PDA

View Full Version : 1971 VIDEO: KERRY ADMITS THROWING OWN MEDALS; CONTRADICTS CURRENT CLAIMS


FishForLunch
04-25-2004, 07:20 PM
Everyone is entitled to his own truth.
--------------------------------------------------
In an interview published Friday in the LOS ANGELES TIMES, Dem presidential hopeful John Kerry claimed he "never ever implied" that he threw his own medals during a Hill protest in 1971 to appear as an antiwar hero.

But a new shock video shows John Kerry -- in his own voice -- saying he did!

ABC's GOOD MORNING AMERICA is set to rock the political world Monday morning with an airing of Kerry's specific 1971 boast, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

The video was made by a local news station in 1971.

It directly contradicts Kerry's own website headline: "RIGHTWING FICTION: John Kerry threw away his medals during a Vietnam war protest."

Kerry's campaign refused comment Sunday afternoon, citing a policy not to respond to the DRUDGE REPORT.

dude1394
04-25-2004, 10:56 PM
"I actually did throw away my medals before I said I did not throw them away."

Mavdog
04-26-2004, 08:12 AM
Yawn.

FishForLunch
04-26-2004, 08:44 AM
Yawn

Finally even MD is bored to death by Kerry

Dooby
04-26-2004, 08:47 AM
Mavdog, it may not be interesting to you, but Kerry is consistently being knocked off message for some petty stuff. Kerry has to go on GMA this morning and explain himself fro 3 minutes. I just have to wonder if he knows what the hell he is doing.

Chiwas
04-26-2004, 09:25 AM
Kerry's statement to the Senate:


We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?....
I think he was right.


Edit: Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement by John Kerry to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations - April 23, 1971 (http://pages.xtn.net/~wingman/docs/kerryst.htm)

Mavdog
04-26-2004, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by: Dooby
Mavdog, it may not be interesting to you, but Kerry is consistently being knocked off message for some petty stuff. Kerry has to go on GMA this morning and explain himself fro 3 minutes. I just have to wonder if he knows what the hell he is doing.

I agree that Kerry is not taking the reins as it were and putting forth a more focused campaign theme. It could very well be shown that Kerry is not ready for prime time, although I am not of that opinion yet. After all, we are still almost 90 days from the convention.

The seemingly never ending journeys by Kerry's opponents to the early 70's and Kerry's statements/positions/indescretions are in fact tiring as well as a bore. Their infatuation with this period of his life and their hope that it is meaningful today in 2004 is a waste of their time, it has no bearing on today. Should we look at GWBush's activities/statements of 1972 to understand where his mind is today? Absolutely not, in spite of the fact that it isn't very complimentary to GWBush. It's not important.

Max Power
04-26-2004, 09:37 AM
It is important because Kerry is lying NOW. If he actually threw away the medals then tell the truth and move on. He'll take a few lumps but then it will be behind him.

Throwing away the medals is in the past - I don't care about that. Lying about it today - THAT I care about.

kg_veteran
04-26-2004, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by: Max Power
It is important because Kerry is lying NOW. If he actually threw away the medals then tell the truth and move on. He'll take a few lumps but then it will be behind him.

Throwing away the medals is in the past - I don't care about that. Lying about it today - THAT I care about.

Exactly.

Dooby
04-26-2004, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by: Mavdog

Originally posted by: Dooby
Mavdog, it may not be interesting to you, but Kerry is consistently being knocked off message for some petty stuff. Kerry has to go on GMA this morning and explain himself fro 3 minutes. I just have to wonder if he knows what the hell he is doing.

I agree that Kerry is not taking the reins as it were and putting forth a more focused campaign theme. It could very well be shown that Kerry is not ready for prime time, although I am not of that opinion yet. After all, we are still almost 90 days from the convention.

<u>The seemingly never ending journeys by Kerry's opponents to the early 70's and Kerry's statements/positions/indescretions are in fact tiring as well as a bore. Their infatuation with this period of his life and their hope that it is meaningful today in 2004 is a waste of their time, it has no bearing on today.</u> Should we look at GWBush's activities/statements of 1972 to understand where his mind is today? Absolutely not, in spite of the fact that it isn't very complimentary to GWBush. It's not important.

The whole planet knows this isn't true. Take names out of it. First, if Candidate A rises to prominance through an event, an examination of Candidate A's involvement and positions related to that even is relevant. Second, if Candidate A relies on or touts experience from a past event, an examination of Candidate A's involvement and positions related to that even is relevant.

Make no mistake, if John McCain had gotten the nomination for President, there would be several of his POW "buddies" giving their opinions of who the "real" John McCain is in their mind. Nobody ever points this out but Congressman Sam Johnson and John McCain were in the same camp during Vietnam and you never see them together. There is a reason for that. Not saying who is right and who is wrong, but there is a reason for that. And a thorough examination of those events is just and proper.

Likewise, an examination of Ross Perot's business history, attendance at the Naval Academy and service in the Navy is appropriate when he touted that history as a reason for voting for him.

And there has been a thorough examination of Bush's 70's-era activities- his national guard duties and his drunk driving conviction. And I can't think of anything less specifically relevant to being POTUS than a drunk driving conviction of man that hadn't taken a sip of alcohol for 10 years. Unless you think it reflects on his decision making abilities or character.... In which case, everything is fair game.

Chiwas
04-26-2004, 10:10 AM
Well, it seems there are two liars for the Presidency now.

No big deal. They all lie.

madape
04-26-2004, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by: Chiwas
Well, it seems there are two liars for the Presidency now.

No big deal. They all lie.


Are you talking about Nader again?

I think one of the reasons Bush is so far ahead in the polls is that the majority of people think Bush beleives strongly in what he says. You may not agree with him, or you may think his ideology rules over common sense, but the polls show that voters think he's a man not inclined to lie for political gain.

Kerry is being defined as such a man.

Mavdog
04-26-2004, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by: DoobyMavdog, it may not be interesting to you, but Kerry is consistently being knocked off message for some petty stuff. Kerry has to go on GMA this morning and explain himself fro 3 minutes. I just have to wonder if he knows what the hell he is doing.

I agree that Kerry is not taking the reins as it were and putting forth a more focused campaign theme. It could very well be shown that Kerry is not ready for prime time, although I am not of that opinion yet. After all, we are still almost 90 days from the convention.

The seemingly never ending journeys by Kerry's opponents to the early 70's and Kerry's statements/positions/indescretions are in fact tiring as well as a bore. Their infatuation with this period of his life and their hope that it is meaningful today in 2004 is a waste of their time, it has no bearing on today.[/b]</u> Should we look at GWBush's activities/statements of 1972 to understand where his mind is today? Absolutely not, in spite of the fact that it isn't very complimentary to GWBush. It's not important.

The whole planet knows this isn't true. Take names out of it. First, if Candidate A rises to prominance through an event, an examination of Candidate A's involvement and positions related to that even is relevant. Second, if Candidate A relies on or touts experience from a past event, an examination of Candidate A's involvement and positions related to that even is relevant.[/quote]

The activities in 1972 were germaine to his election campaigns of that era.

Kerry is not running based on his anti-war activities, nor his service in the military, He's running based on his years as a Senator.

These long ago events are not important in looking at the candidate today.


Make no mistake, if John McCain had gotten the nomination for President, there would be several of his POW "buddies" giving their opinions of who the "real" John McCain is in their mind. Nobody ever points this out but Congressman Sam Johnson and John McCain were in the same camp during Vietnam and you never see them together. There is a reason for that. Not saying who is right and who is wrong, but there is a reason for that. And a thorough examination of those events is just and proper.

Likewise, an examination of Ross Perot's business history, attendance at the Naval Academy and service in the Navy is appropriate when he touted that history as a reason for voting for him.

And there has been a thorough examination of Bush's 70's-era activities- his national guard duties and his drunk driving conviction. And I can't think of anything less specifically relevant to being POTUS than a drunk driving conviction of man that hadn't taken a sip of alcohol for 10 years. Unless you think it reflects on his decision making abilities or character.... In which case, everything is fair game.

It's amazing what those long ago friends do when they have their 15 minutes of fame.

As fas as Sam Johnson, I've heard him speak and (with all due respect to a vet and ex-POW) John McCain is certainly justified in not wanting to be around him i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif

edit for operator error

Dooby
04-26-2004, 10:25 AM
Apparently Mavdog agrees with me so much, he just quoted me without comment.i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif

kg_veteran
04-26-2004, 10:31 AM
Kerry Rejects GOP Questions About Medals - AP


WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) on Monday rejected as a Republican-driven controversy renewed questions over his claim to have thrown away his Navy medals during a 1971 Vietnam War protest.

Kerry has said for years that he threw away his ribbons, not his three Purple Hearts, Bronze Star and Silver Star during the April 1971 protest. On Monday, however, a tape of a television interview Kerry gave shortly after the protest suggested he was talking about more than his ribbons when discussing the anti-war demonstration.


In an exchange, aired by ABC and published in The New York Times, an interviewer asks Kerry, "How many did you give back, John?" Kerry responds, "I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine." The host then notes that Kerry had won the Purple Hearts and Bronze and Silver stars. Kerry says, "Well, and above that, I gave back my others."


Nearly 800 veterans "gave back" their medals by throwing them over a fence near the Capitol. Kerry has said he also threw over the fence the medals of two other veterans who had asked him to give them back.


Kerry denied Monday that his statements have been inconsistent. He said ribbons were often referred to as medals.


"Back then ribbons, medals were absolutely interchangeable," Kerry told "Good Morning America" on ABC. "The U.S. Navy (news - web sites) pamphlet calls them medals. We all referred to them as the symbols they were representing. Medals, ribbons ... countless veterans threw the ribbons back."


The protest took place the same week Kerry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on behalf of the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans Against the War.


"The fact is I have been accurate precisely about what took place, and I am the one who later made clear exactly what happened," Kerry told ABC. "This is a controversy the Republicans are pushing."


The anti-Bush political group MoveOn PAC released a 60-second television ad Monday comparing Kerry's service in Vietnam to President Bush (news - web sites)'s record with the Texas Air National Guard. Bush has been criticized for being unable to account for some periods of his Guard service.


"This election is about character," the ad concludes. "It's between John Kerry, who left no man behind ... and George W. Bush, who simply left."


The group is spending a small amount — $115,000 — to run the ad nationally on Fox News Channel and on CNN in Washington, D.C., and New York City media markets.

There he goes again, trying to split hairs. What's the definition of "is", John?

Chiwas
04-26-2004, 10:35 AM
Are you talking about Nader again?All politicians.


I think one of the reasons Bush is so far ahead in the polls is that the majority of people think Bush beleives strongly in what he says. You may not agree with him, or you may think his ideology rules over common sense, but the polls show that voters think he's a man not inclined to lie for political gain.I think Bush has lied for what he strongly believes, which in some extent is not too bad if what he believes in is good for his country, as the war against terrorism, which is not the same, after the fall of the dictator, that the war against Iraq.

And of course, a leader has to be congruent and stable, also adaptable to new circumstances, without losing his principles. Bush seems to be of this kind; I'm still waiting to know if Kerry is of this kind too; there is too much information and we still have to filter it and discern what in reality Kerry is. But I agree, he seems to be losing the media war.

Mavdog
04-26-2004, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by: madape
[quote]
Originally posted by: Chiwas
Well, it seems there are two liars for the Presidency now.

No big deal. They all lie.


Are you talking about Nader again?

If there is one positive thing that can be said for Nader it is in regard to his integrity and honesty. There is noone in the Presidential race that comes close to Nader's dedication and commitment to his principles, You may disagre with the positions of Nader, but it is ridiculous to suggest that he is anything but honest.


I think one of the reasons Bush is so far ahead in the polls is that the majority of people think Bush beleives strongly in what he says. You may not agree with him, or you may think his ideology rules over common sense, but the polls show that voters think he's a man not inclined to lie for political gain.

Kerry is being defined as such a man.

"So far ahead"??? it's like 3 points or so...take a gander at the job approval ratings to see how the public sees GWBush.

"Lie"? No, but manipulate the facts, yes. And that's true for both the Republican nominee and the probable Democratic nominee as well.

kg_veteran
04-26-2004, 11:26 AM
I think Dooby said it best when he said:


Kerry is consistently being knocked off message for some petty stuff. Kerry has to go on GMA this morning and explain himself fro 3 minutes. I just have to wonder if he knows what the hell he is doing.

Chiwas
04-26-2004, 01:03 PM
"Lie"? No, but manipulate the facts, yes. And that's true for both the Republican nominee and the probable Democratic nominee as well.This is what I mean when I say that all politicans "lie". And some of them actually lie.

Max Power
04-26-2004, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by: Mavdog
Kerry is not running based on his anti-war activities, nor his service in the military, He's running based on his years as a Senator.

These long ago events are not important in looking at the candidate today.


As I said earlier, I don't care if Kerry threw away his medals. I care about is whether he is an honest man RIGHT NOW.

madape
04-26-2004, 01:10 PM
http://www.poorandstupid.com/images/20040426.jpg

I thought this was funny.

madape
04-26-2004, 01:43 PM
Transcript from this morning's Good Morning America interview with Kerry
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ABC NEWS GOOD MORNING AMERICA'S CHARLIE GIBSON: Now joining us from West Virginia is himself senator John Kerry. He's in the town of Glen Easton, West Virginia, today. Good to have you with us.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: i'm glad to be with you. i really am.

GIBSON: 1984, senator, to the present. you have said a number of times, as brian pointed out as recently as friday with the ""los angeles times,"" have you said a number of times that you did not throw away the vietnam medals themselves. but now this interview from 1971 shows up the in which you say that was the medals themselves that were thrown away.

KERRY: no, i don't.

GIBSON: can you explain?

KERRY: absolutely. that's absolutely incorrect. charlie, i stood up in front of the nation. there were dozens of cameras there, television cameras, there were -- i don't know. 20, 30 still photographers. thousands of people and i stood up in front of the country, reached into my shirt, visibly for the nation to see, and took the ribbons off my chest, said a few words and threw them over the fence. the file footage, the reporter there from the ""boston globe,"" everybody got it correctly. and i never asserted otherwise. what i said was and back then, you know, ribbons, medals were absolutely interchangeable . senator simmington asking me questions in the committee hearing, look ad at the ribbons and said what are those medals? the u.s. navy pam let calls the medals, we referred to them it is a symbols, representing medals, ribbons, countless veterans through the ribbon -- threw the ribbons back. everybody did. veterans threw back dog tags. they threw back photographs, they th rew back their 14's. there are photographs of a pile of all of those things collected on the steps of the capitol. so the fact is that i have -- i have been accurate precisely about what took place. and i am the one who later made clear exactly what happened. i mean, this is a controversy that the republicans are pushing , the republicans have spent $60 million in the last few weeks trying to attack me. and this comes from a president and a republican party that can't even answer whether or not he showed up for duty in the national guard. i'm not going to stand for it.

GIBSON: senator, i was there 33 years ago and i saw you throw medals over the fence and we didn't find out until later -

KERRY: no, you didn't see me throw th. charlie, charlie, you are wrong. that's not what happened. i threw my ribbons across. all you have to do -

GIBSON: someone else's medals, correct in?

KERRY: after -- excuse me. excuse me, charlie. after the ceremony was over, i had a bronze star and a purple heart given to me, one purple heart by a veteran in the v.a. in new york and the bronze star by an older veteran of world war ii in massachusetts. i threw them over because they asked me to. i never --

GIBSON: let me come back to the thing just said which is the military --

KERRY: this is a phony -- charlie, this is a phony controversy.

GIBSON: the military makes no distinction between ribbons and medals but you are the one who made the distinction. in 1984 --

KERRY: no . we made no distinction back then, charlie. we made no distinction.

GIBSON: senator, i don't want -- i just want to ask the question. in 1984 when you were running for the senate, that was the first time that you called someone in from labor because they were upset that you had thrown ribbons away.

KERRY: no.

GIBSON: you called them and you made the distinction and said i didn't throw my medals away. i just threw the ribbons away. you made the distinction.

KERRY: i was asked specifically in greater detail about what took place. i answered the question truthfully. which is consistent with what happened in 1971. i mean, charlie, go back and get the file footage. there are were millions of people watching. i took my ribbons off my chest just as other veterans did. this is a phony controversy. this is being pushed yesterday by karen hughes of the white house on fox. it shows up at a several different stations at the same time. the republicans are running $10 million this week to attack my credentials on defense. this comes from a president who can't even show or prove that he showed up for duty in the national guard.

GIBSON: senator --

KERRY: i'm not going to stand for it. i'm in the going to stand for it.

GIBSON: i-understand you are feeling politics is behind this. but i ask you, is it not --

KERRY: i know politics is behind this.

GIBSON: when trying to appeal to the anti-war people in 1971, you said as in that interview, it was the medals and then when the people who supported the war were giving you political problems, you then said i didn't throw the medals away 13 years later.

KERRY: that's the most -- with all due respect, that's the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard. because i stood up in front of the country, in front of cameras, a reporter of the ""boston globe"" got it correct . he wrote about the medals but knew they were my ribbons. everybody understood what we were doing. i even said in that interview we threw away the symbols of what our country gave us for what we had gone through. and if i was -- you know, back then, trying to appeal to somebody, i stood up against richard nixon, stood up against the withar, took a position, and it wasn't popular, and it was polarizing. i didn't have to do it. if i was trying to hide something, i would have never stood there in floment of everybody and thrown them over the fence. i threw my ribbons over. i threw the medals of two veterans who asked me to throw them over, after the ceremony, completely separate, and i'm the one -- if hi something to hide, i'm the one who made it known exactly what happened. to me, it is one in the same. and i'm proud of it.

GIBSON: let me ask you, too, about two other things that you have said. subsequent to that. 1985, you said to ""the washington post,"" it is such a personal thing i did no want to throw my medals away. then 1996, you said to the ""boston globe,"" i didn't bring my own medals to throw because i didn't have time to go home and get them. which one was it?

KERRY: i expressed there was great sense of wrench being the whole thing. many of us -- we had a long argument the night before, charlie. it is a matter of record. as to how we were going to do it. and the vote was taken. i was not in favor of throwing them over the fence. i thought we ought to lay them on a table and put them in front of people in a way that, you know, wouldn't be as challenging to many americans. other veterans felt otherwise. they took a vote. the vote was made, they voted to throw. i threw my ribbons. i didn't have my medals. it is very simple . what the republicans are trying to do is make this into an issue because they have no record to run on and they can't go out and talk about jobs or health care or environment. they are going to attack 35 years ago. last week in an unprecedented attack, they sent congressmen to the floor of the senate of the house to attack me on the anniversary of my speech. george bush has yet to explain to america whether or no t to tell the truth about whether he showed up for duty. i'm not going to get attack order something i did that's a matter of record that the press saw, that i did in front of the entire nation and everyone then understood there was no distinction. we threw away the symbols of the war. i'm proud i stood up and fought stood up and fought against it. proud i took on richard nixon. and i think to this day, there's no distinction between the two.

GIBSON: all right. senator, i appreciate your being with us this morning. i'm glad to have you here. thank you. all the best. diane?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OUCH!

kg_veteran
04-26-2004, 02:25 PM
That's pathetic. He made an ass of himself.

kg_veteran
04-26-2004, 02:39 PM
I notice a strange resemblance here...

http://a.abcnews.com/media/WNT/images/abc_wnt_kerry_medals_040426_nh.jpg

http://www.angelfire.com/hero/chriswebberissad/headbandsad.jpg


John Kerry is sad. Sad that they caught him lying....again.

jacktruth
04-26-2004, 02:55 PM
I'm actually quite shocked that ABC news wasn't kissing democrat butt like they usually do.

Dooby
04-26-2004, 03:14 PM
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040426/lthumb.srs10104261903.topix_kerry_srs101.jpg

I am struggling for a funny caption here. How about "Sen. John Forbes Kerry (D) seen here with a search party, continues to search for medals he did not throw away." Or "Sen. John Forbes Kerry (D) talks with supporters after yet another failed attempt to find out what his positions truly are."

reeds
04-26-2004, 06:45 PM
Well- at least Kerry can prove he fought for his country- can BUSH??? Is there proof BUSH even showed up for duty in the big bad "National Guard"....

You guys crack me up... Bashing Kerry over something like this..when he was in real combat in VIETNAM- unlike your whimpy leader who was in the National Guard...what do Marines call national guard people anyway? I know the answer.....hahahahaha

kg_veteran
04-26-2004, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by: reeds
Well- at least Kerry can prove he fought for his country- can BUSH??? Is there proof BUSH even showed up for duty in the big bad "National Guard"....

Wow, great retort. That really makes us feel silly for mocking Kerry after he was caught in a lie.


You guys crack me up... Bashing Kerry over something like this..

Figures you'd minimize it. The guy is an opportunist who takes whatever position he thinks will benefit him at the moment. Too bad he can't keep his stories straight.

reeds
04-26-2004, 07:55 PM
it should make u feel silly..it wont, but it should....i would rather be accused of throwing my medals I recieved than being in the big bad national guard where I never even earned any medals....thats my point

MavKikiNYC
04-26-2004, 08:24 PM
http://a.abcnews.com/media/WNT/images/abc_wnt_kerry_medals_040426_nh.jpg

My mom had that hairstyle in 1971. Still does.

u2sarajevo
04-26-2004, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by: kg_veteran
The guy(Kerry) is an opportunist who takes whatever position he thinks will benefit him at the moment.That sound eerily similar to a US President that served in that role from 92-2000.

Just say no to crack.

MavKikiNYC
04-26-2004, 09:08 PM
That was a really dirty trick, too, Ape to post the transcript of Kerry's own words. He's incomprehensible, although you can tell that he wants to talk about Bush's serivce record, and that he (Kerry) is not going to stand for something or other.

The liberal Dim press thought they were so clever back with Bush41, mocking his syntax and often pointing to transcripts of his interviews or press conferences. Anyone knows that extemporaenous speech does not translate well to the written word, but it's nice to see this being used against a Democrat instead of against a Bush.

Kerry is, in a different way, as bad a speaker as Bush43 is. Kerry delivers his speeches like a straining graduate of the Lieberman Institute for Constipated Elocution (LICE). When he finally evacuates his message, the stench of incomprehensibility soon follows.

reeds
04-26-2004, 10:09 PM
"Kerry delivers his speeches like a straining graduate of the Lieberman Institute for Constipated Elocution (LICE). When he finally evacuates his message, the stench of incomprehensibility soon follows."

Did you happen to watch the last press conference with BUSH??? He is equally as bad trying to think of answers that he has no clue about..I was even embarrassed for him...terrible..he may be able to give a good speech, but he chokes big time when he has to think for himself...we shall see in a debate...Kerry will dominate

FishForLunch
04-27-2004, 09:35 AM
Yes it will be interesting to watch the debate, where Kerry goes on and on, while Bush answers the questions put to him and is to the point.

What did you think during the 2000 election when you liberals went on and on how Gore was so smart and he will wipe the floor with Bush. All Gore did was look like a fool.

I am waiting for the debates too, to watch the pompus A-hole lecture us on how Bush is wrong and evil, and how the country is collapsing because of bush.

madape
04-27-2004, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by: reeds
"Kerry delivers his speeches like a straining graduate of the Lieberman Institute for Constipated Elocution (LICE). When he finally evacuates his message, the stench of incomprehensibility soon follows."

Did you happen to watch the last press conference with BUSH??? He is equally as bad trying to think of answers that he has no clue about..I was even embarrassed for him...terrible..he may be able to give a good speech, but he chokes big time when he has to think for himself...we shall see in a debate...Kerry will dominate

Kerry can't even win a debate with himself. His opponents don't even need to come up with counter-points to any of his arguments. Kerry has already done them the service!

reeds
04-27-2004, 07:20 PM
"All Gore did was look like a fool."...All Gore did was win the popular vote....hahahahahahaha....Bush cant even do that right

dude1394
04-27-2004, 08:08 PM
Well there is no accounting for the intelligence of the voter. Even snl knew he was a fool. Bush didn't win the popular vote but what he would say is ......SCOREBOARD dude.

kg_veteran
04-27-2004, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by: reeds
"All Gore did was look like a fool."...All Gore did was win the popular vote....hahahahahahaha....Bush cant even do that right

I'm glad you are able to console yourself with this sad and hollow 'moral victory'.

What a patheticly sore loser you are.

Drbio
04-27-2004, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by: madape
http://www.poorandstupid.com/images/20040426.jpg

I thought this was funny.

Yep. I got an email today asking me who I would rather have as the nations quarterback. Then these two pics come up.

classic.

reeds
04-29-2004, 11:55 AM
NO sore loser here- I just think its halarious that Bush lost the popular vote...very cool that more Amercians didnt want him than did want him...gotta luv it...

Drbio
04-29-2004, 01:04 PM
sour grapes make the best whine reeds.

dude1394
04-29-2004, 10:33 PM
Best encapsulation on this whole thing. He's just stupid to be so nutty about something so trivial.

kerry's nutty (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/04/29/the_kerry_medals_mystery/)

The Kerry medals mystery

By Jeff Jacoby | April 29, 2004

IF JOHN KERRY hadn't already clinched the Democratic presidential nomination, his medals meltdown on "Good Morning America" this week would have sunk his campaign. Much as Howard Dean's crazed "I Have A Scream" speech jolted voters into wondering whether someone so hotheaded should be allowed anywhere near the nuclear trigger, Kerry's abusive tirade on ABC gave millions of viewers a foretaste of how far presidential discourse will sink if Kerry becomes president.

Not one voter in 100 would vote against Kerry for trashing his Vietnam War medals when he was 27 years old. What he did with his combat decorations in 1971 has no bearing on whether he is fit to be president today. That long-ago episode is an issue today only because Kerry's versions of it have changed so many times and because it so perfectly typifies his lifelong habit of saying one thing today and something else tomorrow -- and then denying having done so.

So what does Kerry say he did with those medals? As with so many of his shifts and flip-flops, it's all on the record.

Take 1:

Q. Did Kerry throw his combat decorations away in an antiwar protest 33 years ago?

A. Yes. As The Boston Globe reported on April 24, 1971, "John Kerry . . . said before he threw his medals over the fence: `I'm not doing this for any violent reasons, but for peace and justice, and to try to make this country wake up once and for all.' "

Take 2:

Q. Did Kerry throw his decorations away 33 years ago?

A. Yes. In a Nov. 6, 1971, interview with WRC-TV, he recalled that the protesters had decided to "renounce the symbols which this country gives . . . the medals themselves." When the interviewer asked, "How many did you give back, John?" he answered: "I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine." The interviewer noted that Kerry had won the Bronze and Silver Stars and three Purple Hearts. Kerry: "Well, and above that, I gave back my others."

Take 3:

Q. Did Kerry throw his decorations away 33 years ago?

A. No. In 1984, running for the Senate against a World War II Air Force veteran, he claimed he had refused to do so. "After showing a reporter his medals and ribbons on display in his Back Bay apartment," The Boston Globe reported on Oct. 15, 1984, Kerry "said he had disagreed with other protest leaders on throwing away medals." The medals he was seen tossing, Kerry added, were those of a "veteran from Lincoln [Mass.], at his request."

Take 4:

Q. Did Kerry throw his decorations away 33 years ago?

A. Medals, no; ribbons, yes. During his 1996 reelection campaign, he told the Globe that he only threw the ribbons pinned to his uniform. "Asked why he didn't bring his own medals to throw since it was planned weeks in advance," the Globe reported on Oct. 6, 1996, "Kerry said it was because he didn't have time to go home [to New York] and get them." The medals he was seen tossing, he claimed, belonged to two other veterans -- the one from Lincoln and one from New York. "Kerry says he can't remember their names."

The variations don't end there. For example, his explanation that he "didn't have time to go home and get" the medals -- i.e., he would have trashed them if he could have -- is sharply at odds with his earlier "explanation" to the Boston Herald: "They're my medals. I can do goddam what I want with them."

On Monday's TV show, after being shown the tape of his younger self claiming to have thrown "six, seven, eight, nine" medals onto the trash heap, Kerry heatedly insisted that he had pitched only his ribbons, not his medals. Then he insisted even more heatedly that "ribbons, medals were absolutely interchangeable. . . . there was no distinction . . . I think, to this day, there's no distinction between the two."

Well, if ribbons and medals are identical, then by his own admission he did throw away his medals. So why does he angrily maintain that he didn't?

Kerry could acknowledge that his various statements on the subject are inconsistent. He could apologize for his deception. He could even resort to the Bush Sidestep: "When I was young, I did a lot of foolish things." Instead he attacks the president over his National Guard service -- an assault he has now escalated on the campaign trail -- and accuses ABC of "doing the bidding of the Republican National Committee."

But the questions won't go away just because Kerry snarls at the questioners. By itself, the medals incident matters hardly at all. But as a surrogate for all the issues on which Kerry has ducked and dissembled, it matters very much.

"The candidate who starts each morning by having to explain himself is a goner," the Village Voice remarked in an editorial this week. The Village Voice! If that's what they're saying on the far left, what must be going through the minds of the mainstream?

dude1394
04-30-2004, 04:17 PM
self-serving kerry (http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200404300833.asp)

Personal Reasons of Necessity”
The self-serving senator.

By Rich Lowry

Back in February 1992, John Kerry stood up on the Senate floor, "driven by personal reasons of necessity." He professed to be saddened by then-Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey's criticism during the Democratic primaries of Bill Clinton's lack of service in Vietnam. "We do not need to divide America over who served and how," Kerry said. "I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways."

Kerry's "personal reasons of necessity" always have to do with what is personally necessary to serve his ambition at any given moment. And whenever he says, "I have personally always believed [fill in the blank]," it is likely: 1) he doesn't believe it; 2) he either didn't believe it at some time prior, or is about to stop believing in it. So it is with his deep, personal belief about making Vietnam service, or lack thereof, strictly off-limits.

When Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe attacked President Bush's National Guard service earlier this year, Kerry insisted: "I have asked surrogates not to. In fact, when I have heard of a surrogate doing that I have said please don't, it is not an issue to me, and I have never made an issue, in the course of my entire career, out of what choices anybody made about where they served or didn't serve."

This is what Al Franken would refer to as a "lie." In 1996, Kerry faced a stiff challenge for re-election from then-Massachusetts Gov. William Weld. In one debate Kerry made an issue out of Vietnam in precisely the way he says he never has. As a Massachusetts newspaper reported, "Kerry landed one of the harshest and most personal blows of the campaign when he pointedly referred to Weld's lack of service in Vietnam."

It is a pattern for Kerry. In March 2002, he "chastised two top Republicans who had not served in the military for their criticism of Democratic leaders," according to the Boston Globe. Kerry bellowed at a Democratic dinner: "Let me be clear tonight to Sen. Lott and to Tom DeLay: One of the lessons that I learned in Vietnam, a war they did not have to endure...was that if I ever reached a position of responsibility, I would never stop asking questions that make a democracy strong."

Another apparent Kerry lie was this line during the initial spat over Bush's Guard service: "I have suggested to some people who are my advocates, who've gone that line of attack, it's not one that I plan to do ... I don't plan to do that, and I've asked them not to."

But the Washington Post reported at the time: "Kerry aides were not upset about McAuliffe's negative tone, Democratic sources said. Instead, they were worried that the party chairman had raised the charge too early — preventing Kerry from making more effective use of a potent issue later this year if he is the Democratic nominee."

The Post's reporting has been borne out by events over the past week. When the Bush campaign aired an ad criticizing Kerry's defense votes, he immediately countered by questioning the non-service of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. A few days later, when ABC News broke a story questioning the consistency of Kerry's account of whether he threw his medals or his ribbons away in a 1971 anti-war protest, Kerry took his Vietnam-baiting right to the top: "I think a lot of veterans are going to be very angry at a president who can't account for his own service in the National Guard ..."

Kerry mascot Max Cleland has gone further. "This country is now paying dearly for George Bush's lack of experience in war," said Cleland. So the Kerry team is practically arguing that only Vietnam veterans are capable of running the country's foreign-policy responsibly — on behalf of a candidate who said a lack of Vietnam service would never be an issue! Such are the dictates of John Kerry's "personal reasons of necessity."

u2sarajevo
04-30-2004, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by: reeds
NO sore loser here- I just think its halarious that Bush lost the popular vote...very cool that more Amercians didnt want him than did want him...gotta luv it...HAHAHA that is really funny reeds. Look at this... (red indicates the counties that Bush won

http://www.mcsm.org/mandate.gif

And this... (red indicates the states Bush won)
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/election/graphics/statesfinal.gif

My prediction: You will not care.

MavKikiNYC
04-30-2004, 06:27 PM
Stupid satellite images.

Gore still won.

dude1394
04-30-2004, 07:21 PM
Boy those founding fathers were some pretty bright dudes. Sometimes I truly believe they were divinely inspired. How to devise a system of government that can take all of the disparate communities, rural, urban and put them together without one or the other running roughshod over them, yet getting representation. Quite marvelous...

dude1394
05-02-2004, 07:43 PM
Mark Steyn Greatness (http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn02.html)

....
Last week, watching John Kerry explain that he threw away his medals/his ribbons/some other guys' medals because ribbons are the same as medals/he didn't have his medals with him/his medals are personal to him/and anyway what about Bush's National Guard service, I began to resent the senator for miring this election campaign in a three-decade old quagmire. It's like an oldies station with only one record:

''Throw Some Feller's Ribbons O'er The Old Stone Wall

It's been 30 years

But I still can stall''

I don't care about his medals or about Vietnam. But I care about him trapping this new war in the prism of an old war America lost. Koppel's ''Nightline,'' after all, is in direct descent from the old Life magazine pictorials intended to demoralize. Kerry's spent so much time filtering his candidate persona through his Vietnam experience that he's given no serious thought to the war we're in the middle of. His current position is that we need to put the U.N. in charge -- presumably so they can get the oil-for-fraud program up and running again. It's barely credible even as boilerplate. In a testimony to Kerry's own peculiar psychology, he's not only the first Vietnam combat veteran but also the first prominent anti-Vietnam campaigner to run for president. And, even though the media don't care much for the senator, he's somehow seduced them into his weird preoccupation.

It's unbecoming to a great power, and very perilous. The cost of war is the cost of losing it measured against the cost of winning it. We can reach our own conclusions about which the coalition's dead would opt for.

Chiwas
05-02-2004, 10:45 PM
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/election/graphics/statesfinal.gif
Hey! I live in Alaska now!

A Bush State i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif.



i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

sturm und drang
05-03-2004, 09:40 AM
As a faithful and enthusiastic Democrat, I will vote for Kerry. But I'm not that impressed with him, and have no real attachment to him as a person or a candidate. I will vote the party line, but he's the least impressive D candidate in quite a while.

Can I ask a question of the Republicans? It seems to me that you guys don't really have much of an attachment to or support for Bush Jr., either. It seems like many Repulicans will simply vote the party line, as I am doing for the Democrats. But the true and zealous support for the R-candidate seems to be lacking. Thoughts?

My theory is that both candidates have failed to inspire much true enthusiasm or trust from their partisan supporters.

?

Drbio
05-03-2004, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by: sturm und drang
As a faithful and enthusiastic Democrat, I will vote for Kerry. But I'm not that impressed with him, and have no real attachment to him as a person or a candidate. I will vote the party line, but he's the least impressive D candidate in quite a while.

Can I ask a question of the Republicans? It seems to me that you guys don't really have much of an attachment to or support for Bush Jr., either. It seems like many Repulicans will simply vote the party line, as I am doing for the Democrats. But the true and zealous support for the R-candidate seems to be lacking. Thoughts?

My theory is that both candidates have failed to inspire much true enthusiasm or trust from their partisan supporters.

?

sturm - I appreciate your comments. I back Bush 100% and have since the days that I had the opportunity to work with him very briefly when he was the governor of Texas. I've met him several times and found him to be a fascinating individual. I've always felt that he was a morally solid, dedicated man.

I am active in the Republican party here in Texas. I have found that a significant majority of people who I talk to really do back Dubya wholeheartedly. I'm not sure what inspired your observation, but I have found that he is greatly supported by those who have met him, those in the party, and many others. Maybe because I am in Texas I am not the best person to respond to your question though.

Are their opportunities for improvement with W? Of course, but the thing I really like about W is that he knows that. To me, Kerry ignores his faults and I have yet to see him take a stand on anything. I really dislike the flip-flop tendencies. I swear, at this point I would be more afraid of Al Gore (and certainly Edwards et al from this year) than I am of Kerry.

Drbio
05-03-2004, 10:16 AM
I found a photo of Kerrys discarded medals.....


http://www.mightyrighty.com/images/0504/med.gif

sturm und drang
05-03-2004, 10:40 AM
Doc,

It was simply an anecdotal observation, mainly from talking to friends of mine who are moderate Republicans with no party involvement. Even my parents, who have voted Republican their whole lives, are considering voting Democrat because of their lack of confidence in Bush. Ultimately, I don't think they will vote Dem – but they'll vote R despite of, not beacuse of, Bush. And I've heard this repeated by a number of people I know; the faith, confidence and excitement about Bush just doesn't seem to be there.

For what it's worth, I think both R and D candidates are the weakest they've been in a while. I've come to the conclusion that if Kerry can't beat Bush in 2004, the Democratic party needs a major overhaul.

Just wanted to hear what others had to say about my observation. Like I said, it's just anecdotal and based on talking to less-than-diehard Republicans...

Drbio
05-03-2004, 01:00 PM
I need to believe in my choice for president. I need to be able to trust him. I can't with Kerry for many reasons, but I do feel that Bush is trustworthy. That probably lies at the heart of my feelings. I thought the Dems lost when they abandoned Dean and then let Edwards, who is very popular in the south, falter in favor of Kerry.

The election could very well have been decided by that decision. I can aname a few Dems that would worry me greatly, but Kerry is not one of them. Would it be unprecedented for the dems to abandon Kerry at this point or to convince him to back away? It would sure be an incredible point of strategy. A move like that would get me worried again because it would show me that the dem party is thinking and has a plan. I just don't see one right now.

Anyways...thanks for your reply. I enjoyed it. It is quite easy to immerse oneself into party blindness and your post made me think about it.

Edit: One question for you and anyone else. Do you think Kerry is the best choice with Dean and Edwards and others out there?

sturm und drang
05-03-2004, 07:19 PM
I thought at the time and I still believe today that Kerry was a foolish and ignorant choice. He'll play decently well to the Democratic strongholds - New York, Massachusetts, etc. - but has no chance of garnering any swing vote in the South, Midwest or even (gasp!) West.

It was a suicidal decision, one that - in my opinion - exhibited true idiocy in thinking that a blue-blood Masachusetts Yankee could sway the moderate votes outside of New England and the Middle Atlantic states. Though not most representative of my personal views, I think Edwards would've been the wisest choice. Though inexperienced, he would have been able to attract the votes of Republicans, like my parents, who are distrustful of and unimpressed with Bush and his first term.

Choosing Kerry, however... sigh. Political hara-kiri.

dude1394
05-03-2004, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by: sturm und drang
As a faithful and enthusiastic Democrat, I will vote for Kerry. But I'm not that impressed with him, and have no real attachment to him as a person or a candidate. I will vote the party line, but he's the least impressive D candidate in quite a while.

Can I ask a question of the Republicans? It seems to me that you guys don't really have much of an attachment to or support for Bush Jr., either. It seems like many Repulicans will simply vote the party line, as I am doing for the Democrats. But the true and zealous support for the R-candidate seems to be lacking. Thoughts?

My theory is that both candidates have failed to inspire much true enthusiasm or trust from their partisan supporters.

?

Well sturm I'm a huge backer of bush. I certainly was before 9/11 and am even more so now. First he was a tremendous breath of honest fresh air after the sleaze-ball that we had in there for the last eight years.

Also even though you wouldn't know it with all the virtirol he's actually been a pretty moderate republican. He's cut taxes, he's brought accountability into the schools, he was a straight-shooter on kyoto(killing the hypocrisy) and also was a straight shooter with russia and ballistic missile defense.

After 9/11 there has been no comparison. He's been deliberate and taken a very long-term strategic view of our situation. He knows that we can't stick our head back in the sand and just hope that terrorists don't get wmds. We know they want to and will basically never stop.

Since then he's overthrown two countries that supported international terrorism, freed about 50 million folks or so. Even though I'm not that much of an African Aids activist, he's thrown money that way too. But he would never really get credit for the negotiations that he's done with the dims since it's politics all of the time for that bunch.

He's an honest, straight-shooting, results oriented president. I honestly feel that he will be right up there with Reagan in the history books. A great man.

dude1394
05-03-2004, 08:18 PM
I also think edwards was a better choice. I've been pretty dissappointed in the democratic party the last 10 years or so, it seems to honestly be devoid of honor and integrity. I voted for perot twice, once because I couldn't vote for bush I after he caved on taxes. The second because I had come to loathe clinton so. I can actually understand some republicans not being that happy with dubya because he is honestly pretty moderate. I think in general the rebublican party had gone a little too far right around gingrich. So I think dubya is actually a great moderate republican. He's conservative about the right things but willing to compromise on others.

sturm und drang
05-03-2004, 09:00 PM
See, I disagree that he's a moderate Republican. I had high hopes after the election – maybe I was trying to mollify myself after the frustrating election debacle – that he might be so.

However, his stance on everything from Iraq to affirmative action to gay marriage to abortion point to him being a pretty classic conservative. Which is why, I think, that the Dems had the glittering opportunity to convert a chunk of the moderate Republican vote this election year.

Kerry, however, is not the man to do it. Moderate Republicans who are considering voting against Bush might've crossed over with Edwards or even Dean (before his totally out-of-proportion and mishandled post-caucus meltdown) at the helm, but not Kerry. Anyone but Kerry.

Sigh. It was the chance of the century, I think, to dislodge the Republicans. But Kerry? Nope. Even I can't get that excited about him. And that's saying something.

I'll still vote for him, of course; I'll happily admit that I'm as partisan as they come. But I don't think we have any chance of winning the election. Which is sad for the Democratic party, because the groundswell of anti-Bush fervor is strong. That said, if the Dems can't win this one – which looks, from my vantage point, quite likely – then it really is time to re-evaluate the party, its processes, leaders and stances on critical issues.

dude1394
05-03-2004, 09:44 PM
I'm not sure how much further he would have to go for you to call him a moderate. His stance on gay marriage is pretty moderate considering a majority of the nation agrees with him.

Abortion as well he's pretty much decided that it is established law. 48% are pro-choice, 45% pro-life. 68% feel that partial-birth should be illegal which is what he signed.

I would humbly submit that you may be on the far-left and not moderate at all. i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif

sturm und drang
05-04-2004, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by: dude1394
I'm not sure how much further he would have to go for you to call him a moderate. His stance on gay marriage is pretty moderate considering a majority of the nation agrees with him.

Abortion as well he's pretty much decided that it is established law. 48% are pro-choice, 45% pro-life. 68% feel that partial-birth should be illegal which is what he signed.

I would humbly submit that you may be on the far-left and not moderate at all. i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif

I am far-left. I would never, ever claim to be anything but!

However, that doesn't invalidate my opinion that Bush isn't a moderate. First of all, he has gone beyond not supporting or condoning gay marriage to proactively seeking a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit it. As a Republican, I would never expect him to support the idea; as a "Moderate," however, I wouldn't expect him to hotly pursue an addition to the Constitution to preclude it.

And as far as the abortion issue goes: Bush is bound and determined to overturn Roe v. Wade. That would NOT be keeping with the majority opinion in this country, and is indeed a very conservative aim. I have many moderate Republican female friends for whom this is an incredibly frustrating issue - and some of these friends may swing over just because of it.

Moderate may be in the eye of the beholder, indeed. But I've heard others far more conservative than me postulate that he has not been as moderate as they had hoped on a number of issues...

madape
05-04-2004, 08:26 AM
I agree with about 90% of the actions Bush has taken while in office. The other 10% I can live with. Low taxes, strong defense, and a pro-active foreign policy are much more important to me than domestic issues like gay marriage and abortion. Bush is a person I can trust to do the things I think need to be done in this country. He's not a perfect president. He's not particulalrly inspiring one, like say Ronald Reagan. He's certianly not a great orator. What he is, is a man that is true to his values. He's a guy we know will do everything he can to protect us and make us a stonger and greater nation.

In times like these, that may be exactly what this country needs.

It would have been easy for him to take the Clinton way out and cower to domestic pressue. But Bush is able to make the tough decisions.. to do what he thinks is right for this country, even if those things may not be popular at home. That's what a war-time president needs to be. He's the anti-Clinton. The Anti-Kerry. The world will be a better place if we are gifted with another four years of Bush.

Usually Lurkin
05-04-2004, 10:13 AM
I and the majority of republicans I know do back Bush, for pretty much the reasons madape stated. His honesty, integrety, and values allow you to evaluate both him and the actions he will take. Not all republicans I know are unilaterally right on all issues across the board. I think most agree with Bush on a majority of issues that are important to them, and almost all really enjoy his "get it done" attitude that seems to place the issues (and the voters) above his own political image.

reeds
05-04-2004, 07:30 PM
"As a faithful and enthusiastic Democrat, I will vote for Kerry. But I'm not that impressed with him, and have no real attachment to him as a person or a candidate. I will vote the party line, but he's the least impressive D candidate in quite a while"......Id have to admit to that myself....Kerry is far from my favorite- but he is a Democrat- I will always vote democrat..unless Ms. Clinton runs..then im screwed.......

reeds
05-04-2004, 07:32 PM
U2- what is your point? He won more freaking counties? U lost me somewhere??? Some of the "counties" Gore won are more populated the the whole freaking state of Wyoming, Idaho..etc...i just said TOTAL VOTES...counties? who cares???

FishForLunch
05-05-2004, 08:44 AM
The only reason I support Bush, is he is the one I trust to handle the National security of this country, and I like his economic policy. The rest of the stuff (abortion, medicare, schools, gay marriage ) at the present time seems insignificant to me.

sturm und drang
05-05-2004, 05:16 PM
Madape wrote:

He's not a particulalrly inspiring one, like say Ronald Reagan.

That's what I was trying to get at - many people obviously support his policies and maybe his personal attributes, but he doesn't seem to inspire great devotion.

Nor, of course, does Kerry. From an "inspirational leader" point of view, it seems like this is the weakest field in quite a while.

Was just curious. I've yet to meet someone who gets fired up or truly passionate about either candidate - not the issues, not the stances, but the candidate. Just an observation.

Usually Lurkin
05-06-2004, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by: sturm und drang

That's what I was trying to get at - many people obviously support his policies and maybe his personal attributes, but he doesn't seem to inspire great devotion.
. . .
Was just curious. I've yet to meet someone who gets fired up or truly passionate about either candidate - not the issues, not the stances, but the candidate. Just an observation.

maybe because you're just talking to "moderate republicans"?
The people that have posted here of their confidence in Bush have listed personal qualities, and confidence in his political position as reasons for their stance. What else are you looking for? What is "the candidate" other than that?

You said your friends and parents "are considering voting Democrat because of their lack of confidence in Bush." and will "vote R despite of, not beacuse of, Bush.", and that "the faith, confidence and excitement about Bush just doesn't seem to be there."

Are you saying that these people would base their choice for president on something other than issues and stances? Upon what do they base great devotion, and if it's not policies, personal attributes, issues, and stances, should it be the basis for a presidential vote?

MavKikiNYC
05-09-2004, 08:04 PM
That's what I was trying to get at - many people obviously support his [Bush's] policies and maybe his personal attributes, but he doesn't seem to inspire great devotion.

It may depend on WHEN you ask, as well as WHOM. I remember that one of the revealing poll results from 2000 was that Republicans were much stronger supporters of Bush than were Dems of Gore, and this finding bore itself out in the post-election goings-on.

As for inspiring great devotion, I think that Bush gets pretty intense support from the further-right, harder-core fundamentalists, but that they themselves are not entirely trusting of his support for their issues. The danger with this constituency for Bush is that they won't come out and vote, not that they would vote for Kerry or Nader.

And it's odd--sort of the self-fulfilling prophecy syndrome. If slightly left-of-center moderates would not allow themselves to be so utterly consumed with anti-Bush sentiment, he could afford to be more moderate. Their disdain for Bush and refusal to consider voting for him means that he has to preserve his all-important far right support. The irony, of course, is that Kerry is the ultimate pragmatist whose support can't be counted on for many of the issues the more moderate liberals support.

dude1394
05-10-2004, 07:20 PM
I think that bush's support is rock solid. Of course there are some things that folks have issues with but he stands for all of the important stuff. Integrity, bravery and the dog-stubborness needed at this time when the leftist democrats are trying to re-live vietnam.