. You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning then getting killed by terrorists. What is Bush's next move. Wage war on lightning?

Wouldn't it be ironic if you were at the center of the next ground zero?

Oh the humanity

That was the stupidest argument I've ever heard. So you're saying that because the odds of one event are comparable to another, that those event are therefore the same? Get a friggin clue, dude.

The argument about lightning is valid.
Try to think with your head, not with some FOX-fed adrenalin rush.

Terrorism against Americans is simply such a statistically SMALL number that it's a NEGLIGIBLE number...except that it provided a dark, dramatic backdrop for Bush, so he could chip away at the "land of the free and home of the brave". Dude.

As Ben Franklin said, "Those who would trade a little bit of liberty for temporary safety deserve neither."

So strap on your balls, and realize that there's no REASON to be afraid of terrorism, just as there's no reason to be afraid of lightning. And it's most certainly no reason to be trading in freedoms, allowing Bush to pump insane amounts of deficit-spending into the military, pass "patriot" laws that curtail the very freedoms we're supposed to be defending, create a monolithic, secretive Department of Homeland Insecurity, and killing off innocents in Iraq. ( 1,000+ US soldiers and 13,000+ Iraqi CIVILIANS. Not counting the innocients in Afghanistan. See www.IraqBodyCount.com for details.)

Frankly, I'm tired of Bushes and Reagans scaring us with invisible enemies. Drug "war", terrorism "war"... It's McCarthyism all over again. Get RID of it. Kerry ain't great, but he's not a neocon turd like Bush.

Here's a chilling quote from Hermann Goerring:

"Naturally, the common people don't want war... (but) it is always a simple matter to drag people along ... All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country. --Herman Goerring at the 1946 Nuremberg trials.

Deos that sound like Bush talking privately with Rove, or what ?

No, Alanis, not really.

You have not been paying attention. To get up to speed in a hurry, read the speech given last month by U.S. Navy Capt. Ouimette, the Executive Officer at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, FL. It's entitled "World War III Began in 1979," and it details every attack of this war, including on our embassies, the Cole, etc., and how these attacks were met with little or no response (by Democrats and Republicans alike) until now. Look it up on the net. As he says, we can't go on hitting the snooze alarm!

You're right about the ignorance, but wrong about how deep it goes. The roots of the problem are not in international terrorist attacks against the US.

The root of the problem is in the under-reporting of US terrorist attacks against other nations. Americans are simply INSULATED by the very news organizations which should be bringing us "fair and balanced" reporting of how our government, in our name, is conducting terrorist attacks throughout the world.

Recommended reading:
911 by Noam Chomsky
Distorted Morality: America's war on terror ? (By Noam Chomsky)
http://www.IraqBodyCount.org



Recommended viewing:
Outfoxed - Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism
link at Amazon:

Uncovered - The Whole Truth About the Iraq War (2003)
link at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0001IXT36/ref=pd_ser_asin_2/002-2413319-7180826?v=glance&s=dvd

You really don't get it. It's not the odds of getting hit. It's the effect of getting hit. The effect on our ecomony was a national tragedy. Our airlines are still losing a BILLION dollar a quarter. The Motorcoach industry (our largest source of public transportation) was devistated. Banks large and small hemoraged as a result and pulled back muck needed capital. Investment stagnated. Bush Tax cuts and his relentless pursuit of terrorists has revitalized the economy and brought back a sense of calm to our society.

If you really think Bush has revitalized the economy and instilled a sense of calm, you are as committed to not reading the papers, watching C-Span or catching the occasional news show as he is. The economy still stinks (and if you think it is bad now, wait till the hangover of the deficits hits just as all the baby boomers start to retire), Bush´s re-election theme boils down to Be Afraid - Be Very Afraid, and Bush consistently refuses to either learn from his experiences or to hold subordinates who screw up accountable.

I´m a Republican from childhood, worked in two US Senate races as a paid staffer for Republican candidates, have sat on boards of Republican organizations, and have given more money than I care to remember to Republican causes. I was a Republican back in the 60s and 70s when everyone else (including, apparently, our Commander in Chief) was high on grass and coke.

For the first time in my life, I´m embarrassed to be a Republican. We need to flush Bush and his handlers so we can take our party back.

You're not serious about your news, man.

The downturn in travel, tourism, and so on is the direct result of Bush's "war" on terrorism, not the effect of the terrorism itself.

Worse, we're still blind to the real reasons for the terrorism. I'd recommend reading the book "911" by Noam Chomsky, for an extended list of how the US has become the #1 terrorist nation on the planet. I'm not just talking about Camp X-ray or Abu Ghraib, here. I'm talking abotu the School of the Americas, bombing medical factory in the Sudan, sponsoring terrorism directed against ordinary people in South America, looking for exemption from prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity...

Man, dont worry about the Taliban, or Osama Bin Laden.
It's the unawareness of our OWN terrorism that caused WTC, that you shoudl eliminate, and it's Bush's fanning of the flames of paranoia that're destroying our economy.

I'm just deeply saddened that Kerry didn't vote against the war on Iraq from teh very beginning the way Dean did. Hopefully now that Kerry's wising up, he'll get and stay committed to dismantling the atmosphere of endless war, secrecy, and paranoia that Bush's subjkected us to.

that's a pretty dumb comment. Not doing anything about terrorism is like going outside with a lightening rod strapped to you everytime the weather gets bad.

Oh really??? What are YOU doing about terrorism, Mr./Ms. ANONYMOUS?? Nobody is saying don't do anything about terrorism. I'm not talking about terrorism. I'm looking for gridlock to protect against all of Bush's domestic blunders.
Re. terrorism, we ignored terrorism for a dozen years while we were attacked by the SAME terrorist group, Al Queda, over and over again. Finally, in retaliation, Bush decided to attack Sadaam Hussein of Iraq. Now THAT makes sense!!

"Not doing anythign about terrorism, is like going out in a lightning storm with a lightning rod strapped to you" ?

Oh, PUH-LEASE. You're buying the emotion, not seeing the statistics.
The statistics show that being killed by a terrorist in a given year (whether pre- or post-9/11, it makes little difference statistically) is equal to the likelihood of you getting killed by lightning in a given year.

So, DON'T buy the hype and paranoia, man.
Taking no special precautions about terrorism is like going about your life AS YOU NORMALLY WOULD.

Bush, on the other hand, is considerably more risky than the terrorist "threat". He's killed 4x~5x more people this year (including women and children) than Osama Bin Laden did in the year the WTC fell.
Proof: ( www.IraqBodyCount.org Statistics tabulated by reading well-respected publications)

About as many Americans were killed by terrorism on 9/11/2001 as are killed every single month by car accidents.

I don't have many second thoughts about driving a car, so maybe I'd start worrying about terrorism if we had 9/11-scale events every two weeks or so. But as it is, we've had exactly one in the last 65 years, making terrorism around 0.008% as large a threat to my life as driving is.

It will be more of a danger if we keep pretending that we're fighting it and instead appease/buy off our enemies. What in the h*** are we doing in Iraq when Iran and North Korea demand our attention.

Not that Kerry will do anything about it, either, but then at least there won't be any pretending that the U.S. is being tough. And maybe our troops don't have to die for a bunch of ingrates!

What Ingrates are you talking about ?

The ones in the white house, or the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan ?

I'd agree with you wholeheartedly, that our troops are dying to please ingrates. Like Halliburton & Bush.

Iraq and Afghanistan, however, have no reason to say "thanks". We've been dropping bombs on Iraq every 2 weeks for about a decade, even during the Clinton administration. In the first war against Iraq, we promised the Kurds support, if they'd rise against Saddam during our war... and then we abandoned them. Worse, we supported Turkey to the tune of several millions of dollars (in exchange for use of their airports during W's war on Iraq), and Turkey is using that money to attack ITS Kurds.

Saddam was bad, but he was a MODERATE compared to the Taliban-like groups who are now able to step in, now that he's gone. There is simply no pro-America group in Iraq that's prepared to take over the country's reins.

Worse, we didn't just make a surgical strike against Bin Laden or Saddam. No, we went in with a sledgehammer, killing, beating up, toruturing, and terrorizing 2 nations' innocent population.
Then, trying to install puppet regimes. Hell, we don't even allow freedom of the press in Iraq. We've SHUT DOWN NEWSPAPERS there, and physically threatened their staff.

Man, they HATE us for good reasons ! We didn't save them from anything, except by plunging them into a worse nightmare of starvation, lack of freedom, and oppression from afar.

Don't talk to me about Iran and North Korea. Those are just the NEXT items of fear, on a long list on Bush's desk. Man, he's hoping to keep us afraid (and voting for war and big military spending) just as long as he can.

Think about this: North Korea is isolated and STARVING. They don't even have China's support. They're going to collapse, like Russia did.

Think about this, too: When Berlin's wall came tumbling down, and Russia's government collapsed from within, WHY DIDN'T THE US GOVERNMENT KNOW in advance ? Certainly, we weren't told, yet the signs must have been obvious.

McCarthyism, cold war, "war" on drugs, "war" on terrrorism-- it's all invisible enemies, bogeymen under the bed, made to keep you voting like a scaredy-cat.

"nothing else matters if you're dead." was used by another user here, to say that 9/11 was worth noting.

However, let's think about that IN CONTEXT.
The paranoia and "military preparedness" is putting us at greater risk than the supposed (and miniscule) danger of 9/11 type terrorism.


The greatest fear of terrorism is that it'll kill innocents, and change our way of life. *ahem*... Isn't that what Bush is doing, with the FEAR of terrorism, his "patriot" packages, and war in Iraq and Afghanistan (as opposed to surgical strikes & UN support).

Lets' also think about the cost of preparedness, in terms of risk to our lives. One of the greatest fears is that terrorists will bring atomic weapons into the country, or attack another "national symbol"-type building, or release biological agents on American soil.

Yet... this is used as an EXCUSE to build up OUR stockpile of weapons, with predictable results:
1) A US plane has already crashed into the Empire State Building. (1940s) We can blame a careless military and an overstock of weapons for that.
(link)

2) At least 2 US Warplanes have already released atomic weapons over US soil (One in NJ, one over a US military base in Okinawa, where the US military had until then said it kept NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS).

3) Gulf of TOnkin: The US commits a terrorist attack AGAINST ITS OWN BATTLESHIP in order to drag us into war.
(link)

4) Nuclear "Dirty Bomb": One of our fears is that a cowardly terrorist will release an indiscriminate killer in the US-- a "dirty bomb" with conventional explosives, to distribute radioactive material. Yet... WE are doing that ! In Iraq, we used "depleted uranium" ammunition in conventional gunpowder-driven ammunition. That depleted uranium is radioactive, and lethal.
(link)

4) The US has a VERY active biological & nuclear (WMD) weapons program, and Bush has pushed for the program to be expanded.
(link)
There are literally hundreds of biological weapons factories and research facilites on American soil, in many, many states AND CITIES.
There's even a high-risk biological weapons lab planned for DOWNTOWN BOSTON !
(link)

So, who're you most afraid of ? The ragtag, ill-prepared bad men far away in Afghanistan, or the paranoid military whackos HERE in the US GOVERNMENT, turning America into a land as unsafe as a candle-laden birthday cake in a fireworks factory ?

Bush is making the world MORE dangerous for Americans, not less. 9/11 type disasters are the least of our problems.

Haha! "I'm a republican but I'm voting for Kerry because G.W. spends too much money...."

Chicken!

Nobody believes you're a republican. The LAST thing any republican, not to mention conservative, would do is VOTE FOR THE MOST LIBERAL SENATOR IN GOVERNMENT!

You people will do or say anything.. why? for some ridiculous candidate? unbelievable....

Furthermore, nobody believes you really give a tinker's damn about the war. Like, "oh, oh, I'd vote for G.W. if the war were going better...." Duh! Do you people have ANY values? What the h*ll do you stand for??

A fiscally conservative person would more likely vote Libertarian than Democrat or Republican. Kerry = liberal democrat, Bush = squishy democrat. The only real difference is the GOP is afraid of boobies and gay people. Both parties want to spend more money and increase the size and function of the federal government.

Someone here said " The only real difference is the GOP is afraid of boobies and gay people."

What, are you kidding ?
Democrats at least give lip service to the American Dream-- equal economic opportunity, the chance to escape poverty, the need to live free or die.

Republicans (NeoCons, anyway) are all about lawyers, guns, and money. Destroying the economic ladder, leaving all the money & freedom at the top.
They're about colonialism, fear, feed-the-rich eat-the-poor, and control.

There's a BIG difference between Dems and Reps:
One spends your money on making America a land of freedom and opportunity, while the other spends your money on corporate welfare, jails, repression, and armies abroad.

It is not true that Kerry was the most liberal voting record in the Senate. In fact, his voting record is without distinction of any kind. It is innocuous.

You are spouting the media lies put out by the GOP.

What do I stand for? Small and honest government. Respect for citizenry. A government that stays out of my business and life as much as possible, yet one that supports ad big strong healty well-educated middle class. That is what makes a Demicracy work. This is an original Republican ideal, one tht the Republica Lincoln ran on. That has been dearly lost under this Administration.

This is no longer the real Republican party. I cannot give my vote to them.

Amen. I grew up thinking I was a Republican, based on what I'd read in my history text books. Then it came time to register to vote... voila, no longer a Republican.

Yeah, me too. I'm the grandson of a lifelong Republican campaign manager (and mayor).

But, I balk when I hear someone else here say "Respect for citizenry. A government that stays out of my business and life as much as possible, yet one that supports ad big strong healty well-educated middle class. That is what makes a Demicracy work. This is an original Republican ideal".

Man, that's what I grew up believing about the Democrats. Sadly, very clearly, the GOP is dead set on disenfranchising the poor and middle classes. They're all about concentrating the money and power at the top, while jobs go overseas and the middle class is forced to work at slave wages with no job security and no hope of a safe retirement some day.

I'll vote for the first guy who promises
1) no deficit spending
2) real respect for the citizenry (and freedom)
3) no more US-sponsored terrorism
4) economic opportunity
5) educational loans, so even poor people can escape poverty...if they're bright enough to get into a good college.
6) small business loans
7) supporting freedom of the press WITH journalistic integrity
(not the supply-side press controls that Reagan and Rupert Murdoch ushered in)

Dont start lecturing about values when the party that controls the house the senate the whitehouse can't actually do anything that fits with the core values of what republicanism used to stand for (yeah,that's right "values" means more than "fags and boobies are bad" or "security means the president is always right"). The only thing the Rs have done while in power is pander to the right wing of the party and kiss the presidents butt.

W isn't a real republican..seriously. And in fact I think the RNC aren't real Republicans either anymore. Since he won the whitehouse the institutional R party is falling all over itself to fall in line and keep power, but it's absurd. You Bush Bots ("four more years, four more years") with your vacuous, twisting talking points make we want to puke... read some goddamn history about some real conservatives with stature and problem solving skills like Lincoln, TR, Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush I... (By the way, W is not the reincarnation of Reagan, okay?)


So since everyone will be corrupted, yay for institutional solutions, yay for checks and balances and strategic voting. Gridlock IS good.

Reagan and Bush I... representing core "moral values" You're kidding, right ?

Reagan did quite a bit ot end morality and law-abiding in the White House. Have you forgotten Contragate, where Reagan was setting up his own terrorism-in-Mid-East-and-in-South-America funding operation, in defiance of laws passed by Congress ?
Are you forgetting that Reagan stepped all over the minimum wage and medicare and social security, in favor of corporate welfare for the rich, and jobs in the military for our most employable strong youth ?
Reagan...yeah, he's the *snort* "great communicator" who held a RECORD FEW number of press conferences compared to any other president prior to him, in the 20th century. He's the one who invented "siberia" for reporters, refusing to allow questions from reporters, if they'd asked him politically embarrassing questions in the past.
Ain't he the guy who'd start up the White House chopper early, rather than answer questions from the Press ?

Oh, yeah... a real model of respect for government and freedom of the press and the American Dream, was Reagan ! Sorry...the bartender's cutting you off until you sober up.

And, let's not forget Bush I, former director of the CIA. In charge when the US was training the Taliban in terrorism ! In charge of the CIA when the CIA was making deals with Noriega ! In charge when the US was taken BY SURPRISE by the collapse of Russia and the Berlin Wall (Heaven forbid, impending peace should stop our cold-war overkill military budget !)

Bush I... Ain't he the guy who went to war in the Persian Gulf, to defend the SULTAN of KUWAIT ? Ain't any freedom in Kuwait, boys. He did squat to help the freedom-wanting Kurds in the north of Iraq, and he started the program of bombing Iraq on a biweekly basis, AFTER THE PERSIAN GULF WAR WAS OVER.

Oh, yeah... he's my HERO, I tell ya.

Lincoln, sure... but shut your mouth and THINK before you call any modern Republican presidents WORTHY of our respect.
Nixon, Reagan, Bushes... they're all secretive, anti-freedom, pro-police-state, anti-American-Dream jerks.
The only differnce between them and the new Bush is, one of degree... and of course, the Baby Bush didn't get elected. ;^)

I'm voting for Kerry because Bush is religious, and acting accordingly, both with respect to the "war" and domestic policy.

BS. We would vote for Badnarik if it wasn't so bloody hopeless.
When it comes to spending, Dubya makes Kerry look like Milton Friedmann.
Down with the Fourth Reich.
And while we're at it - keep church and State completely seperate.
I might have supported Bush this year if instead of attacking secular Iraq, he had waged a war of TOTAL ANNIHILATION on Islamist Saudi Arabia.

Only good Saudi's are dead ones.

Need to stay above the fray

If he misses one more episode of "Joey" he'll lose the plot line

Gotta floss!

Old shrapnel wounds acting up

The campaign has made a stategic move to go "dark" in October to prepare for the crucial November campaign season

Turf toe!

Scott Peterson trial is heating up.

Celebrate traditional Kerry clan harvest festival.


FAQ
Q. Do I have to hate Bush to be a

Did somebody erase Kerry's Senate career again? What in his record makes you think he will do ANYthing conservative? I guess people only care about what a politician says.

people here do know the record.. that's the point. A democrat president surrounded by republican congress = occasional farts of good sense.

Don't kid yourself. like someone said above

Kerry = democrat

Bush = squishy democrat.

Bush does NOT = a squshy democrat. He represents the NeoCon unchained: a relentless whacko-right-wing republican. You don't see Bush endorsing ANY democrat ideals, do you ? DO YOU ? Didn't think so.

I agree with nearly everything Kerry says, but can not bring myself to watch this man on TV.

When I saw Fahrenheit 9/11, all I could think was "If the Republicans tried to do a film like this about John Kerry, it would be unwatchable. It would be the biggest bomb in motion picture history, because no one would pay money to spend 2 hrs. looking at John Kerry."

I concurred with everything Michael Moore said in this movie, and part of its appeal was seeing Bush acting like an idiot. That quality is great for comedians, actors and Survivor contestants. But it does not belong in the leader of the free world. Bush is not the only reason America is hated overseas, but he's a large part of it. It's time to kick this appealing idiot out of the White House.

'I concurred with everything Michael Moore said in [Farenheit 9/11].'

You are now banned from making any more comments on grounds of stupidity.

If I were really stupid, I would not have gone to see Michael Moore's movie in the first place. I would have just stayed at home and believed all the bullshit broadcast on FOX news. Just like millions of other idiotic Americans!

wow, sounds like you really do buy into everything moore says. "Yeah dude, FOX sucks. Kill Whitey!!"

So anyone who disagrees with you is automatically stupid? Wow, I must be a huge freaking idiot, then, so obviously I can't put any more comments here, either.

If you don't believe Micahel Moore, why not check his facts.
Go to his website NOW (www.MichaelMoore.com), and look at the line-by-line proofs he gives for each spoken line in the film 9/11.

The proofs are legitimate, drawn from respected news publications for the most part, and interviews & government documents for the rest.

Enjoy your awakening. And... DON'T ban someone from this site, for having a different viewpoint. Listenign to other perspectives makes you a better, wiser man.

I guess you missed the part about Germany, France and Russia being bribed by Saddam. Of course they don't like Bush. He cost them tons of money!!!

My fav part was Ashcroft's solo.

Concurr with Michael Moore? Bush acting like an idiot? Boy....you're just letting everyone see your ignorance...and idiotic mentality...

"Oh, be jeezus".. you've really convinced everyone otherwise. Hows about you keep your mediocre criticisms to yourself, unless you have something constructive to say.

I used to think John Kerry was the worst, other than Kucinich, out of our democratic nominee line-up and, even after all the partyline bullshit, I still do!

don't know if everyone realizes this but the Media Assasinated HOWARD DEAN who I didn't follow that much but in retrospect appears to have been right on all the issues....
fiscal discipline, no reason to go to war in Iraq etc....

After the media duped us over dean they are now trying to get billy bob to go with Bushwhacked who is the modern day
marlboro man -- a complete facade who lives in neverland ranch was born in connecticut, andover prep , harvard, yale, etc... has been a disaster on every issue -- but he sure does look like an average joe..


Is our country really stupid enough to listen to the morons on TV?

If anyone has ever heard of a Ranch that doesn't have anything alive on it let me know...

yet another beautiful Marlboro Man madison avenue facade pulled off by Rove... The more you buy the product the worse of you are... 2 marlboro man died of lung cancer but only 1054 americans have died in Iraq...so far.

Do people realize that the man negotiating the debates for Bush, James Baker, defended the Saudi's against 9-11 lawsuits.


Are the American people the dumbest people in the industrialized world??

you mean the same James Baker that Bush hired to gaurantee that the Florida recount would be for Bush?

aren't americans stupid..

The europeans go back and forth trying to understand how the most creative economic power of all time can have 50% of our voters be retarded simultaneously..

Just a friendly tip: you (and the Europeans) will never understand the creativity and dynamism of the U.S. economy as long as you cling to the notion that 50% of Americans must be stupid, simply because they don't agree with you. I disagree with many of my fellow Americans, probably on many more things than the posters to this site; however, I have never found the "smarter than thou" approach an effective persuasion strategy in the marketplace of ideas. If a "product" doesn't sell, castigating consumers won't help.

The answer, by the way, regarding the creative energy and resilience of the U.S. economy: the competition of capitalism, muddled and encumbered though it is in America. (There's a tip in there, too, for political marketers.)

Honestly most times I would agree with what you are saying but come on its Bush. He basically lied about WMD. He goes on and on about bringing freedom to Iraq while keeping people in Guantanamo without charges which is against the very freedoms we as Americans enjoy. Dont get me wrong our safety is important but shouldnt up holding our very foundation as a country be as important??? The reason I cant see many intelligent people thinking Bush is a better leader is because he still insults countries like France even though we all know we desperately could use their help in Iraq now to remove the American Occupation moniker. Bush has alienated us from the world further and further and I just dont understand how many people think Bush isnt going to further damage Americas relationships. (Alot of you will say who cares what the world thinks but with the EU growing if we continue to burn bridges and continue to have to spend Billions in Iraq we might find ourselves being caught up economically and power wise by the EU)

You raise an important point on the economics involved, with this war and any other military action. Who pays for it, in what proportion, and how does that impact U.S. leadership of the global economy?

Like any other transaction among free people, I submit, it depends entirely on the interests and means of prospective allies/investors. I don't think it's personal. Struggling as they are to reform their economies to compete more effectively, EU countries largely don't have the means to help, even if they had the interest. Ruffling the Europeans' feathers for its own sake is, I agree, unproductive and many of us would like a more polished rhetorician in the White House. I don't, however, see a realistic scenario -- other than the proven avenues of bribery and coersion -- that will change their view about what's in their best interest. In fact, I would suggest (cynically, I know) that it would be in the interest of countries with sluggish economies to stay on the sidelines in most conflicts, knowing that the Americans will handle it (pay for it). It's a win-win for them...as the U.S. burdens its economy with military actions, the EU gets a breather to figure out how to jump-start theirs!

That's among the reasons I'm so PO'd about the lack of fiscal discipline among both parties -- if the roof is caving in on your house, it's wise to borrow against future earnings to get it fixed...but you don't, at the same time, extend yourself yet further by also charging a new home theater system (or Medicare prescription benefit, as the case may be). They're offering us "guns and butter" again...Bullwinkle, that trick never works!

Our "allies" in the war in Iraq are getting American military bases, which translate into big dollars....just ask the Germans who are losing their bases. The announcement was made a couple of months ago and we were told the plans were in the works for a couple of years for better "strategic" positioning......just about the time we were negotiating with "allies" for the Iraqi invasion. Hungary, Bulgaria and Poland are at the top of the list. Coincidence?

Don't get too wound up about Iraq. Worry more about our financial situation. Bush will HAVE to raise taxes....and he won't just put them back where they were, but he'll RAISE them. Once he's in office, there's nothing anyone can do. At least Kerry is honest about it. Someone's gotta pay for the liberation of the Iraqi people and their healthcare and schools.....it's you and me.

Thank you for making my point about how free peoples make "alliances." But rather than raise taxes to pay the tab, I'd prefer scaling back our lifestyle by returning the home theater system, er, Medicare drug benefit and $100 million rainforest in Iowa, among other things.

You are so right. I'm still trying to figure out who foisted Kerry on us with the rationale that "he could win" when Dean couldn't. I'm convinced that all those Conservatives who said they wanted to run against Dean because he would be easy to beat really wanted to run against Kerry for the same reason. They knew that Dean would be hard to beat because he was willing to speak his mind, tell the truth, and not worry about what the "popular wisdom" had to say. I'm sick about having to vote for Kerry. I know the next four years will be better with him than with Bush, but not better enough, I fear.

I completely agree with the media ripping Dean to pieces. Also Kerry and his campaign played very dirty when came to the primarries. Calling Dean supporters at 3 in the morning and telling them to go to the wrong adresses for voting. Pretty messed up stuff.

America is not ready for a president that doesn't take money from special interest groups.

That being said....I hate him, but damned if Im not voting for him.

At least there are more people like me....thanks kh4k!

I campainged for Dean. He did have it right on. He was painted as a jackass radical by the media. I am glad he did get in the race, even if he failed to win the nomination. He still managed to put some things on the table no one wanted to touch. I'm voting Kerry as a Non Partisan centerist. Only having 2 parties that compete is a bad idea. Too narrow. Neither are completely right or wrong. I want my civil liberties - REINSTATED.

Ofcourse we are stupid enough to listen to morons on TV - just watch most reality based TV shows - the fact people devote a second of their life to watch the schemings of wannabee actress/models and community college drop outs is astounding

The reason why most of us reality show fans exist is because so many scripted shows suck these days. Reality bites, but it's better than the alternative. Similar to the reason this site exists. We know that Kerry is lame, but he's a hell of lot better than the alternative!

What was wrong with Kucinich? He at least had a set of balls.

He was my guy but no one had the balls stand up and vote for him! (I would have loved to have seen him run with Rev. Al as his VP!)

Yeah he did, but he borrowed them!

So, do you think this is helping? No, you know perfectly well it's not, and that's the idea. Kerry is "awful" only if you take the Republican campaign ads as gospel and haven't spent a single moment considering what he has really said and done.

This is a poorly disguised Kerry Haters Against Kerry site, and its entire purpose is to spread Republican talking points and caricatures as if it were Democrats spreading them.

You twit. Believe it or not, it's entirely possible to vote for a candidate while holding your nose. Christ, it's nothing short of a time-honored tradition. John Kerry is an uninspiring hack. I'm a classic liberal and I'm perfectly comfortable saying that. If you believe that a party can only thrive withouth dissent, you ought to join the GOP - they're all about lock-step unity.

The Big Forehead

Dear KH4K,

Although I am a non party affiliated voter, I am fully aware that our current president is too dangerous to be left in charge of a box of Legos™, let alone a whole nation. Last year we saw two shining stars offering beacons of hope enter the ring for the Democratic Presidential nominee; Howard Dean and Wesley Clark. Sadly, we got stuck with these guys, Kerry and Edwards, who together have the charisma of a sack of wet noodles. (And even sadder, the sack of wet noodles worth of Charisma all belongs to Edwards.) Ever since Kerry became the frontrunner, I have been caught in a spiral of shame; how can I hold my head up high when I feel so dirty for being forced to vote for this man?

Thank you for saying what we all have secretly felt since he became the Democratic frontrunner. Kerry is a pompous, self-serving, out-of-touch with reality, smug, arrogant, botoxed, fake tanned, just-plain-fake wind bag; but we have to vote for him because somehow the current president is even worse.

Anybody but Bush! But does it have to be this guy?

You may be right on Kerry but edwards is really pretty good.

for some reason - either the media or the campaign -- he gets no attention...

and you're right Bush can't be trusted with a box of legos let alone trillion dollars of spending...

when will we see the commercial with Baghdad Bob compared to Baghdad Bush

Why do you people like Wes Clark when he was uniformly despised by the military? He has no integrity and no credibility among the senior leaders of the military.

Howard Dean? At least he believed what he believed, even if he is a little Michael Moronic for me.

You should have picked Gephardt or Lieberman if you wanted the red states to take the dem candidate seriously. Too bad, cause your choices will make the next 4 years pretty tough to swallow...I remember what it was like to be military for EIGHT years under Clinton...always counting the day until "help would be on the way"

And what has W done to fix the damage Clinton did to the military?

I like the guy. Seriously.

Get to know him better:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/093004A.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_kerry
http://www.goingupriver.com/

Go ahead, like him, more power to you! Maybe if Dems didn't blindly follow the media and pull the lever for kerry, maybe if dems after realizing they muffed up a good thing.... Hey Deanies, Clarkistas come back...and started up with frickin' loyalty oaths, sites like this wouldn't exist.

A Vote doesn't mean Support. Some of might grow to like the treebeard AFTER he has been in office and PROVED that he was worthy. Dean, I might Add WAS and IS loved by a Large majority of Vermonters Due to his Actual Performance IN OFFICE.

Nice try, but your agenda is showing. But hey, Glad you like Mr. Treebeard! Someone has to.

disgruntled voter

Almost forgot this one:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=merron/kerry/040726

Campaign 2004....hey both suck. Vote for the man you hate least!

I recommend you read slate.msn.com if you want some good analysis of Kerry that fits the theme of this site. I don't agree with the flip flop caricature- that's straight from the Bush compaign. It's more that he's a political straddler whose always a step behind. Kerry is a weak, partisan hack. If you look at his senate record he's been consistently wrong on most issues. Like his vote against the 1st Iraq war, then his vote in favor of the current one. Sigh- but to have Wesley Clark or Howard Dean, both of whom got both of those votes right. I hope the democrats that voted for this guy in the primaries are suffering right now.

I voted for Wesley Clark in the primaries cuz I thought he had a spine and was electable. Anyhow, voting for Kerry given the current poll numbers is seeming pointless. If the debates don't shift things to the middle, I'm going to write in Howard Dean. I mean, as long as it doesn't matter, why not vote for the guy you'd really like to have as president?

Don't be Nadered!!

IMAGINE WHAT OUR COUNTRY WILL BE LIKE IF WE GET 4 MORE YEARS OF BUSH... YOU MUST VOTE KERRY...
JUST HOLD YOUR NOSE... I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO DONATE OR GET A BUMPER STICKER..

seriously, many op eds are saying they'd like to see Bushy clean up a mess (that he created) for the first time in his life...
but really we know he can't, no on even dean would have the balls big enough and steely enought to clean up after 4 more years of Bush.

I'll hold my nose and vote for Kerry if it's close, but if we're in a blowout situation, or if you're in a state that isn't competitive, then I see no reason to vote for him. Clearly Nader is satan- he screwed the country deep and hard by not withdrawing from competitive states at the end of the 2000 cycle.

regardless of polls there is always hope of keeping Bush below 50%...

that way when I travel abroad I can still say most americans didn't vote for Bush and don't have to pretend I'm canadian as many of my colleagues do....

every vote counts.

Third party votes will help keep Bush below 50%. I'd prefer to make sure that Kerry is below 50% as well.

I'm voting for Nader as a big F-You to the Democratic party. I can do that because I live in Maryland, my vote doesn't count anyway.

Dick Gephardt and our national democrat leadership fire bombed the Dean Campaign...Wesley Clark was my second choice...I am resigned to voting for Kerry and accepting his defeat...We need to flush the shit-for-brains down the drain and start with a fresh roll....

Another imposter pro-Bush site hoping to demoralize the Dem base. Kudos!

Real men don't post anonymously.

You people are losers. Stop whining. My friend gave me this site and it almost makes me sick to be an American when I read this filth.
Real Americans For Bush

Real Americans are stupid enough to be for Bush..

Ummm, we're still talking about the idiot living in the White House and not the other thing, right?

If you're not sick(or embarassed) to be be an American after the last four years, then it isn't going to happen.

I'm not sick or embarrassed to be an American and never will be. Get a friggin clue.

Because he looks like the tree people from Lord of the Rings.

Is it really so hard to believe that someone can be a Democrat and not like Kerry? They're both unqualified because we as voters enjoy being told about our rosy future. Can you imagine how many votes a candidate would get if they told us that they had little or no power to affect the economy?

Someone needs to setup a BushIsADryDrunkWithQuestionablyLowIQ.com and include the following post Gulf War pre 9/11 Dick Cheney quote.

"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq... All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques. Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."

Things Kerry will NOT (I hope!!) do as president:
1. Consult with the religious right/wrong about the operations of the US government.
2. Give tax money to religious organizations while defending their right to discriminate against non-members of their church.
3. Demonize gays for votes.
4. Send young people to be maimed or killed after having avoiding going into harm's way himself.
5. Title a piece of legislation designed to allow the better off to move their children away from the less well off "No Child Left Behind."
6. Launch carte blanche for polluters in legislation called "the Clear Skies" act.
7. Appoint racists and neanderthals to the federal bench.
8. Characterize everyone with whom he has issues as "evil" or "terrorists."
9. Corrupt the English language as egregiously as this lot has gleefully done. Examples: death tax, compassionate conservatism, failing schools
10. Pre-empt terrorists in Iran, Syria, Indonesia, North Korea. If we do that, we'll even have to take the children of the wealthy into the military.

You're right, cuz Kerry WON'T do anything for the next four years (if he is unfortunately elected) but drone on like a tenured human studies prof who has lost his syllabus...oh, wait, but he'll be more sensitive about it...sheesh, what a pole.

Don't worry, Kerry will never have the chance. President Bush, however, will complete all ten over the next 4 years.

"before i call president bush dishonest one more time i have to come clean - its true, i'm a straddler. i purposely obfuscate my positions so that, after the fact, i can claim agreement with whichever side prevails, with whatever alliance is convenient. i don't apologize for it or regret. its an effective way of building consensus in a parliamentary body. its a way of ensuring reelection. but i will no longer deny it. i have straddled, i am straddling and i will straddle again."

ahh, if only.

test

I love john edwards as a candidate and am a long for the ride with Kerry..

Who knows, the way Cheney pulls all those strings and tells George Bush what to say and do , Edwards will have a lot more influence than you think..

And Besides - George Bush is really really bad... I mean his adminsitration is one step above the Carnie games and shell games on the streets of New York..

If Kerry would just tell the truth - like he did accidentally when he called the Bush administration the biggest bunch of lyers and crooks he'd ever seen - people would like him more.


Call bush a liar -- we all know he is... 6 million new jobs (7 million short), "uniter not divider", WMDS and "we know exactly where they are", freedom is on the march in Iraq,,
ya da ya da ya .... How do you know when Bush is lying....his lips are moving... I think his speech impediment is neurological damage from simultaneous cocaine and alcohol abuse in the 70s..

You need to start a new site

Bush Haters For Bush

Collin Powell and John McCain can be the first bloggers.

(all the other poor bastards who won't notice any difference in their taxes but will provide human fodder as their offspring in IRaq, Iran, Syria etc... should join the blog too if they ever figure out gay marriage and abortion won't change whether it's Kerry or Bush)

Yeah, he sucks, but not nearly as much as the other possibility.

When are we going to get an election where we can vote for the best candidate and not the least incompetant and corrupt one?

Every time a Kerry ad appears my dog starts barking wildly. Usually I vote for whichever candidate Alamo prefers, but this time I've got to go against her wishes. So Sorry Alamo, I hate him too, but mama needs her social security. -Mavis

Both of mine growl at Kerry -- consistently and with real feeling.

Let’s face it. Kerry’s only shot at beating Bush at this point is if Bush makes some horrific gaffe during the debate tonight, which is exactly what that 32 page rule book was designed to prevent. All we can hope for is for W. to blurt out some insane non- sequitur, like, “I never really liked black people!” or “I am Dick Cheney’s man bitch!” Short of that it’s a seriously uphill battle for our bright orange Tax-a-chusettes blue blood douche bag.

If bush doesn't admit mistakes in Iraq and that place goes into real civil war he could certainly lose on that alone...

or if Iran enters the picture...

Bush has never admitted a mistake in his life. Don't count on him starting tonight.

Democrats showed why they are such perpetual losers by ominating
Kerry. "Electability", my ass. I always thought Kerry was one of the least elactable of the candidates. Resume candidates never win. Basically, Kerry is a proxy for Democrats who want to play not-to-lose rather than to win. Those of you who are sports fans will understand how this is a self-defeating strategy.

As Clinton said, "strong and wrong beats weak and right". He was talking about leadership. This post-9/11 election will be decided by people's judgment of the candidates' strength of leadership.

Way back when, Kerry said "bring it on!" and the Dems didn't realize that this shows that Kerry has no understanding of true leadership... he can't even think past playing defense against the Republican offense. Leadership requires standing up and redefining the layout of the field, reframing the argument, redefining the terms of the agenda. If you were a Dean supporter you probably understand this. A true leader would have talked about "taking it to them!"

Kerry's record is for the most part one of doing what is popular, what is politically convenient. On the occassion when he has decided to step out and talk about something difficult, he doesn't follow up with the action that leadership requires. A true leader would put himself on the line.

What about his campaign message? In the primaries, it was stolen from Dean verbatim. Then it was resume/Vietnam. A true leader would be able to develop his own message and make it effective.

Leadership involves creativity and guts. A true leader is able to understand the issues underlying a debate and redefine the terms of the debate rather than argue with his opponent's terms. Sure hasn't happened, has it?

The general electorate is in the mood for a strong leader in this post-9/11 era. This explains Bush's strength. He is strong and wrong. Weak and right would be better for America, but this will not beat him. Kerry is weak and right. And I think if you agree with my descriptions of true and strong leadership, you might think Dean looks pretty good now! And America does need a strong and right
leader at this point in history.

True and strong leadership qualities include the ability to lay out your own playing field, and the demonstrated ability to walk the talk.

Democrats are losers because they don't understand what leadership is.

Don't forget the Media's role in this too....


remember they took howard dean out back and slit his throat... how would an aggresive candidate who is an MD (health care), fiscal conservative, knew Iraq was wrong all the time person be looking now? pretty good..


Even with Kerry who is about 10 times better than Bush the Media keeps slamming him even though most people forget BUSH HAS BEEN PRESIDENT FOR THE LAST 4 YEARS AND SUCKED HARD...

it's 1/3 the dems fault for picking the candidate the media told them

1/3 the media's fault for focusing on nonsense and for failing to get the facts out ( less than half of americans polled no anything factual about either candidate)

1/3 kerry campaign's fault for being way too timid and not portraying Bush as the Liar that he is..

You can all write anything you want, make up any reasons you want to make up, but we all know it comes down to one thing -ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!!

Speaking of dissaffected Republicans:

Ike's son endorses Kerry

So. That would only be news if Ike himself clawed his way out of his grave like Uma in Kill Bill Vol. 2. I don't know Ike's son and don't care who he votes for. This kind of comment reminds me of when I read Lloyd Grove's "column" this week when he said something along the lines that "the anti-Bush gang has a new member in Star Trek's George Takai..." Wow, knowing how Sulu votes really matters to me!!!!

One word... DEAN

I'm a proud card carrying member of the kerryhatersforkerry campaign. Is this really the best the Democrats could come up with? I'm dismayed about the whole thing so instead of thinking about politics now I just worry more about inflation of bagel prices. I say bagel prices because I live in New York City and don't have a car.

check out my website www.approachingmidnight.blogspot.com