|
|
If John Kerry could just give me one solid reason to vote for him I might do it. NOT I wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher. He complains about everything in the world but doesn't put forth one solid solution to anything. He says I would gather more country's into a coalition in Iraq. Yes and how are you going to do that Mr. Kerry ''Silence'' .. I will reduce the health cost's to all Americans - yes and how are you going to do that Mr. Kerry ''Silence'' I will hunt down terrorists and kill them Yes and how are you going to do that Mr. Kerry ''Silence'' How can you defend the uS with a smaller Military and without all the programs you voted to eliminate Mr. Kerry ''Silence'' Mr. John Kerry Hienz says he will do everything but has no idea what he is doing. At least when George Bush tells you he is going to do something HE DOES IT.... No I wouldn't vote for John Kerry for dog catcher. What has he done for the state as a Senator? Not one darn thing. NOTHING He is nothing more than a professional debator.
By conservative
|
|
|
|
|
|
Political hurricane may strike N
Political hurricane may strike Nov. 2
The Democratic Party's war manual instructs its lawyers and poll watchers to look for evidence of voter intimidation and suppression, especially in African-American precincts, and to file a complaint even if they don't find any. This ''stolen election'' crowd portrays Florida as a sinister banana republic where elections are rigged and stolen by a vast right-wing conspiracy to disenfranchise minority voters.
Even former President Jimmy Carter, the world's foremost elections observer, has added his sanctimonious voice to the debate, suggesting that Florida's voting system is still so flawed he doubts that the state can conduct a fair and honest election this year. Meanwhile, John Edwards, the Democratic vice presidential candidate, is crisscrossing the state assuring black voters that he and John Kerry have ''a plan'' to make sure black votes are counted this time.
Democrats filed 10 election-related lawsuits in Florida weeks before the first vote was cast, alleging that elections officials are trying to game the system to favor President Bush, who is in a close race with Kerry for Florida's 27 electoral votes. On the first day of early voting, two weeks out from Election Day, the kind of human errors and technical problems that are common in most states were magnified and distorted and cited as evidence that Florida is still up to its old tricks.
Floridians knew this assault was coming. After the state's disputed presidential vote in 2000 wound up in the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of George W. Bush, Democrats cried foul and vowed never again. Regardless of whether Bush or Kerry wins on Nov. 2, let's hope it's not a close vote. And let's pray Florida's vote does not decide the election this time.
Florida's voting system still has problems, including partisan elections officials at the state
level.
By Democratic Committee chairman,
|
|
|
Open, Tom Sawyerish in George Bu
The Left has developed a tic about neoconservatives. These former leftists (for a former leftist is what a neoconservative is, of the first generation anyway) do have a vision of the future, a bright vision to rival that of the Left. They fight the Left, ideology for ideology, policy proposal for policy proposal, class analysis for class analysis. The neoconservatives side with the conservatives on most issues, but with an attitude, and an aim, and a determination. They are, in the life of the intellect, warriors. Their sharpest weapon is the reality check. That is their comparative advantage over the Left. They have been ''mugged by'' and won over to reality. The Left has lost argument after argument to the neoconservatives for the past 20 years ?— has proved to be on the wrong side of reality on issue after issue ?— and hence reserves for the neoconservatives a special loathing.
George W. Bush turns out to have been far closer to the neoconservatives (though he is not one) than Ann Richards and Al Gore ever believed possible. True enough, he is no intellectual, and would not want to be one. Still, his mind is quicker, of a more tempered steel, and honed to a more acute practicality than lazy-minded leftists before 2001 ever allowed themselves to imagine. They ''misunderestimated'' him then, and still do.
He wants a more compassionate, initiative-taking citizenry, less passive and less dependent upon government. Help for the needy, but not help that is that is condescending and incapacitating.
By contrast, the Democrats love the dependency of citizens on government and wish constantly to increase that dependency, as the key to their own power, the shepherds over the sheep. Listen closely when they talk about health care or education; you will hear ''government'' and new ''dependency'' loud and clear. The Democrats are fighting to preserve their big-government state. An old idea, a tired idea, an illusory idea.
With half the presidential race to go, George Bush is still talking about responsibility, bravery, hope, and opportunity as he did before 2000. Following Howard Dean, though, the Democrats have discovered the illicit pleasures of hatred. Hatred has empowered their campaign, lifting it from nowhere to a close race.
The Democrats will try to hide this. As the election proceeds, John Kerry will put new skins on his arms and alter his voice and mimic George Bush on just about everything ?— conservative values, hope, opportunity, his policies in Iraq: the same as Bush's. He will be the ''me, too'' candidate. That has already begun.
Beneath the surface, though, everyone will feel the heat of hate. The Democrats cannot help themselves. I am not at all sure that their hatred will defeat them. But it ought to.
By Democrats cannot help themselves
|
|
|
Kerry shows no remorse for the
Kerry's 'betrayal' of the American military
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry shows no remorse for the damage he inflicted on his country, its allies in Southeast Asia and America's armed forces while he was a Navy lieutenant and a leader of the radical Vietnam Veterans Against the War in 1971.
I recall that time vividly. I will never forget Kerry's scandalous conduct.
By this time, with the support of Jane Fonda, the vocal Vietnam Veterans against the war (VVAW) had formed. Over 800 Americans had been captured and were in North Vietnamese prisons. The Paris Peace talks were well under way, and those of us involved at all levels were trying to bring this conflict to a satisfactory conclusion.
The deep concern in Vietnam by U.S. forces and the South Vietnamese as to the anti-war group activities in the United States is remembered in detail by many of us. Meanwhile, Kerry was spinning false tales condemning his fellow sailors, soldiers and Marines.
In April of 1971 John Kerry, as VVAW spokesman, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chaired by Sen. J. William Fulbright. Most of Kerry's relevant statements were wrong. Again, it is vivid in my mind. That testimony plus Kerry's many other inflammatory speeches should have led to a full-scale investigation of his ''admitted'' crimes and of his allegations.
While we had more than enough information on Kerry and the VVAW for an investigation, we frankly thought they were ''nut cases.''
Think a minute about just one Kerry statement, i.e., ''crimes were committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.''
Let me list a few of the people who were involved with and/or in the chain of command while Kerry was in Vietnam. Under President Johnson there was Defense Secretary Clark Clifford, Navy Secretary Paul Ignatius, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Staff Gen. Earle Wheeler, Adm. U.S. Grant Sharp, Abrams, Gen. Fred Weyand, Zumwalt, among others. Under President Nixon there was Defense Secretary Melvin Laird, Sen. John Chafee (then secretary of the Navy), Sen. John Warner (then deputy secretary of the Navy), Adm. Tom Moorer, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Jack McCain (Sen. John McCain's father), Generals Abrams and Weyand and Adm. Zumwalt.
The operational commanders knew the rules of engagement and often carried them out at great risk to themselves and their people. All levels of command knew what was going on.
Can you believe that these outstanding individuals and their subordinates would condone war crimes? Is it possible that the 27-year-old Kerry could have believed what he was saying?
The American military felt betrayed by Kerry & Co. Much of the resentment they experienced on arriving home was caused by Kerry and his ilk. I can't begin to estimate what John Kerry cost our country and Southeast Asia in money and lives.
There are words to describe a person who aids the enemy in time of war. John Kerry can be described by most of these words.
The kindest conclusion I reach is that while articulate, he was either naive, an opportunist, easily misled or not too smart. Possibly a combination.
One thing for sure is that the flagrant character flaws displayed by John Kerry in 1971 should not be forgotten and, lacking any remorse on his part, not be forgiven. To me, it seems impossible that a person who has done as much damage to his country and the world as John Kerry did, would be considered for commander in chief of our great country.
Looking at Kerry's sworn testimony against his fellow Vietnam veterans, I do wonder when he is telling the truth.
Shillito, now a retired businessman living in San Diego, served as assistant secretary of the Navy and assistant secretary of defense during the Johnson and Nixon administrations. As an Army Air Corps pilot during World War II, he was shot down over occupied Europe and was a prisoner of war from 1943 to 1945.
By An easier time negotiating Kerry
|
