Wishy-Washy Kerry

[JSE]

Kerry can't even admit he owns an SUV. He says, "it's not mine, it's my wife's.". Fess up. It's the equivalent of him saying, "I'm not rich, my wife is". What a freaking wooos! I guess his wife lives in the Mansion and he lives in the outhouse. I doubt it. Do we want someone that can't even admit what vehicles he owns in the White House?

I heard a little on this on Rush's show today and he makes a good point. Kerry can't admit to it. If he does, those fanatic far left wing environmental freaks that normally vote for him may revolt and not vote for him. In a close election, this could really hurt him.

So, I guess as long as Kerry himself is not hurting the environment with an SUV it's OK if his wife is? LOL!

JSE

[bturk667]

Very good points! Kerry is being hypocritical; this I do not like. Yes, we do not want a man, in the White House, who can not admitt what vehicle is owned by whom. We should strive for a leader who can in fact admitt when they are wrong. As well as when they are being hypocritical!

[JSE]

Very good points! Kerry is being hypocritical; this I do not like. Yes, we do not want a man, in the White House, who can not admitt what vehicle is owned by whom. We should strive for a leader who can in fact admitt when they are wrong. As well as when they are being hypocritical!


Bout' time you came around. I guess you have no one to vote for now? They are both hypocrits. :D

JSE

[paul_pci]

This may speak to a larger problem of rich Democrats painting themselves in the corner, which I feel is due in part to the fact that you have to be super rich to be a viable candidate these days. But back to my point. In as much as the Democrats have been the party of the disenfranchised for the last 50 or so years, with varoius exceptions, there can easily arise a personal guilt when one represents the underclass but is themself not anywhere near that economic deprivation. Yes, Kerry and wife are obscenely rich and obscenely rich people drive obscenely huge SUVs etc., etc. I don't think this necessarily means he cannot genuinely embrace the political interests of the disenfranchised (whereas Republicans generally oppose such interests explicitly), but it does make for some awkward and uncomfortable moments a you point out. I think that Kerry will inevitably appear as wish-washy or a hypocrite because image is an important part of political representation and I won't hold it against him until he explicitly acts against the interests he claims to represent. To me that is more significant than whether or not he's going to cop to owning an environmentally unfriendly vehicle.

[JSE]

This may speak to a larger problem of rich Democrats painting themselves in the corner, which I feel is due in part to the fact that you have to be super rich to be a viable candidate these days. But back to my point. In as much as the Democrats have been the party of the disenfranchised for the last 50 or so years, with varoius exceptions, there can easily arise a personal guilt when one represents the underclass but is themself not anywhere near that economic deprivation. Yes, Kerry and wife are obscenely rich and obscenely rich people drive obscenely huge SUVs etc., etc. I don't think this necessarily means he cannot genuinely embrace the political interests of the disenfranchised (whereas Republicans generally oppose such interests explicitly), but it does make for some awkward and uncomfortable moments a you point out. I think that Kerry will inevitably appear as wish-washy or a hypocrite because image is an important part of political representation and I won't hold it against him until he explicitly acts against the interests he claims to represent. To me that is more significant than whether or not he's going to cop to owning an environmentally unfriendly vehicle.

I am saying the from an unbiased standpoint, if that possible, but Kerry is going ot have a big problem with all his flip-flopping. Throwing his medals away, SUVs, etc. He just seems to make things up as he goes. I think this will bite him in the ass as time goes on. The Media is already circling and smells fresh blood. Ok, unbiased hat off. At least with Bush, whether you think he wrong or right, he stays on point. He never waivers. This will help him. A lot of those people who are riding the fence right now will more than likely go with consistency regardless of the facts or truth. A large majority of voters don't really think about why they should vote for someone. It's sad but true.

JSE

[karl k]

Kerry can't even admit he owns an SUV. He says, "it's not mine, it's my wife's.". Fess up. It's the equivalent of him saying, "I'm not rich, my wife is". What a freaking wooos! I guess his wife lives in the Mansion and he lives in the outhouse. I doubt it. Do we want someone that can't even admit what vehicles he owns in the White House?

I heard a little on this on Rush's show today and he makes a good point. Kerry can't admit to it. If he does, those fanatic far left wing environmental freaks that normally vote for him may revolt and not vote for him. In a close election, this could really hurt him.

So, I guess as long as Kerry himself is not hurting the environment with an SUV it's OK if his wife is? LOL!

JSE
I really haven't heard to the contrary.:confused:

After all, if he wasn't married, wouldn't he own some nice European sports car like every other rich, middle-aged, politician?;)

Hey , I know... if he becomes prez, we can hold an inquiry into alegations that he lied to attain the presidency and impeach him for lying durring the inquiry!

Maybe the Dem's should write off Kerry and sub Ed Begley Jr instead. His house is solar powered, car is electric(and not one of those hybrids either) and has the balls enough to say his peace w/o caring what others think!

http://ia.imdb.com/media/imdb/01/I/52/65/12m.jpg (http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0000893/photogallery)

Just having a little fun here!:D

[mtrycraft]

We should strive for a leader who can in fact admitt when they are wrong.


Who would that be? Certainly not flip flop Bush.
It was ok for him to use the caskets in his add, for politics, but not by others to show the respect they are given to those.

[mtrycraft]

This may speak to a larger problem of rich Democrats painting themselves in the corner, which I feel is due in part to the fact that you have to be super rich to be a viable candidate these days. But back to my point. In as much as the Democrats have been the party of the disenfranchised for the last 50 or so years, with varoius exceptions, there can easily arise a personal guilt when one represents the underclass but is themself not anywhere near that economic deprivation. Yes, Kerry and wife are obscenely rich and obscenely rich people drive obscenely huge SUVs etc., etc. I don't think this necessarily means he cannot genuinely embrace the political interests of the disenfranchised (whereas Republicans generally oppose such interests explicitly), but it does make for some awkward and uncomfortable moments a you point out. I think that Kerry will inevitably appear as wish-washy or a hypocrite because image is an important part of political representation and I won't hold it against him until he explicitly acts against the interests he claims to represent. To me that is more significant than whether or not he's going to cop to owning an environmentally unfriendly vehicle.


But Kerry married inot that fortune not long ago by a dual tragedy loss of spouses. As he was in such circles, it just seems logical for him to meet her and marry, no?

[jeskibuff]

I don't think this necessarily means he cannot genuinely embrace the political interests of the disenfranchised (whereas Republicans generally oppose such interests explicitly)Republicans oppose the political interests of the disenfranchised? I think NOT!

It's just that the Democrats want to sell themselves as the champions of the "little guy", when in reality, they're just looking for the easy suckers who can be persuaded to vote for them.

Just look at how the Democrats screw things up in trying to help out "the little guy":

Las Vegas, NV:

They encourage ridiculous lawsuits against "greedy" doctors so that the innocent victims are recompensed for any little thing that goes wrong during their treatment. Consequently, the cost of continuing to practice medicine in the rising face of skyrocketing insurance prices forces doctors to go elsewhere. The end result? Needed medical care becomes hard to find FOR THE LITTLE PERSON!

From the top item in a quick Google search: http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0CYD/12_37/87776254/p1/article.jhtml "Half of the obstetricians in Las Vegas have their homes up for sale. Several have gone bankrupt; several more have retired early. Nearly all are considering leaving or restricting their practices to gynecology or infertility."
Bad for the doctors. Worse for the patients.

...or...
California:

"we'll just raise taxes on those big corporations. Instead of having the little guy pay all the taxes, those rich greedy corporations will foot the tax burden, like they should"

The net effect (from http://www.r21online.com/archives/000537.html):
1. The cost of doing business in California is 30 percent higher than the western-state average.

2. Almost 40 percent of the California decision-makers participating in the Roundtable survey plan to "outsource" jobs from California to other western states, preferably Texas.

3. Half of the companies have "explicit policies to halt employment growth in California while less than five percent of companies have retention policies in place to keep jobs in California."

4. Last, California's "regulatory environment is the most costly, complex and uncertain in the nation." Regulatory costs are 105 percent higher in California than in other western states.

So, the desire to make someone ELSE pay for the little guy causes that "someone else" to move their business ELSEwhere and the "little guy" no longer has a job. Way to go, Gray Davis!

You see, the Democrats try to make people believe that they're concerned with the "little guy", but the Republicans see further down the road to what damage will occur when faulty myopic Democratic theories are allowed to materialize.

P.S. For funsies, try entering "Waffles" in a Google search and see what pops up! :D

[bturk667]

I just wonder if you have come around to the facts?

[paul_pci]

But Kerry married inot that fortune not long ago by a dual tragedy loss of spouses. As he was in such circles, it just seems logical for him to meet her and marry, no?

Logical, convenient, fortuitous; one never knows.

[paul_pci]

Republicans oppose the political interests of the disenfranchised? I think NOT!

It's just that the Democrats want to sell themselves as the champions of the "little guy", when in reality, they're just looking for the easy suckers who can be persuaded to vote for them.

Just look at how the Democrats screw things up in trying to help out "the little guy":

Las Vegas, NV:

They encourage ridiculous lawsuits against "greedy" doctors so that the innocent victims are recompensed for any little thing that goes wrong during their treatment. Consequently, the cost of continuing to practice medicine in the rising face of skyrocketing insurance prices forces doctors to go elsewhere. The end result? Needed medical care becomes hard to find FOR THE LITTLE PERSON!

From the top item in a quick Google search: http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0CYD/12_37/87776254/p1/article.jhtml "Half of the obstetricians in Las Vegas have their homes up for sale. Several have gone bankrupt; several more have retired early. Nearly all are considering leaving or restricting their practices to gynecology or infertility."
Bad for the doctors. Worse for the patients.

...or...
California:

"we'll just raise taxes on those big corporations. Instead of having the little guy pay all the taxes, those rich greedy corporations will foot the tax burden, like they should"

The net effect (from http://www.r21online.com/archives/000537.html):
1. The cost of doing business in California is 30 percent higher than the western-state average.

2. Almost 40 percent of the California decision-makers participating in the Roundtable survey plan to "outsource" jobs from California to other western states, preferably Texas.

3. Half of the companies have "explicit policies to halt employment growth in California while less than five percent of companies have retention policies in place to keep jobs in California."

4. Last, California's "regulatory environment is the most costly, complex and uncertain in the nation." Regulatory costs are 105 percent higher in California than in other western states.

So, the desire to make someone ELSE pay for the little guy causes that "someone else" to move their business ELSEwhere and the "little guy" no longer has a job. Way to go, Gray Davis!

You see, the Democrats try to make people believe that they're concerned with the "little guy", but the Republicans see further down the road to what damage will occur when faulty myopic Democratic theories are allowed to materialize.

P.S. For funsies, try entering "Waffles" in a Google search and see what pops up! :D


I think I can safely say that trickle down economics, or as you euphemistically put it: see further down the road, is a verified failure. It's no surprise that the party of millionaires would secure the interest of millionaires and it should be no surprise. But I can't recall any republican that actually espoused the interests of the disenfranchised. Just look what Regan did to the mental health care system; it's basically non-existent today when compared to before his terms. There are several staunch republicans in my family and they all articulate open contempt for the poor, the homeless, the feeble, immigrants, and they are not the exception but the standard. Frankly I don't much care if they or other republicans have contempt for the disenfranchised as long as they are honest and consistent about it, which is the point of this thread.

But we all know that no "poor" person will ever be a viable presidential candidate, so it's inevitable that questions will arise as they have with Kerry, for instance, but given this fact, I don't see what point to his SUV and declaring "scoundrel" will ultimately contribute to successful political policy in the US.