My concerns about the Kerry Edwards ticket

All B.S. aside.

I have not yet decided who I'm going to vote for, though I think it's fairly obvious who I'm leaning towards here. I myself flip-flop between being a moderate and a "right-wing" conservative, depending on the issue. So a vote for Kerry is not completely out of the question for me.

With that being said, let me address what I witnessed this week at the Democratic National Convention, and then I'll move on to a few other concerns.

As you all know by now, if you read political websites at all, the Americans for Democratic Action and National Journal both show that Kerry has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate (Kerry repeatedly voted for raising taxes and defense budget cuts). They use some kind of complicated scale to devise ratings that go from left to right--with moderate in the middle-- based on a Senator's voting records, and apparently this is applied to all in the Senate. Kerry's ratings rank him as being more of a liberal than Ted Kennedy. Side note: I'm not using the term liberal in a derogatory way.

Now, here's where my concern is. At and leading up to the DNC, what I've seen of Kerry hasn't been as liberal as his rating is. In fact, I'd say that Kerry and the Democrats are portraying this image of a centrist moderate who appeals to all voters, and not just the left. In case you've forgotten, Bill Clinton ran as a moderate in 1992. After winning the election, he immediately began to govern as a liberal in 1993. He started raising taxes and tried to assemble what was basically a government takeover of health care. Are we seeing the same thing here with Kerry? I mean, Kerry knows the polls show him neck and neck with Bush right now. This means he absolutely NEEDS votes from moderates who could swing to the left or right.

My other concerns are what I call "Kerry on the issues." I've done a lot of digging around on the net on political forums, conservative sites and liberal sites. They all show the same patterns of Kerry pulling a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde act. I mean, it's cool to change your mind every now and then, but to get caught up in so much "flip-flopping" is unsettling to a voter such as myself. For example, at a speech that Kerry gave at the Arab American Institute in Michigan, he said:

Originally said by John KerryI know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government's decision to build the barrier off of the Green Line � cutting deep into Palestinian areas. We don't need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israelis' security over the long term, increase the hardships to the Palestinian people, and make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder.

The following week, he said the following while speaking to a crowd in New York:

Originally said by John KerryIsrael's security fence is a legitimate act of self defense. No nation can stand by while its children are blown up at pizza parlors and on buses. While President Bush is rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes innocent Palestinians, Israel has a right and a duty to defend its citizens. The fence only exists in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israel.

Again, don't take this as "political mug slinging" or whatever other wack term you can think of. This is just one example of many that I found from Kerry speeches. I guess the point of my concern here is, are we looking at a man who will sort of blend into his environment and simply say what that particular crowd wants to hear and mean none of it??? When someone says one thing, then turns around and makes a totally different statement to another crowd, which one was with intention?

My third and final concern is Kerry's stance on defense. This is a really big issue, and Kerry was playing the war card heavily at the DNC, which is not like him--according to his 20 year voting record in the Senate. Here is a list of military defense weapons/vehicles that Kerry voted AGAINST:

Bradley Fighting Vehicle
M-1 Abrams Tank
Aegis anti aircraft system
P-3 Orion upgrade
B-1
B-2
Patriot Anti Missile System
FA-18
F117
F-15
F-16

Side note: Most importantly to me on that list are the F-15 Strike Eagle and the Block 60 F-16. Had these two been cut from America's vast array of defense items, my own father would have been left jobless. He was an Airforce jet engine mechanic. Keeping the F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-15s and the now retired F-4s in the air was my old man's job.

John Kerry also voted to cut the the budget of the FBI by 60%, and to cut the funding for the CIA by 80%. Some of these votes were subsequent to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

So where are we NOW? We have a former 1960's anti-war activist turned U.S. Senator that votes to cut defensive budgets wanting middle America and potential moderate swing voters to believe he is going to be tough on terror and protect America? I mean, some say that Kerry is a potential Dukakis waiting to happen. Surely, you see my concern.

Was the DNC just a copiousness of deceptively moderate rhetoric?

So, please convince me why I should vote for Kerry. This is serious conversation, so spare me the Bush bashing and superficial comments.

[edit on 31-7-2004 by kramtronix]

[edit on 31-7-2004 by kramtronix]

Bradley Fighting Vehicle
M-1 Abrams Tank
Aegis anti aircraft system
P-3 Orion upgrade
B-1
B-2
Patriot Anti Missile System
FA-18
F117
F-15
F-16

Wow if Kerry had it his way American soldiers would still by using F-4 phantoms and M-60 tanks, and the Bradly fighting vehicle why would are troops want a armoured transport?

I think you forgot one though didnt Kerry vote against the protective vest for the troops the Intercepter vest?


Vote for a person based on their record not what they say they will do. These people will say whatever they think the most voters want to hear.

...Well as propaganda goes.

I've heard other people say that "Kerry is the most liberal.. blah blah" WTF does that mean "most liberal"? What are the criteria to define him as such. Hearing various senators speak you would see he is clearly not the "most liberal". Besides, the word liberal has various definitions.

They use some kind of complicated scale

Well sheeeit, a complicated scale? You sold me.

and to cut the funding for the CIA by 80%.

Well if that's true then my respect just rose greatly for him. The CIA is a constitutionally illegal organization and should not exist.

Was this some far-right "talking points memo"? Either that or it sounds like a Bill Oreilly (the liar/nut/slimeball) rant. Neither party has any desire to change anything. Both offer only war, oppression, and slavery.

The CIA shouldnt exist who needs intel on other countries around the world. No other countries have things like that right its just america?

There might be things wrong with the CIA but we need a org. like it.

The CIA shouldnt exist

who needs intel on other countries around the world.

Let's see.. a covert organization with little congressional oversight that reports directly to the president that has the power and authority to meddle, in secret, with foreign governments for purposes which are never disclosed to the public. I guess it's just insane to think such a thing. Really... it's a shock this country survived 171 years without it.

No other countries have things like that right its just america?

Yea I forgot the new goal of the powers that be is to make the USA like the former Soviet Union. We should follow the Israel/Mossad lead and immediately give power to the CIA to operate domestically, right?

"Intelligence gathering" is one thing, but the CIAs scope of power goes far beyond that. After all, meddling in foreign affairs is what creates most "terrorists".


[edit on 31-7-2004 by MindWarrior]

[edit on 31-7-2004 by MindWarrior]

First, I think basing any of your opinion off the national conventions, republican or democratic, is unwise. Those seem like such a dog-and-pony show to me that they aren�t even worth watching.

I agree with ShadowXIX, we need the CIA for foreign intelligence. What is criminal is the lack of communication between the CIA and the FBI. One reason I would say to stick with Bush is that he was in office when 9/11 occurred, and he is familiar with the working relationship of both the FBI and CIA at the time the attack occurred and now. I think he is in a better position to improve the communications between both of them than Kerry will be for quite a while.

I think Kerry aims to please the crowd he is talking to, which may be good for speech delivery but hurts his reputation long-term. I agree that it is important to change your mind when you are wrong, but I would rather see a president who makes the correct choice in the first place and can stick with it through all the ridicule.

I do my best to stay in the center and keep an open mind, but I almost always end up leaning right on any given issue (surprise), for what it�s worth. It�s good to know that people are basing there votes on what they think of the actual candidates and their values rather than because they are a democrat or a republican.

First, I think basing any of your opinion off the national conventions, republican or democratic, is unwise. Those seem like such a dog-and-pony show to me that they aren�t even worth watching.

Giant brainwashing sessions, nothing more.

What is criminal is the lack of communication between the CIA and the FBI.

Actually what's crimal is the conjoining of the agencies in a way that allows domestic intelligence gathering thereby bypassing the CIAs domestic operating restrictions.

One reason I would say to stick with Bush is that he was in office when 9/11 occurred, and he is familiar with the working relationship of both the FBI and CIA at the time the attack occurred and now. I think he is in a better position to improve the communications between both of them than Kerry will be for quite a while.

As was evidenced by the 911-commision whitewash, both the Republican and Democratic party controllers desperately want domestic spying. There is no communications improvement needed! There was no "wall" that made September 11th unstobable. That is pure disinfo used to attempt the justification of the creation of a DI CZAR.
Your logic is backwards, since Bush was holding office, anyone but him should be president. He has used terrorism to fulfill the far-right, neo-con agenda and if he retains power will move the war into Iran and Syria.

I think Kerry aims to please the crowd he is talking to

A classic polytrickster, no doubt.

I do my best to stay in the center and keep an open mind,

I believe the saying goes: The middle of the road is the most dangerous place to stand.

It�s good to know that people are basing there votes on what they think of the actual candidates and their values rather than because they are a democrat or a republican.

If only people could open their eyes and see beyond the democrat and the republican and realize they have other options.


[edit on 31-7-2004 by MindWarrior]

Originally posted by MindWarrior
...Well as propaganda goes.

Well sheeeit, a complicated scale? You sold me.

Was this some far-right "talking points memo"?

1) No propaganda here. It's not like I'm posting up erroneous information with the intent of deferring Kerry votes. I'm asking legitimate questions.

2) For more info on the voting scale:

www.adaction.org...

3) And what is so "far-right" about asking questions based on facts? I'm afraid you've totally misunderstood my entire post.

MindWarrior: Interesting views on the intelligence community. The one thing I would add is that the FBI has been tapping the NSA for domestic spying assignments for years. Also, I don�t think Bush had been in office long enough to really have a grasp on the intricacies of the relationship between the CIA and the FBI when 9/11 occurred. IMO, bin Laden played on our relatively new commander-in-chief�s lack of experience when planning the attack. I think we will have to agree to disagree on the need for a DCI/foreign intelligence agency.

You don�t seem to be satisfied with either of the two major candidates for the presidency, so who would you suggest?


EDIT - wording

[edit on 7/31/04 by para]

kramtronix says

My third and final concern is Kerry's stance on defense. This is a really big issue, and Kerry was playing the war card heavily at the DNC, which is not like him--according to his 20 year voting record in the Senate. Here is a list of military defense weapons/vehicles that Kerry voted AGAINST:


Bradley Fighting Vehicle
M-1 Abrams Tank
Aegis anti aircraft system
P-3 Orion upgrade
B-1
B-2
Patriot Anti Missile System
FA-18
F117
F-15
F-16

First of all, would you care to document these votes by Kerry? Second of all, you need to understand what goes on in the legislative process. Bills are voted on in different forms, with different amendments attached. The fact that you can find a case where Kerry voted against a specific bill authorizing one of these weapons systems does not mean that he opposed that weapons system, or ultimately voted against it. Maybe he thought the funding in the specific bill was too high, or didn't like one of the amendments.

I believe that Kerry has voted for the final defense appropriations bill in 16 of the 19 years he has been in the Senate. Since these bills included funding for all of the above weapons systems, you could more accurately say that he supported and voted for all these weapons systems. It is the final vote on the appropriations bill that counts, not a vote on a preliminary bill with amendments that Kerry might have found objectionable.

John Kerry also voted to cut the the budget of the FBI by 60%, and to cut the funding for the CIA by 80%. Some of these votes were subsequent to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Again, I would like to see documentation. And again, I would caution you that you cannot pull a vote on a preliminary bill with amendments out of context and say that that vote represents Kerry's position. I am not familiar with Kerry's voting record on CIA and FBI funding, but I am pretty sure Kerry does not advocate cutting funding for the FBI and CIA by the large percentages you cite.

For a non-partisan analysis of Kerry's positions and voting records on many issues, see the following.

www.issues2000.org...

Again, I would like to see the sources of your information on Kerry's voting record. My guess is that they are right-wing websites which have deliberately pulled votes on preliminary bills out of context, ignoring Kerry's final vote on the appropriation bill in question.

This same dishonest technique is used to portray Kerry as a flip-flopper. I am not saying Kerry never changes his mind on issues, or tailors his message to his audience. Your example about the security wall in Israel is a good one. But most of the flip-flop charges just do not stand up to scrutiny.

For example, the most famous Kerry flip-flop -- "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Of course, he was referring to authorizing $87 billion for continuing combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Kerry's position was that he would vote for the $87 billion only if $87 billion in Bush tax cuts were repealed to fund it. Kerry first voted for the $87 billion with an amendment to repeal $87 billion in Bush tax cuts. That bill was defeated. Then Kerry voted against an $87 billion bill with no provision to repeal tax cuts to pay for it. Kerry's position never changed. There was no flip-flop.

Most other claims about Kerry flip-flopping rely on the same technique. Pull a vote on a specific bill with specific amendments out of context, then contrast that vote with Kerry's vote on a different bill, or with a public statement of Kerry's. As far as I am concerned, this technique is fundamentally dishonest, and relies on the ignorance of most voters of the complexities of the legislative process.

You should also be suspicious of the claim that Kerry is a flip-flopper, because it is also claimed that his voting record shows him to be the most liberal member of the Senate. In order for that to be true, he would have to consistently vote for the liberal position on many bills. If he were constantly flip-flopping, as claimed, his voting record would not be consistently liberal.

Finally, you should realize that George Bush is a much bigger flip-flopper than John Kerry. And these are real flip-flops, not votes taken out of context. See the following for details.

President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief

EDIT: If my figures are correct, Kerry did vote against the final defense appropriations bill thee times in his Senate career. Is it then fair to claim that he voted against each and every weapons system in those bills? While the claim is technically correct, it is not fair. Maybe Kerry thought the overall funding level was too high, or there were some features of the bill which were unacceptable to him.

Kerry's vote for 16 final defense appropriations bills shows that he is not weak on national defense, as some of his critics claim. Remember, John McCain was questioned on this issue, and he stated that Kerry is not weak on national defense.








[edit on 7/31/2004 by donguillermo]

2) For more info on the voting scale:
www.adaction.org...

"Each year, ADA's Legislative Committee selects 20 votes it considers the most important during that session. ADA's National Board and/or National Executive Committee approves those votes. Each member recieves 5 points if he/she voted with ADA, and does not receive 5 points if he/she voted against us or was absent. The total possible is 100."



So it's based off 20 picked-and-chosen votes. These numbers can be completely manipulated based on the votes considered.

3) And what is so "far-right" about asking questions based on facts? I'm afraid you've totally misunderstood my entire post.

The demonization of the word liberal is in and of itself a far-right mission. Come on, you're quoting Ann Coulter in your sig... you're gonna argue you aren't part of the far-right?

You don�t seem to be satisfied with either of the two major candidates for the presidency, so who would you suggest?

I would suggest people wake up and realize that the corporate-influenced parties do not have any of the peoples' interests in mind.

This action has been conducted by both major parties as long as I have been voting. The left and right want to look like the center when it comes to being elected, and in the process quash any chance that the center is represented.

I am a right-leaning centrist, on the whole, I look at issues on a one for one basis and make my decisions on each based on its merit regardless of bias. That is where our (tax paying public), has been swindled, both parties have used us (voting public) as pawns in their political games, and who suffers as a result of these games? That's right, you and I do, by falling for the rhetoric and by listening to their partisan politics. Every citizen has the right to view every issue in it's own right, not gathered together to meet a particular "party platform."

Now, what is missing in this?, A party who represents the Center, one that can take good ideas from both sides and really represent the American public.

The center represents reason and understanding, and we are the most fought over votes during the election. When will the center break through and proclaim there position instead of tilting left or right?

I believe there are many members of our Congress who would become part of the central party, John McCain, Harold Ford Jr., Joe Lieberman to name a few, will they form a new party?

It is "plain as day" to the common citizen, those who just want to make a decent wage and take care of their family, these people aren't looking for handouts, aren't looking to be the richest in the neighborhood, they just want to live a peaceful, productive life, and expect their representatives in Washington to ensure that they provide an environment which makes this possible.

So, enough venting, my views on this thread are, that both candidates will do their best to appeal to the central voters, thus blurring the choice. The reason that they do it is because the majority of people out there do not think they have power when they go to the polls, they think their voice does not count, I don't know when that happened, but that was the beginning of the end of America.


[edit on 7/31/04 by JacKatMtn]

MindWarrior says

The demonization of the word liberal is in and of itself a far-right mission. Come on, you're quoting Ann Coulter in your sig... you're gonna argue you aren't part of the far-right?

LMFAO! Thanks for pointing that out, MindWarrior. I missed the Ann Coulter quote. If I had seen that, I would have realized that kramtronix was just pretending to be asking honest questions about John Kerry so he could introduce a bunch of Republican talking points.

Choosing for who to vote is not a matter of discussion if you don't know for who to vote by now well I suggest you sit and look for facts and stay away from the bias opinions of others and including me and don't let other influence your decisions, it is your vote your democratic right and is for you alone to decides.

Here in ATS most people argue and debate I am one of them but most of us know already who we are voting for it, we just like to argue.

Originally posted by kramtronix
In fact, I'd say that Kerry and the Democrats are portraying this image of a centrist moderate who appeals to all voters, and not just the left.

Both parties package their candidates as "moderates" prior to Election Day. Remember the "compassionate conservative" who's a "uniter not a divider" who was going to bring a "new tone" to Washington?

The truth is that Kerry would probably not be all that different from Bush, except for some token public policy differences that will be the "highlights" of his presidency and form his "legacy".

On the surface, of course, Kerry would "change everything", but all the major players will still get their handouts, regardless of who wins. When you look at how many multinationals give money to both parties, the picture becomes clearer.

Of course, with a Democratic president, unions, entitlement programs and their attendant industries, trial lawyers, environmentalists, ethnic lobbies and other publicly-marketed special interest groups will move up the pecking order again, with military manufacturers, megacorporations, utility and oil companies, insurance companies, religious lobbies and their ilk getting dropped down a few notches. Maybe.

But that won't change the status of the really big fish with permanent and prominent offices on Capitol Hill one bit, because they are diversified, and they really call the shots anyway.

If you think the President runs the U.S., you are nurturing a common illusion. The President is a mouthpiece for the people who put him in power and keep him there.

It all reminds me of a song...

Sitting on a sofa
On a Sunday afternoon,
Going to the candidates' debate,
Laugh about it,
Shout about it,
When you've got to choose,
Every way you look at it you lose.
-- Mrs. Robinson, Simon & Garfunkel


The people actually worth looking at on the federal level are representatives and senators. And you still can make a difference at the state and local levels, so remember that.

And remember...

VOTE for Somebody. Because America needs Somebody.
A Public Service Announcement from the Majestic 12

Originally posted by donguillermo
MindWarrior says

The demonization of the word liberal is in and of itself a far-right mission. Come on, you're quoting Ann Coulter in your sig... you're gonna argue you aren't part of the far-right?

LMFAO! Thanks for pointing that out, MindWarrior. I missed the Ann Coulter quote. If I had seen that, I would have realized that kramtronix was just pretending to be asking honest questions about John Kerry so he could introduce a bunch of Republican talking points.

Look, I've read Ann Coulter's books and I've read Al Franken's. If you think you can judge someone's true ideology based on a signature on their internet profile, then your opinions aren't even worth noting. I'm looking for some real insight from people of a more intelligent caliber.

All I've gotten from any of the responses, besides calling me some right-wing wacko, is that Kerry is indeed putting on an act to gain the confidence of the moderates who have not yet decided on who to vote for.

I still haven't decided who I'm voting for.

kramtronix says

All I've gotten from any of the responses, besides calling me some right-wing wacko, is that Kerry is indeed putting on an act to gain the confidence of the moderates who have not yet decided on who to vote for.

You must have missed my first, long post in response to your original post. I didn't call you a right-wing wacko in that post, nor in my post that you quoted.

What I did do in my first response to you was ask you for source links for your information on Kerry's voting record on weapons systems and funding for CIA and FBI.

So far you haven't provided those links, so I have no way of knowing if you have accurately represented Kerry's voting record, or if you have any reliable sources for your information.

I also explained to you the techniques used to distort Kerry's voting record and unfairly represent him as a flip-flopper. I also gave you a link showing that George Bush is the real flip-flopper.

So far, I haven't heard from you on these issues either. Are you going to respond to my first post addressed to you, or are you just going to keep making your unsubstantiated claims about Kerry?

It would be hard for me to vote for the Kerry/Edwards ticket because both men had said on tv that Saddam needed to be dealt with by the use of force. After force was used and things started to go bad they distanced themselves and changed their stance on the subject.

www.pabaah.com...

Also, Kerry seems to have some problems with his military career.

www.swiftvets.com...

IT seems that Kerry has been caught lying. It is hard to believe anything that a liar has said like "I will not raise taxes on the middle class". If he lied before what prevents him from lying again?

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
It would be hard for me to vote for the Kerry/Edwards ticket because both men had said on tv that Saddam needed to be dealt with by the use of force. After force was used and things started to go bad they distanced themselves and changed their stance on the subject.

www.pabaah.com...

Are you going to spam this link to a propaganda video from the Republican National Committee all over ATS?

Also, Kerry seems to have some problems with his military career.

www.swiftvets.com...

This Swift Boat Veterans group has been discussed in another thread. So far, only one member of the group has been shown to have served on the same boat with Kerry. What problems does Kerry have with his military career? Some right-wing veterans, obviously financed with Republican money, are smearing him??? Big deal. Kerry has a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts. Why don't you tell us about your military medals.

IT seems that Kerry has been caught lying.

And what lie would that be? Changing your mind, or flip-flopping as you like to call it, is not lying. Of course, if you think flip-flopping is lying, then here are some real flip-flops by George Bush.

President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief

On the other hand, if you would like to see some real lies by George Bush, check out the following thread.

"Bush Lied?" Let�s Examine the Facts

Wondering also where the Edwards election money came from and why Kerry chose him?

(actually I know and it might be suprising)