Why Kerry *does* deserve your vote:

[sweetnpetite]

I have no idea.

but I'd love to hear from anyone who thinks he does.

I'll probably vote for him anyway, but I'd like to have a little more justification than 'he's not bush'

Anyone?

 

[shereads]

Try this site:

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/

Seriously. There are some answers there to some of the things he's been labeled with, like the "flip-flopping" business which has been repeated so often that even I believed it. I feel better about it, having learned that many of the so-called flip-flops/instances of changing his mind on an issue happened as many as 20 years apart. That's not a flipflop in my view; it may just mean that you've grown up and changed your opinion on some things. With GWB now having raised a record $200 million budget, 3rd party sites like this one may be the only hope of hearing the other side.

 

[shereads]

From factcheck.org, which critiques both candidates' TV commercials

More Bush Distortions of Kerry Defense Record

Latest barrage of ads repeats misleading claims that Kerry "repeatedly opposed" mainstream weapons.
April 26, 2004Modified: April 30, 2004

Summary

Bush ads released April 26 recycle some distortions of Kerry's voting record on military hardware. We've de-bunked these_half-truths before but the Bush campaign persists. The ads --_many_targeted to specific states --_repeat the claim that_Kerry opposed a list of mainstream weapons including Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Apache helicopters,_and also repeat the claim that he_voted against body armor for frontline troops in Iraq._

In fact, Kerry_voted against_a few_large_Pentagon_money bills,_of which_Bradleys, Apaches_and body armor were small parts, but not against those items specifically.

Analysis

On April 26 the Bush campaign released a total of 10 ads, all repeating claims that Kerry opposed a list of mainstream military hardware "vital to winning the war on terror."

Bush Ad: National Version
"Weapons"
Bush:_I’m George W. Bush and I approve this message.
Announcer:_As our troops defend America in the War on Terror, they must have what it takes to win. Yet, John Kerry has repeatedly opposed weapons vital to winning the War on Terror: Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Patriot Missiles, B-2 Stealth Bombers, F-18 Fighter Jets and more.
Kerry even voted against body armor for our troops on the front line of the War on Terror. John Kerry’s record on national security: Troubling.

Misleading Claims

The claims are misleading, as we've pointed out before in articles we posted on_Feb. 26 and_March 16. The Bush campaign bases its claim mainly on Kerry's votes against overall Pentagon money bills in 1990, 1995 and 1996, but these_were not votes against specific weapons._And in fact, Kerry voted for Pentagon_authorization bills_in 16_of the 19 years he's been in the Senate. So even by the Bush campaign's twisted logic, Kerry should -- on balance -- be called a supporter of the "vital" weapons,_more so than_an opponent.The claim that Kerry voted against body armor is based similarly on Kerry's vote last year against an $87 billion emergency supplemental appropriation bill to finance_military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan._It included $300 million for the latest, ceramic-plate type of body armor for troops who had been sent to war without it. The body-armor funds amounted to about 1/3 of one percent of the total.

Missing Context

It is true that when Kerry first ran for the Senate in 1984_he did call specifically for_canceling the AH-64 Apache helicopter, but_once elected he opposed mainly such_strategic weapons as Trident nuclear missiles and_space-based anti-ballistic systems._And Richard Cheney himself, who is now Vice President but who then was Secretary of Defense, also proposed canceling the Apache helicopter program five years after Kerry did. As Cheney told the House Armed Services Committee on Aug. 13, 1989:

Cheney: The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward, AH-64;_. . ._I forced the Army to make choices. I said, "You can't have all three. We don't have the money for all three." So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years.

Two years later_Cheney's Pentagon budget also_proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle as well. It was among 81 Pentagon programs targeted for termination, including the F-14_and F-16 aircraft. "Cheney decided the military already has enough of these weapons," the Boston Globe reported at the time.

Does that make Cheney an opponent of "weapons vital to winning the war on terror?" Of course not. But by the Bush campaign's logic, Cheney himself_would be vulnerable to just such a charge, and so would Bush's father, who was president at the time.

McCain Defends Kerry, Criticizes "Bitter" Rhetoric

Kerry's voting record on military spending was defended March 18 by Republican Sen. John McCain. He said on CBS's "The Early Show:"

McCain: No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense. He's responsible for his voting record, as we are all responsible for our records, and he'll have to explain it. But, no, I do not believe that he is necessarily weak on defense.

McCain also criticized "bitter and partisan" attacks by both sides, saying,_ " This kind of rhetoric, I think, is not helpful in educating and helping the American people make a choice."
_
Bush Ad: State Version
"Arizona Weapons"
Bush:_ I’m George W. Bush and I approve this message.
Announcer: As our troops defend America in the War on Terror, they must have what it takes to win. Yet, John Kerry has repeatedly opposed weapons vital to winning the War on Terror:_ Apache Helicopters, Tomahawk Cruise Missiles, and components of F-18 Fighter Jets all built here in Arizona.
Kerry even voted against body armor for our troops on the front line of the War on Terror. John Kerry’s record on national security:_ Troubling.

McCain is heading Bush's re-election efforts in Arizona. And speaking of Arizona, it was among nine states targeted by different versions of the same Bush ad.

Targeting Arizona

The state ads made mention of specific weapons -- supposedly opposed by Kerry -- manufactured in those states. The Arizona version mentioned Apache helicopters, Tomahawk cruise missiles and F-18 aircraft "all built here in Arizona."
The other ads were aimed at Arkansas, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and Pennsylvania. All added_ a similar_pork-barrel appeal to the basic attack on Kerry for _undermining the "war on terror." And all gave an equally false_impression of Kerry's actual voting record.


Sources
_
Richard Cheney "Hearings of the House Armed Services Committee, Fiscal 1990 Defense Budget" 13 July 1989
Fred Kaplan "Bush's 1992 Budget: Plan includes a $ 3.7b military cut" Boston Globe, 5 Feb 1991.
Nancy Benac,_"McCain Says Kerry Not Weak on Defense," The Associated Press 18 March 2004.
National Journal's Congress Daily, "McCain, Differing From GOP Leaders, Defends Kerry On Defense," 18 March 2004.

 

[sweetnpetite]

republican's always accuse their opponents of 'flip-floping'- Clinton was a 'wafler' remember.

It's always possible to show that a politician 'flip flops' or waffles, because they all do to some extent. I just ignore that particular brand of crap.

With luck, the 'flip flop' attack will work equally as well as the 'waffle' one. (Let's hope)

Sweet,

sitting here in flip flops eating waffles, forwarding liberal propaganda from my email and waiting to vote democrat. (Oh yeah, and if 'they' think calling liberals ' the cultural elite' is somekind of insult, I'd just like to totally thank them for thinking of me that way. I'm terribly sorry if that puts me 'out of touch' with the 'common man' (what does common mean- 'dumb as dirt'?)

sweet- runing out getting shirts made that say, 'cultural elite'

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Dear Sweet,

If you want to receive email with a liberal slant, you will have to sign up for their newsletters.

Here are five reliable sites whose newsletters I take.

Tom Paine = tompaine.com
AlterNet = alternet.org/
Mother Jones = motherjones.com/
PR Watch = prwatch.org/
Guerrilla News Network = gnn.tv/

*** < To contact, just add the www. to the links supplied >***

Not that I’m compulsive. Well perhaps, but I have to compensate for a bad education.

Now you too can receive a balanced diet of spam.

PS. GW doesn't Flip-flop or Waffle, he simply lies, then is forced to change his story, when the truth can't be hidden any longer.

 

[Boxlicker101]

republican's always accuse their opponents of 'flip-floping'- Clinton was a 'wafler' remember.

It's always possible to show that a politician 'flip flops' or waffles, because they all do to some extent. I just ignore that particular brand of crap.

With luck, the 'flip flop' attack will work equally as well as the 'waffle' one. (Let's hope)

Sweet,

sitting here in flip flops eating waffles, forwarding liberal propaganda from my email and waiting to vote democrat. (Oh yeah, and if 'they' think calling liberals ' the cultural elite' is somekind of insult, I'd just like to totally thank them for thinking of me that way. I'm terribly sorry if that puts me 'out of touch' with the 'common man' (what does common mean- 'dumb as dirt'?)

sweet- runing out getting shirts made that say, 'cultural elite'

I sometimes wonder where the term "waffling" comes from. When you make waffles, you put them in a waffle iron and close it and cook both sides at once. When you cook flapjacks, pancakes, griddle cakes, hotcakes, whatever you call them, you put the batter in a frying pan and when one side is done, you flip it over. Why don't they say someone flapjacks on an issue?

 

[shereads]

I sometimes wonder where the term "waffling" comes from. When you make waffles, you put them in a waffle iron and close it and cook both sides at once. When you cook flapjacks, pancakes, griddle cakes, hotcakes, whatever you call them, you put the batter in a frying pan and when one side is done, you flip it over. Why don't they say someone flapjacks on an issue?

Because the Pancake Breakfast is a revered tradition during the political primaries of both parties. To link flapjacks aka pancakes with changing one's mind, or flipflopping, would imply that citizen-participants should change their minds after the primaries.

Also, the word flipflop contains "flop," which connates limpness. To be limp is to fail to stay the course.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

He doesn't deserve your vote Snp. No more than GWB does. You will give your vote, depending on a ton of factors. Suggesting that either candidate deserves your vote is rediculous. Unless Kerry did you some personal favor in the past and you "owe him one" he dosen't deserve your vote. Nor does Bush.

Vote for whichever candidate gives you the most peace of mind. Or decide they are both rat-bastards and vote for neither. Just remember your vote is yours to give and neither candidate deserves it. You are giving both far more credit than they deserve if you frame the question in terms of either being deserving of your vote.

-Colly

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

According to the ONLINE ETYMOLOGY DICTIONARY the meaning of those two words are as follows:

waffle (v.) - 1698, "to yelp, bark," frequentive of waff "to yelp" (1610); possibly of imitative origin. Figurative sense of "talk foolishly" (1701) led to that of "vacillate, equivocate" (1803).

flip-flop - "thong sandal," 1960s, imitative of the sound of walking in them (flip-flap had been used in various echoic senses since 1529); sense of "complete reversal of direction" dates from 1900.


Now, what is the word that means trying to rehabilitate a lie?

 

[Boxlicker101]

The way I usually vote is to look over the list of candidates and decide which of the major candidates is the worse and then vote for the other one. I hate doing it that way but that is how it is. Once in a while I am faced with a choice between two good persons and then I vote for the better. What we need is the option "none of the above". When this option receives large numbers of votes it will show the politicians what we think of them.

That etyolgy of "waffle" is interesting. It has nothing to do with the breakfast food.

 

[cantdog]

They throw your vote out if you don't vote right along on every question and every race, where I vote. So when I really meant, "none of the above" I always voted for a friend of mine. I've put him down as a write-in for lots of different offices. It never seems to show up in the papers the next day. But some guy named "Other" always gets a few votes...

cantdog

ps I'm with V-Burly on this one. None of them deserve anything but modified derision.

Power has never been one of my motivators, at least not since I grew up. So I find people to whom power is important a little flawed.

c