Jump to content

Confession of a Democrat


Lucky
This topic is 6700 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

As much as I hate George Bush and want him out of office, the prospect of John Kerry as president does not warm my heart. I cannot stand his mega-rich wife or his own cold, dreary image. John Edwards is too inexperienced to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

I would have preferred Hilary Clinton with Gephardt as the VP.

 

Nonetheless, I am once again having to go with a second or third choice. Such is American politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

>As much as I hate George Bush and want him out of office, the

>prospect of John Kerry as president does not warm my heart. I

>cannot stand his mega-rich wife or his own cold, dreary image.

>John Edwards is too inexperienced to be a heartbeat away from

>the presidency.

 

Anyone besides our current president has a warmer temperature in my heart! What the heck does his wife have to do with anything, as she would just be a First Lady with no succession rights? As far as Edwards goes, I'd rather have him a heart beat away than ANYTHING the Republicans are offering. I LIKE Edwards, and it is his presence on the ticket that dissuades any doubts on my part in voting for Kerry.

 

>I would have preferred Hilary Clinton with Gephardt as the

>VP.

 

Why? Talk about a losing ticket that would ensure Bush's reelection!

>

>Nonetheless, I am once again having to go with a second or

>third choice. Such is American politics.

 

Since you don't like Bush or Kerry, then vote for Nader! Is that your 3rd choice? You could even vote for Hilary via a write-in ballot! Either option will ENSURE GWB's reelection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>I

>cannot stand his mega-rich wife

 

Why? Simply because she is rich? Or is it because she's a strong woman who speaks her mind? Last year, she was awarded the Albert Schweitzer Gold Medal for Humanitarianism, for her work protecting the environment, promoting health care and education and uplifting women and children throughout the world. But you can't stand her because she's "mega-rich"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>As much as I hate George Bush and want him out of office, the

>prospect of John Kerry as president does not warm my heart. I

>cannot stand his mega-rich wife or his own cold, dreary image.

 

Well, at least you admit that you vote based on image and not on policy, which is what intelligent people in other countries like to do. Tell us how you feel about Bush's warm, fuzzy image among religious-right gay bashers.

 

It's perfectly normal for you to feel threatened by women who are not barefoot in the kitchen. Happens in Alabama all the time. The bitch should never have married that Republican senator, and I'm still not convinced the plane went down without any help. She certainly doesn't help with the xenophobia vote. White women immigrants from Africa -- who needs them? Just like that judge in Massachusetts and her gay marriage opinion. Wonder how much she's worth. Bet she's rich, too, and it's probably inherited.

 

If your vote depends on image, you might consider moving to a battleground state, where both candidates are more interested in getting votes. New York voters are as irrelevant as those in Texas, in 2004.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>John Edwards is too inexperienced to be a heartbeat away from

>the presidency.

 

John Edwards has been in the U.S. Senate for six years. W never held a Federal office before he was granted the presidency. W had no international experience and had only been govenor of Texas. Edwards is far more qulified to be President than W.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>John Edwards has been in the U.S. Senate for six years. W never held a Federal office before he was granted the presidency. W had no international experience and had only been govenor of Texas. Edwards is far more qualified to be President than W.

 

Excellent points! I was very hesitant about Edwards but the coverage about him last night, including his speech, has helped reassure me that he's probably a much better choice than some previous VPs (including Quayle).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>As much as I hate George Bush and want him out of office,

>the prospect of John Kerry as president does not warm my heart.

>I cannot stand his mega-rich wife or his own cold, dreary

>image.

>

>Well, at least you admit that you vote based on image and not

>on policy, which is what intelligent people in other countries

>like to do. Tell us how you feel about Bush's warm, fuzzy

>image among religious-right gay bashers.

 

Yes, yes, we know that people in other countries are ALWAYS superior to uncouth Americans. And we know that those other countries always get it right because of their superior electorate. Yeah, right.

 

I don’t think voting for someone (or against someone else) because of their image is nearly as unintelligent as you would make it sound. Change “image” to “temperament” or “personality” and do you still think it is trivial?

 

A lot of work goes into crafting a politician’s image and putting his/her best foot forward. Assuming that you’re intelligent enough to filter through the sound bites and attempt to get a fix on what kind of person the politician is, that information is probably much more useful than a position on a specific issue.

 

Policies can change in the face of political realities. No matter how well-meaning a politician is, he cannot guarantee delivery. But the fact that he is a good person is very important to me. I take everything I know about a politician – his positions, his demeanor, his charisma, whether I think he is good hearted or not – and decide whether I can trust him. Much of that falls under the category of “image” and I hardly think it is trivial.

 

Bottom line, I believe that Clinton is a good man with a kind heart and I trust him. Image? I believe that Bush is a mean spirited, self-serving man and I do not trust him. Image?

 

I still don’t know what to think of Kerry. I will definitely vote AGAINST Bush by voting FOR Kerry, but like Lucky, I’m hardly ecstatic about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>I

>>cannot stand his mega-rich wife

>

>Why? Simply because she is rich? Or is it because she's a

>strong woman who speaks her mind? Last year, she was awarded

>the Albert Schweitzer Gold Medal for Humanitarianism, for her

>work protecting the environment, promoting health care and

>education and uplifting women and children throughout the

>world. But you can't stand her because she's "mega-rich"?

 

Personally, I found Teresa's speech the best and most inspiring of the convention. Her frank honesty was refreshing.

 

Before this week, I was doubtful of the reasons to have conventions any longer, but now I feel differently. This convention has energized me to support Kerry more than ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Personally, I found Teresa's speech the best and most

>inspiring of the convention. Her frank honesty was refreshing.

 

One caveat: I missed Barack Obama's speech. From what I've read, my fellow Illinoisian also delivered. Sorry I missed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Change “image” to “temperament” or

>“personality” and do you still think it is trivial?

 

 

Change "Gipper" to "Reagan," and do you still think you are talking about the same person? Shoot at the mirror, and do you think the result will be the same as shooting yourself in the head?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>John Edwards has been in the U.S. Senate for six years. W

>never held a Federal office before he was granted the

>presidency. W had no international experience and had only

>been govenor of Texas. Edwards is far more qulified to be

>President than W.

 

 

Tell me again, Ronald Reagan's experience before being elected President?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rohale

in the company of a hero

 

All this talk about liking or not liking Mr Kerry has overshadowed his accomplishments as private citizen, army veteran to public servant. I saw Senator John Kerry give quite an impressive speech earlier tonight. He accepted his party's nomination for President. As he said in his opening words " Reporting For Duty ". These words may not mean much to the average television viewer. These words may even sound silly to some. When I saw John Kerry's eyes light up, I felt that he was ready to claim the mantle of the Democratic Party. This man served his country in a time of war and he didn't let the opportunity go unpassed to remind the convention audience and the television viewers that he served in Vietnam and was decorated for his service to the military. He loves his country and he taking the issue of National Security right to the face of Mr Bush and his political staff and in turn letting them know that he will fight on this issue. Mr Bush chose this issue as the mantle piece of his re-election campaign and the battle has just begun. On stage prior to Mr Kerry coming out to make his acceptance speech. His former army mates came out one by one and I think it was Jim Sasson who came to podium to share his memories of John Kerry and he was reading from the teleprompter. He made it clear that if it wasn't for Mr Kerry who ordered the turn around of the boat to save his comrade and pull him up into the boat as enemy fire raged around them, he probably wouldn't be alive. These men have experiences of war that most of us will never know. They believe in their former commander will do good deeds for this country. Senator Kerry was introduces by triple amputee Former Senator Max CLelend, also a highly decorated Vietnam Vet who sacrificed his body for god and country. What a speech this man gave. I for am very proud that finally after all these years of the Democratic Party snickering about the brave young men and women in uniform ( General Wesley has said this many times about the Democrats on Capitol Hill ). The democrats have finally chosen a war veteran as their candidate. A huge sharp contrast to the Republcan nominee for President who still has yet to explain where he was during his final year of the National Guard when he was supposed to report for drill duties. Sooner or later he will have to clarify for public record as to why there are different stories to his where abouts in that year of 1972 in the Texas National Guard. I wish Mr Kerry the best of success and he'll need it come August, President Bush will be addressing the Republican faithful and one can bet that he's ready to do battle with the Senator from Massachusetts.

 

Rohale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: in the company of a hero

 

All this talk about liking or not liking Mr Kerry has overshadowed his accomplishments as private citizen, army veteran to public servant. I saw Senator John Kerry give quite an impressive speech earlier tonight. He accepted his party's nomination for President. As he said in his opening words " Reporting For Duty ". These words may not mean much to the average television viewer. These words may even sound silly to some. When I saw John Kerry's eyes light up, I felt that he was ready to claim the mantle of the Democratic Party. This man served his country in a time of war and he didn't let the opportunity go unpassed to remind the convention audience and the television viewers that he served in Vietnam and was decorated for his service to the military. He loves his country and he taking the issue of National Security right to the face of Mr Bush and his political staff and in turn letting them know that he will fight on this issue. Mr Bush chose this issue as the mantle piece of his re-election campaign and the battle has just begun. On stage prior to Mr Kerry coming out to make his acceptance speech. His former army mates came out one by one and I think it was Jim Sasson who came to podium to share his memories of John Kerry and he was reading from the teleprompter. He made it clear that if it wasn't for Mr Kerry who ordered the turn around of the boat to save his comrade and pull him up into the boat as enemy fire raged around them, he probably wouldn't be alive. These men have experiences of war that most of us will never know. They believe in their former commander will do good deeds for this country. Senator Kerry was introduces by triple amputee Former Senator Max CLelend, also a highly decorated Vietnam Vet who sacrificed his body for god and country. What a speech this man gave. I for am very proud that finally after all these years of the Democratic Party snickering about the brave young men and women in uniform ( General Wesley has said this many times about the Democrats on Capitol Hill ). The democrats have finally chosen a war veteran as their candidate. A huge sharp contrast to the Republcan nominee for President who still has yet to explain where he was during his final year of the National Guard when he was supposed to report for drill duties. Sooner or later he will have to clarify for public record as to why there are different stories to his where abouts in that year of 1972 in the Texas National Guard. I wish Mr Kerry the best of success and he'll need it come August, President Bush will be addressing the Republican faithful and one can bet that he's ready to do battle with the Senator from Massachusetts.

 

Rohale

 

 

Not an indentation to be found! That's one reason Kerry is so boring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucky, thank you for sharing your views. I respect your opinion. I would respectfully disagree with you. All too often, Americans choose their President based on personality or persona.

 

I think the important determiner of who should hold the office is charactor, intellect, experience and priorities on issues. I believe his wife's wealth is the least of our countries problems. I also believe that a President doesn't have to win a charm school competition, he need only work towards a better America for all Americans. Despite his wife's previous conservative and wealthy roots, he stands firmly in his belief in helping the least of us live as well as the best of us.

 

He's got my vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Despite his wife's previous conservative and wealthy roots, he stands firmly in his belief in helping the least of us live as well as the best of us."

 

Don't they have five mansions? Didn't he lie about the SUV's? And, how do the least live as well as the best? Redistribution of wealth? More welfare?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>

>Don't they have five mansions? Didn't he lie about the SUV's?

>And, how do the least live as well as the best? Redistribution

>of wealth? More welfare?

>

No, not through welfare, but by developing more opportunities for for people to receive higher education and skill training. Buy helping young working parents with child care. By reducing the tax burden on working class families and shifting it to those who already are wealthy. Finally by supporting economic developement here at home and severely penalizing American companies who take jobs abroad.

 

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: in the company of a hero

 

>Not an indentation to be found! That's one reason Kerry is so

>boring.

 

If you can't criticize the message, criticize the text editing. It's easy for those who write like Republicans -- no more than a simple sentence or two at a time, connecting a few meaningless phrases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

like phage and lucky, i am expecting to cast my vote against bush by voting for kerry. i have no love for him but have grown to detest most of bush's actions. however, unlike tedbear, the convention did not energize me but had the opposite effect.

 

the convention at times seemed to be a republican convention; it seemed very "hawkish" and prowar (especially edwards "you can run but you can't hide and we will get you"). there was nothing in prime time of the "true democratic religion" on view except al sharpton who was totally unscripted. in search of "gay issues" i saw none. where was there a mention of a hate crimes bill, gays in the military, workplace gay rights, gay marriage, etc. it seemed gays were sent to the closet. gays seemed to be marginalized totally.

 

now one of two things here. first, gay "agenda" is no longer an agenda of the democratic party; this i find hard to believe. or second, the whole convention is a phoney exercise to fool the american people and swing voters as to what the democratic party stands for and the surprise will come after the election when the closet doors open and the gays come out. the dishonesty was frightening to me. now before the bricks fly, the republican convention will probabally be just as dishonest with the right wing lynch mob kept out of sight and out of prime time; it'll be more boring as there is no al sharpton in their party.

 

the democrats should be proud of how open their tent is and that gays are welcome to be a visible part of the democratic community and not hidden. from past postings, you should know i'm bitter at the failure of the democratic party to advance gay rights when during the first two years of the clinton administration the party controlled the white house, senate and house; with all that control, nothing got passed. the last six years of bill clinton's administration, they could blame republican control of congress.

 

will kerry be another clinton and once in office abandon gays? the convention seemed to say so as we were not part of what they openly wanted to associate with. kerry has already said he does not support gay marriage so forget that one but i am not sure about other gay issues. we might get some lip service to get our votes and cash but little else. after clinton, i have little trust in any politician.

 

i was looking to see a leader that could be ahead of the curve and say "follow me" and "this is right and just"; think of hubert humphrey leading civil rights in 1948! think of harry truman acting in the military more than a decade ahead of the civilian world's civil rights laws! think of lyndon johnson twisting senators' arms to pass civil rights legislation. where was that leadership.

 

sorry tedbear, while kerry will most likely still get my vote, i am less excited now than before the convention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>there was

>nothing in prime time of the "true democratic religion" on

>view except al sharpton who was totally unscripted.

 

Then why was he reading from a teleprompter?

 

>in search

>of "gay issues" i saw none. where was there a mention of a

>hate crimes bill, gays in the military, workplace gay rights,

>gay marriage, etc. it seemed gays were sent to the closet.

>gays seemed to be marginalized totally.

 

I said the exact same thing to my TV screen (and to Derek) the last few nights. We were almost invisible; I think CNN did a count and found that the word "gay" was only mentioned 7 or 8 times during the entire convention. Even during Obama's great speech, he only said that "yes, we have some gay friends in red states." And during Kerry's speech, I think there was some mention of him not ever using the Constitution to take away anyone's rights...I guess that was our "moment."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Merlin

The entire convention was scripted to hide the true Democrat party from the public. Pretend to be for a strong defense. Yeah right. No talk of the massive tax increases planned. Try to hide our hatred of all Republican and Bush in particular. Try to sound reasonable. And yes try to hide our plan for gay polygamous "marriage". But it didn't work. Kerry's speech makes it clear that he just wants to get out of Iraq and never again fight unless our "allies" say it is OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...