And Bush is not a TRAITOR who met and coordinated with the North Vietnamese while American kids were getting killed and wounded by those same North Vietnamese.

Beautifully stated Bill.

Amen brother.

Amen brother.

J M Galvin -

While I understand and largely agree with your sentiments, you aren't exactly sticking with the title of the post ...

Had Gore been POTUS and done about the same after 911 with about the same results, I believe the MSM would be singing his praises to the heavens. So their criticisms of Bush are not sincere.

I wish there were a good way to discredit the sincerity to render them unpersuasive rather then just respond to the misrepresentations.

I see pain in his eyes when he visits with wounded or comforts a fallen hero's family, like the Ashely Commercial.

Whatever it takes sums it up for me.

ABC news is now holding a terrorist video as confirmed by many at the Pentagon, and I feel like many, kerry would surrender to these freaks called islamist extremist muslim terrorists, rather than protect us and go after them.

Anyway, great ad, and great sentiments form the heart of a man, not the political windsail of the day.

regards,
Sonar5

I actually had the honor of meeting him before my son (US Marine) was deployed for Iraqi Freedom.

In the brief moment I had with him he told me he would do all he could to make sure our servicemen and women had all the tools available.

As I got a brief hug, I believed him then. I continue to believe him today.

Before he is even elected POTUS, Mr. Kerry is taking the word of the UN/IAEA over that of the US Military. He is carrying their water now, how do you think he will act as POTUS? He didn't even allow for a investigation of the truth. Just jumped in with the IAEA and made a campaign ad impugning the President, and by association, our military.

Ceasing cynicism. Sorry.

Amen.

When I saw that moment in the convention speech when he *(very slightly* cracked, it really got to me. It is there, some don't see it, but it is there. I said to my wife at that moment I thought he won reelection.

Rarely do you get a glimmer of the sould of a public person like that.

I could for a brief moment *feel* the weight of the office and I got a little emotional (I know I am gushing).

Kudos to the GOP for saving that for a final ad. very powerful.

soul- soul of a public person.

Wow.

Amen to that.

The bottom line is that Kerry uses fear to motivate and induces fear with his rhetoric because he is so negative, while W uses a compassionate and positive approach that evokes pride in the USA. That add gave me goosebumps and the only emotion I feel watching and listening to Kerry is a outrage about how he can just parrot untruths.
Great add....the truth.

I'm sorry, but where many on this thread see sincerity, I see political pandering. I also wish for a (viable) third candidate who represents my (progressive) views, but despite my disagreements with Kerry, I do actually feel that he is sincere. I guess we all see what we want to see. I think part of the problem with elections in the age of television is that looks can be deceiving. When was the last time you read a mainstream newspaper article or saw a TV program that discussed the parties' platforms rather than just parroting the character assasinations of one candidate or the other? (Or hurling hyperbole like the first comment on this thread?)

Megan,

When was the last time you read a mainstream newspaper article or saw a TV program that discussed the parties' platforms rather than just parroting the character assasinations of one candidate or the other? (Or hurling hyperbole like the first comment on this thread?)

I guess this morning. But clearly not as recently as you assumed ALL Conservatives to be rightwingnuts in your post about tolerance.

progressive, huh?

funny thing these liberals trying to dump the word liberal for progressive...

And thinking kerry is sincere, That moron has not been sincere about anything excepot his own political wind surfing.

Progressive in my book also means socialist, communist, ACT, ANSWER code words for poeple who have no respect for the Constitution, our way of life, and want us to be like those pathetic Euro's who we left hundreds of years ago to get away from those scumbags.

progressive=Liberal...

Nice Try though...

Regards,
Sonar5

I understand exactly what you are saying, Megan.

Many of the things I saw as pandering from Clinton played really well with independants. It drove me crazy.

I wonder how this will play with independants?

Megan -

I typically try to meet people in the middle on some issues, but even a large portion of George Bush's critics tend to admit that the man is sincere - they just don't think that he applies his doggedness and sincerity towards the right causes.

A progressive may be somewhat justifiably appalled by Bush's environmental record, but when a supporter of the war sees how he treats the conflict and those that fight it, it moves us. In that respect, I guess we are, as you say, influenced by ideology.

But beyond ideology, Bush has a distinguished manner of sincerity that is, almost objectively, much less of a political projection than anything that John Kerry does.

I don't like Kerry, but I don't think that he's an evil man or anything. That being said, his pandering is Godawful and sometimes abrasive ("Mary Cheney"). In contrast, you simply do not fake emotion like Bush displayed during taht speech.

Perhaps if Kerry showed his inner calculation every once in awhile, I could agree with your equivocal assessment, but I'm sorry - I think you're wrong on this one.

"Reporting for Duty."

vs.

Bush's speech.

A vote shouldn't merely rely on a candidate's depth of sincere emotion, and I wouldn't expect the ad to change any progressive's mind about who they'd like to see in the White House, but I can tell you that it's nice to see a politician, any politician, that can speak to America with Bush's passion, even if it's only for a miniscule sliver of his public persona.

If Kerry loses, this will be a significant reason why Bush was put over the top.

Sonar5 -

There is absolutely no reason for you to be rude like that. Her comment was reasonable and calm, and I welcome her contribution.

Don't drive away rational political discourse - watch your tone.

Just out of curiosity Megan, why do you see sincerity in Kerry but pandering in Bush?

I have a guess, but I'd honestly like to hear what you think.

As for me, I sure as hell know I'm biased, but my biases have switched poles over the last few years. Regardless, I try as much as possible to accept that each candidate is saying what he really believes. That is one of the reasons that Kerry kind of rankles me though. I feel like he has express with utter conviction way too many prima facie contradictory beliefs.

Megan,

Perhaps I have an advantage having seen President Bush in person. While my son is an adult it was very difficult knowing he was leaving to go overseas. While no one knows for sure the "heart and soul" of another person, the comments expressed to me were not in a campaign speech and were very sincere.

What you see on TV is what you get in person.

Sonar5,

So Teddy Roosevelt was a socials, a communist, and had no respect for the constitution?

Well said, Bill.

I think most Americans will allow for a lot of play in the joints as long as they know the person charge has sincere beliefs, or that there is a real person inside. We do so primarily because we are an optimistic group, and we believe the best will come of even bad ideas.

Bush projects sincerity, and that is why the withering attacks on him have largely missed their mark.

> Progressive in my book also means
> socialist, communist, ACT, ANSWER
> code words for poeple who have no
> respect for the Constitution, our way
> of life, and want us to be like those
> pathetic Euro's who we left hundreds
> of years ago to get away from those
> scumbags.

This is exactly what I mean about hurling hyperbole rather than discussing the issues. We could get into the practical, philosophical and moral underpinnings of our political views, or we could just hurl ridiculous insults at one another. Insults are more expedient, and that's why they tend to be the type of discourse on most political TV shows.

There are a number of reasons why I use the word "progressive" rather than "liberal", but in short, yes, I am further left than your average Democrat. And yes, I do have a lot of respect for the western European way of life, and I think the US Constitution allows me to hold that belief.

excuse me, socialist.

And furthermore, there is a magazine in this country that's been around for 95 years called, oh, "The Progressive". Just because you go along with the Republican campaign of the last 30 years to make "liberal" a bad word, and then scream anytime anyone tries to use a different, entirely legitimate word, doesn't mean a legitimate political spectrum doesn't exist that encompasses more than just the right, and the far right.

Well put Bill.

I could never vote for someone who slandered and undermined our troops & morale in Vietnam (my dad served there and he was the best man I ever knew--barring none). And Kerry continues the tradition today, continuing to slander our troops and undermine our objectives in the same way. Both occaisions are not from sincerity, but out of political opportunism.

BTW, I voted for Gore in 2000 & Clinton both times.

> Just out of curiosity Megan, why do
> you see sincerity in Kerry but
> pandering in Bush?

Well, I guess my point was, I THINK I see sincerity in Kerry, but perhaps I'm seeing that because I WANT to see it, since his platform matches my beliefs more closely. I'd like to see us all be honest with ourselves about this and discuss the actual issues rather than our warm fuzzy feelings.

Megan: Let's be liberals. I'm not going to make any excuses for how I feel, nor am I going to change the name of my political orientation. I realize that the neocons have essentially made it a negative word, but it's really not. I read this in the New Orleans Gambit -- words from George McGovern:

Q: Throughout your political career, did you notice a turning point where politicians became afraid to identify themselves with the word "liberal"?

A: I suppose the real onslaught began after my campaign of '72. There had been some of that before. I had to run against the liberal label every time I was up in South Dakota, and I never backed away from it. I said, "Yes, I'm a liberal in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt." I'm proud of that label. I think liberals are responsible for every forward step in American history. And I don't back away from that. I used to say, I want my opponent to tell me which of the liberal programs he will promise us to repeal if he's elected. Social security? Medicare? Rural electrification? Civil rights? Where's he going to begin? Most people that I've encountered have no answer to that.

Q: Could you give me your working definitions of "liberal" and "conservative"?

A: A conservative believes in a limited government, a balanced budget, fiscal restraint, caution in international interventions. A liberal believes in a strong federal government with a constructive role played on the side of ordinary Americans. But conservatives, from the very beginning, from John Adams and Alexander Hamilton down to George Bush, have tended to use the power of government to advance the interest of the business and commercial classes. The liberals have tended to work for the interests of the average Americans -- farmers, workers, small merchants, the elderly, minorities, and so forth. That's broadly the difference.

Now neither side is always consistent. Right now, Bush is running up the biggest national debt in the history of America. Reagan did the same thing when he was in office -- all of the restraints were off. So those are violations of the conservative tenet. I would argue that the war in Iraq is another violation of the conservative philosophy.

Soooo good, Bill. This season I've been surrounded by what feels like Jehovah's witnesses prosetelyzing, trying to get me to change my mind and arrogantly suggesting that I simply don't "think outside the box" when I talk about my support for GWB (in Boulder, no less, where the 'box' to speak of is pretty blue, from where I stand).
And unfortunately I haven't been able to answer them as eloquently as you have done. Thanks.

Megan, in all sincerity I would also like an answer to the question: why is it that you see sincerity in Kerry and not in Bush? I see quite clearly the opposite, so I'll answer more fully if you indulge us first.

Megan,
To help you understand why people believe Bush is the real deal and Kerry is a fraud, Look at how each cvandidate handles htier wife. Also, look at how their wife looks back and their reaction. I see love in Laura Bush. YOu can tell she is with W for a reason more than fame. Teresa acts and looks as if she does everything for personal gain. How many times has Teresa turned away from Kerry when he tries to give her a peck? You can tell a lot about a man by the woman who stands next to him

I'd like to see us all be honest with ourselves about this and discuss the actual issues rather than our warm fuzzy feelings.

There are plenty of issues on this blog, and I rarely post emotional material like this, but that's what's odd - I believe George Bush more than most any other politician - on certain matters.

I think he's dead wrong on a bunch of things, but even on issues where he has the opposite view from me, I often feel the guy.

Sometimes the instinct about a person lines up with who you're voting for or agree with, sometimes it's a matter of just holding your nose and voting.

You know, I don't really believe that the Republicans have been on a 30 year campaign to make the word "liberal" into a bad word. How would they do that exactly?

I have liberal views on some issues myself. But I'm certainly not liberal on most issues.

But why is it that Democrats distance themselves from being described as a "liberal". What is so wrong with being a liberal?

I'm having trouble sleeping at night, and not because I'm worried ZarKerry will win. Two things keep my mind working, the MSMs misinformation, and the stupid people who are influenced by it. The fact that there is very little we can do about it bothers me most.
Knowing GWB is going to win brings me needed peace of mind. The next 4 years will bring about some of the biggest changes this country seen since its inception.

mcg: Quit harrassing Megan! She doesn't need to answer to you why she thinks Kerry is more sincere than Bush. It's a matter of her own personal opinion and feelings. Maybe it's the way he talks, walks, his face, who knows -- but nobody needs to explain why they feel that one person is more sincere than another. It's not fact-checkable!

Megan, I see you've answered the quesiton while I was posting my request. That's great. Certainly you've hit upon something that we all tend to do: conflate sincerity with policies we agree with. However, that will only take you so far, and that's why with Bush true sincerity wins out. As others have said, many of those who disagree with him admit that he's a sincere man---just as many of those who share Kerry's party and platform agree that the guy has been screwing up his candidacy right and left.

At the same time, while it DOES matter that people think Bush is sincere, it's certainly true that issues matter more. However, there are great unwashed masses in the center who are willing to move to the left or to the right for a leader they can truly believe in. And that is what character, sincerity, and demeanor matter, and that's why Kerry is going to lose a lot of votes to people who might even agree with him outside of the voting booth.

> someone who slandered and undermined
> our troops & morale in Vietnam (my
> dad served there and he was the best
> man I ever knew--barring none). And
> Kerry continues the tradition today,
> continuing to slander our troops and
> undermine our objectives in the same > way.

Opposing a war does not equal slandering our troops.

Kerry also served in Vietnam.

hmmmm....

Megan,

I don't make decisions based entirely on my "feelings," but I don't ignore them either.

Part of being honest with ourselves means wading through the issues, but also trying to find out if the person who will be advancing the policy is honest and sincere.

"This season I've been surrounded by what feels like Jehovah's witnesses prosetelyzing, trying to get me to change my mind..."

Willow: this is very similar to what's going on right now, on this very page!

Anonymous Scientist, I wasn't harassing Megan, I was asking a question. If you can't take honest exchange, consider moving on.

Megan, with all due respect, LOTS of people protested the war without slandering the troops. Kerry, unfortunately, was not one of them. I have never seen my Vietnam Vet father so worked up over a single political candidate. And Kerry's Senate testimony is the reason.

Bill: I'm glad you posted this because I was beginning to think that you were becoming far too cynical. I like the reasonable, centered Bill.

Willow: this is very similar to what's going on right now, on this very page!

Don't sprinkle negativity along this thread. Do it on another one. The majority of commenters are not prosetelyzing.

And in all fairness, and in light of our discussion on sincerity: if Kerry had EVER sincerely owned up to the damage his words in 1971 have caused countless Vietnam veterans, most of the hatred he engenders among those vets would have melted away. He need not have renounced his beliefs about the war to do that, either. PLENTY of Vietnam vets, my father included, were unhappy with the war itself.

But the truth is he has NEVER endeavored to do that, even while he has (recently) reiterated his pride over his Senate testimony.

Liberal has become a "bad word" due to the very people who claim to be liberal. They have taken what was a rather moderate party in the past and forced it to the far Left.
The cater to the teachers unions which is responsible for the failed educational system.
They tout a universal healthcare system, blathering on about how it can be affordable and effective.
They call our tax money government revenue, and ignore the fact the tax cuts bring in more of this so called "revenue"
Last but not least on the appr. list
-- They offer up Candidates like ZarKerry

The problem here is transference.

Hardcore lefties can see nothing good in Bush. Therefore, they assume that his supporters can see nothing bad in him.

Transference.

To be fair, transference works both ways :)

mcg: No need for me to move on. Much like you, I will defend another user here when I think they are being harrassed. There are very few democrats/liberals here, so it's important that we help one another. So, just deal with it.

Ok, some of you guys are losing me.

Then cease your false accusations of harrassment.

Kerry repeated testimony given by others, admitted to committing war crimes himself in free-fire zones and such, and placed the blame on the commanders who authorized such actions, and who allowed certain atrocities, which did happen, to happen. He did not say that all vets committed terrible crimes, but that many were ordered to engage in ways outside the limits of the Geneva convention, as was SOP in the war. You call it slander, some call it the truth.

(that was directed at Anonymous Scientist, not you Bill)

Correction: abbr. list

Bill: I apologize. I realize that the "majority of commenters are not prosetelyzing" but there are some who are. I liked original, good-spirited tone of the post (with the exception of the very first comment).

Willow: this is very similar to what's going on right now, on this very page!

Anon Sci, Not exactly. Or at least it didn't start out that way. You, and everyone else here, came to this page on your own accord to read what Bill has to say, did you not? I don't think he spammed you with this post, knocked on your door, or blindsided you with it when you two were having coffee and chatting about what you did last weekend. You made the choice to click in to what you already know to be a rather political forum. I'll agree that people tend to hold the view that others who don't share the same opinion are wrong - that's the same anywhere you go no matter who you are talking about; conservative, liberal, whatever. And here, it's expected that people will banter back and forth and try to progress their own opinions, try to convince others to abandon their own views.

And quite different from what I was talking about.

I'm reading Ellis' Founding Brothers as we speak. The cynicism we see now is nothing new. It goes way back. But if we just pause and take a deep breath we can see the bigger picture.

Good post.

Oh, Anon Sci, and thanks for apologizing, though I didn't take offense and found your tone lighthearted. I was merely trying to make a distinction.

Amazing post, Bill.

Kerry repeated testimony given by others, admitted to committing war crimes himself in free-fire zones and such, and placed the blame on the commanders who authorized such actions, and who allowed certain atrocities, which did happen,

You know what, I don't want this thread to devolve into a discussion of Kerry.

So I will say the last word on this and that's it:

Kerry relied on false testimony by others, yes, but also painted a picture of horrible, inhuman atrocities at "all levels of command," that tarnished a generation of veterans.

You are freely zipping back and forth between comanders that authorized "free fire zones" with charges of cutting off ears and electrocuting people, and I won't tolerate misrepresentation of Kerry's testimony.

The nature of his testimony equated sytemic quibbles with gross behavior, and this was completely unfair and had grave ramifications for the war and the reputation of servicemen. He's never apologized for using the hyperbolic testimony. He could, and it would mean a great deal.

I don't give him a pass on this, and apparently, a lot of veterans that were alive at the time don't either.

That being said, it's not the topic.

Next comment about Kerry and Vietnam gets deleted.

Guys, really. How can we be having a debate on who is more sincere, citing facts such as how somebody kisses their wife, and what kind of feeling you get from the twinkle in their eye during a televised speech?

It's true, this election COULD be decided by the undecideds on this, and that is extremely unfortunate no matter who is elected.

willow: For the record, I wasn't referring to you at all. I was sympathizing with you actually. And, willow, as you know, I'm not new to this forum, so no need to suggest that I just happened upon this page today and decided to post something.

There are many people who are unwilling to accept that somebody can have views 180 degrees opposite of theirs. They will do anything to convince you that you are wrong and they are right. But, there obviously cannot be a wrong/right, black/white. As I've said before -- it's all about perspective. What you've done in your life, where you grew up, your parents, etc. The result of all of this cannot be viewed as either right or wrong -- it's just who you are. Your decisions come from this. I understand this and don't really fault anyone -- and I will never try to change anyone here. I just post my opinions.

I think this is what you were talking about?

Hey, that post wasn't about vietnam at all.

Guys, really. How can we be having a debate on who is more sincere, citing facts such as how somebody kisses their wife, and what kind of feeling you get from the twinkle in their eye during a televised speech? It's true, this election COULD be decided by the undecideds on this, and that is extremely unfortunate no matter who is elected.

I couldn't disagree more. You make it out like there is necessarily one right way to conduct the government, and that given nothing but the facts people will agree with that. I'm sorry, that's just not the case. People on both sides of the political spectrum make reasoned, compelling, but conflicting for various policy issues of the day.

For someone who finds themelves in the middle, with their head whipping left and right like they're watching a tennis match, you cannot expect them simply to construct a scorecard and decide which candidate is right on more issues---because they may not even know the score. So sure, they look at a few of the important ones, but they also must look at character as well---because they need to know that the candidate they favor truly has the best interests of the country at heart---particularly on those issues that they don't have a clear position on, or even those minor issues they disagree with their favorite candidate on.

Character and sincerity matters. It is an issue in this election, and in every election, no matter how much idealougues might wish it weren't.

And megan,

Please cite an example of kerry being sincere in your progressive opinion, and back it up with a quote of someting he actually did recently.

I know let's take health care.

Peeple talked about the debates, and kerry's grand plan on health care.

If kerry is so sincere, why hasn't he and edwards presented that plan since it is their JOB now to get bills passed as senators.

Surely, people realize it is the Legislative Branch that enacts legislation, not the Executive. Or will Kerry simply employ ectivist judges to legislate like the PROGRESSIVES desire that I have read about?

If kerry has such a great plan, why not introduce it into the senate now, as is his job to do so?

NO, he would rather try and become President and then HOPE another Senator introduces his grand old health care plan.

Yeah right. kerry is not sincere about anything except getting elected, whereas President Bush actually takes action, something kerry and edwards have completely blown off in their years in the senate.

Regards,
Sonar5

Here's the bottom line:
Bush will fight for us in the War on Terror; Kerry will not.

At times Kerry does not even sound as if he believes we are in a war.

That settles it for me and for many others. There is only one candidate that will protect us, and that is Bush.

Here's the bottom line:
Kerry will fight for us in the War on Terror; Bush will not.

At times Bush does not even sound as if he believes we are in a war.

That settles it for me and for many others. There is only one candidate that will protect us, and that is Kerry.

Sincerity:

A person who says what he's going to do and does it can be considered sincere no matter what one thinks of their motives. Only a mind reader could know that for sure and my experience has been those claiming to know my real motives about anything have always been wrong.

A person who takes all possible positions on every issue and then spins whichever result as proving him right all along is not sincere no matter how much he believs his own B.S.

Bingo Boris....

Still waiting for an example... It could be a while....

sorry, bill... i didn't see your "last word on this" comment before i posted mine.

Anon Sci: Pretty much.

I've read your comments here before and know you're not new. I wasn't sure if you were actually sympathizing but I did know you weren't being antagonistic, at any rate. I just wanted to clarify my comment.

And thanks for always being so even-handed in this forum. Gives me hope for the future of civil discourse!

Megan, the entire post is supposed to be based off of who is more sincere. If you don;t wan;t to discuss it fine. I think that you megan are right in the sense that Kerry most represets your liberal, progressive, what-ever Point of view. He definietly is a better candidate for you than Bush is. But don't go and attack Bush personally because you disagree with him. What you see with Bush is what you get: a conservative Pres. With Kerry, right now people are seeing a moderate Kerry. Hi record does not support it. I have a problem with him decieving America that is is what hew isn't. If your Liberal.. BE PROUD. don't hide it or sugar coat it. And if there are more liberals in America, then america become more liberal. But if America thinks their getting a moderate President, and he goes way off to the left, He's going against what America wants. Thats what I see Kerry trying to do. I have a problem with that. He shoud run that he's liberal. He's insecure about his own libralness. I don't want that. I also don't want a liberal president. BUt I'd rathe have a liberal president that the majority voted for and got what they want, instead of a liberal president that the majority wanted a moderate president.

"But, there obviously cannot be a wrong/right, black/white. As I've said before -- it's all about perspective."

Moral relativism at its best. I mean who's to tell a jihadist that cutting off somebody's head is wrong, we cannot begin to understand his pain.

> You make it out like there is
> necessarily one right way to conduct
> the government

> they need to know that the candidate
> they favor truly has the best
> interests of the country at heart

I think most people think that the country and/or the world would be a better place if their own political goals were to come to fruition. I don't doubt anyone's sincerity on that score -- not Bush, not Kerry, and not anyone who has posted on this site.

But being cocksure does not equal being correct.

I know that the average American does not have the time to read multiple points of view, ferret out facts, and establish a political philosophy that is consistent, and therefore often makes decisions based on superficial characteristics. And I think this is really, really unhealthy for democracy.

And those of you looking for sincerity should look here, and hear what someone who lost a loved one thinks of Bush's sincerity.

http://www.ashleysstory.com

There are multiple examples of this President showing his sincerity and the recipients appreciative of his sincerity.

How about some of the progressive's here showing some examples of kerry being sincere. I mean, he is a senator, isn't he. Surely he has comforted someonme somewhere, right?

Good Luck on your quest.

Google Kerry Comforting Victims

The first ones that show up talk about Kerry getting manicures while President Bush is comforting Victims of the Hurricanes in Florida.

Kerrry sincere... yeah, ok.... NOT

Regards,
Sonar5

What you see with Bush is what you get: a conservative Pres.

How exactly do Bush's policies fit into a "conservative" definition? Besides cutting taxes as a first, second, and last resort.

Megan:
I know that the average American does not have the time to read multiple points of view, ferret out facts, and establish a political philosophy that is consistent, and therefore often makes decisions based on superficial characteristics. And I think this is really, really unhealthy for democracy.

But it has always been this way. Today it may even be better as there are so many more news outlets for people to get their info.

Sonar 5, you're right when it comes to the President. There are tons of examples of his sincerity, and it does mean alot to families.

How exactly do Bush's policies fit into a "conservative" definition? Besides cutting taxes as a first, second, and last resort.

Good point, Mantis. But Bush has always run as a moderate. More specifically a "Compassionate Conservative". Many on the left deride that and say he's just pandering with that self-label and he's beholden to the extreme right-wing.

You apparently don't belive that.

Sorry, bush is not exactly a complete conservative. But all the things he did, people expected him to do. He said he was going to do it. He did it. The tax cuts did help the econmy get back on its feet by helping small businesses.
You apprantly missed my point though.

"I know that the average American does not have the time to read multiple points of view, ferret out facts, and establish a political philosophy that is consistent, and therefore often makes decisions based on superficial characteristics. And I think this is really, really unhealthy for democracy."

And unfortunately this type of behavior has existed since the dawn of man. Voltaire once said that "the wealth of books makes us ignorant". I think this applies all to well today, where just about anybody can find a site to support their worldview and justify their nuanced look at the US whether it concerns the WoT or environmental policy.

That being said I don't think you can discount the effect sincerity, honesty, and "cock sureness" have on other people. Political leaders use these traits as a foundation in order to facilitate the adoption of their idealogoical views into law. After researching JFK's record in the senate its all to clear that he's been given 20 years to lead and has little to nothing to show for it. Maybe this points to his lack of sincerity, his inability to draw lines in the sand, or his lack of charisma.

My quote regarding the upcoming election (with more context):
"There are many people who are unwilling to accept that somebody can have views 180 degrees opposite of theirs. They will do anything to convince you that you are wrong and they are right. But, there obviously cannot be a wrong/right, black/white. As I've said before -- it's all about perspective."

Gibs:
I wasn't suggesting anything immoral here. I was talking about why people vote like they do.

Your Non-sequitor:
"who's to tell a jihadist that cutting off somebody's head is wrong, we cannot begin to understand his pain."

Are you trying to suggest that because I refuse to try to change the minds of other voters, that I would also think it's ok for a jihadist to cut off someone's head. It's a really bad non-sequitor, and really big insult.

Deltanine,

Exactly. I would never call Bush a conservative. I call George Will conservative. I think he panders, but not to the middle, but to the extreme right-wind on social issues such as gay marriage and abortion. As far as his foreign policy and fiscal policy, he is anything but conservative or moderate. He has not always run as a moderate, he ran as a conservative in 2000. He was against nation building, deficit spending, bigger government, etc. But he is nation-building, deficit spending, and creating bigger government. He may be running as a moderate this time, but I don't believe he is.

Steve-O
No, I don't miss your point, I disagree with it. You're talking about someone misrepresenting his intentions, and I think that is what Bush does.

Pres Bush has been truly amazing in fighting the War on Terror...and this is why he frightens the Dems and liberals so much. They are frightened of Bush, not because he is incompetent or unsuccessful...they could live with that, because he would be easy to defeat...but precisely because Bush is so darned good that he threatens them politically.

Think of what a huge problem was dropped into Bush's lap with the issue of terrorism...and how this is a threat unlike any other in history, and so one cannot just repeat the policies of the past. Bush's insight and grounding on this issue have been impressive, to say the least.

Pres. Bush is the right man at the right place at the right time.

AT,

People are not afraid of Bush because he's so darn good, they are afraid of him because they believe he is hurting our country, and we will be paying for it for years to come.

Scientist to claim that you haven't come to this site to change voters minds, is an insult to my intelligence and your time.

Why present your views in discussion if you believe beyond a shadow of a doubt they will have no effect on your audience? Are you not simply speaking to yourself in an empty room or are you merely here to reaffirm your worldview?

I am willing to except this, that some people have opinions that are not rooted in any truth, whether it be on the left (effectiveness of universal health care) and right (effectiveness of steel tariffs), to hold those opinions high and right it off due to perspective is nonsense.

Mantis:
As far as his foreign policy and fiscal policy, he is anything but conservative or moderate.

Then what are you saying Bush is? A liberal?

Mantis,

I would enjoy your explaination on how exactly Bush is making it more difficult for us in the long-term. Obviously remembering that were tracking down terrorists in over 100 countries etc...

Deltanine,

No, a neoliberal.

AT: How have you twisted things so much in your head to say that dems/libs are frightened of Bush because he's done an amazing job of fighting terror? That doesn't even make sense. It doesn't make any sense at all.

The fear comes from his reckless attitude towards foreign policy, and his inability to admit that he can be wrong. As Mantis said, it's our opinion that he's hurting our country, that's why we fear him.

Mantis:
"No, a neoliberal."

So what's the difference between a liberal and a neoliberal?

Gibs,
Do you think we would not be tracking terrorists in over 100 countries if Bush were not president? Do you think if there was a democrat in office on 9/11, it would have just been brushed off? You're argument is Bush fights terrorists, so everything he does is right and can't possibly have consequences. Good luck with that.

Deltanine,
I don't have time to explain global economic theory to you. You're on the internet, look it up.

Gibs: Won't don't you just address the question I asked you instead of changing the subject. "Are you suggesting that because I refuse to try to change the minds of other voters, that I would also think it's ok for a jihadist to cut off someone's head." Or, you can just retract your assertion that liberals are immoral.

In the post that you quoted, I was re-affirming to willow that I understood her point. The whole post was about that.

So now we're off sincerity again?

just wondering.

AT: I have to agree here with AS, liberals dispise Bush because they think he is ruining alliances, alliances that quite frankly we never really had (a mirage if you will). Forgetting of course that France, Germany, and Spain continue to provide valuable intelligence to the CIA and others in the WoT.

I don't have time to explain global economic theory to you. You're on the internet, look it up.

Sorry, Mantis. I thought it was a term you made up. I'll take a look around and see if I agree with you.

Gibs: Do me a favor and don't agree with me. I don't despise Bush for ruining alliances, that's not what I said. I despise him for bad foreign policy. There's a difference, but I don't feel like giving you a lesson on it, so look it up.

Looks that way Sonar5. *sigh*

Comapred to Kerry and Gore, Bush is conservative. Now compared to Michael Savage, Bush is a liberal. I myself am not a full conservative, but not a liberal. I believe that in the moment in time, decisions must be made. These decsions are based on core values, and pressure from other people. 9-11 Changed a few things. What Bush did, I support. Based on his deck of cards, How did Bush misrepresent himself?

sm: Just when I want to end with a sincere statement (my conversation with willow), somebody like gibs comes along and "Derridas" my whole conversation.

Ok, this is sincere. I think you all are great, I love my wife, and I'm voting for Kerry. That's all.

I will retract my statement if indeed you believed it to be one directed at all liberals, it was intended to be.

Mantis, tell me exactly given Kerry's record of appeasement, his votes against weapon systems and military funding, how you can with a straight face tell me the man is going to lead a more "effective" WoT.

I think it would be wise for you not to paint every conservative as seeing GWB as faultless. He has many flaws, as Bill has mentioned. And we can sit here are Monday morning quarterback every decision he's made, I think his economic policies before the WoT were reckless, I think we could have pressured Turkey to allow us to come into Iraq from the north, I think were too soft on Iran and Syria, that were too constrained on the ground in Iraq, and we haven't plan for everything that has been thrown our way in the ME. However, all of this has to be held up to the good that we have done, collectively, we've put to nations on the path to democracy, we've killed 3,000 al queda, we've dethroned a murderous tyrant, and we did it with a broader contingent of countries than we did in 1991.

To your point about a Democrat in office and his effectiveness...can anyone given what we've been through imagine what this would have been like with Al Gore running the show?

AS: More power to you.

No, deltanine, I've learned not to make things up here or Bill will bring the hammer down. On that note, I don't mean that Bush perfectly fits the description of a neoliberal. On many economic and fiscal matters he does, but on foreign policy he's neoconservative. I guess we can just call him neo. But not moderate or conservative.

I do think Bush is sincere. And I'm speaking as someone who swore she wouldn't "vote for the dope" in 2000 and I didn't (though I immediately began to regret my vote for Gore).

It has something to do with his born-again event at 40. I lived in Dallas for three years in the 1980s, worked in the Christian recording industry, and it was not uncommon for people there to speak very openly and forthrightly about their faith. I was agnostic then but this discussion wasn't objectionable to me at all--I love talking religion and politics anyway, and it's been no end of pain and frustration for me that those are exactly the topics one is NOT supposed to talk about.

So after Ron Reagan's cheap shot about people who wear their religion on their sleeves I was suddenly able to place Bush into this Texas spiritual milieu of the 1980s when I was there. It's just not what the secularists think it is. It's not proselytizing; he didn't say God was on our side; he's just us about himself. But I know this just creeps out the left no end.

"I will retract my statement if indeed you believed it to be one directed at all liberals, it was intended to be."

So, I assume that you meant to say "it was not intended to be." Otherwise, you are saying that you believe all liberals are immoral. Hmm. I hope that's not what you are saying.

Can anyone post some information on previous presidents (Carter and up) admitting mistakes, wrongdoings, etc while in office?

The lefties are harping on this "Bush never admits mistakes/faults" stuff. Is there a precedent for that?

Hoodluman,

It depends on what your definition of the word is is.....

Ok, sorry Gibs, its just that your short post made it seem like the fact that we're searching for terrorists makes Bush the best candidate, but I reject arguments that credit Bush with doing what any other president would have done. Plus I don't paint all conservatives as anything, I was responding directly to your post. If you don't see Bush as faultless, then I was mistaken. I don't know what Al Gore would have done if in office, but I doubt he would be hiding under his desk wondering if we should go after terrorists or not. The point here is that some people disagree with the way that Bush is pursuing the WOT, not that we're engaged in one at all. And they don't agree that invading Iraq was the best option we had, and think Kerry would have done things differently. I happen to be one of those people.

Hoodie: I believe that Reagan retracted his original claim that the Soviet Union is an evil empire. While in Red Square with Gorbie, he was asked if he still thought that the USSR is an evil empire, and said, "No, I was talking about another time, another era." His assertion that the USSR was an evil empire was a keystone in his presidency. I suppose you could look at this as an admission of a mistake?

Ahh, Kerry supporters. I have some Q's for you:

He's telling me he's going to cut my taxes. Is that true? Then he says he's going to cut corporate taxes. Is that true, too? Then he says he's going to raise taxes, but only on certain people?

Can anyone here tell me what his position on gay marriage is? And how is it different from the President's?

Bush says: Ban gay marriage, leave civil unions up to the states. What is Kerry's position and how is it different?

What's his plan to keep social security solvent? He complains about Bush's plan to allow partial privatization of social security. Alright, what's Kerry's plan and how is it better?

What are his thoughts on the draft? How is he going to eliminate the need for a draft and simultaneously increase our troop strength, especially considering that 70% of the military despises him and will not be eager to re-enlist? Does he not realize that a draft must be approved by congress? In short, how is his Iraq policy at all coherent?

Why does John Kerry brag about being an altar boy and then declare that he wants federal funding of partial-birth abortions? Isn't abortion the #1 overriding issue of the Catholic Church in the department of public policy?

If that's true, how can John Kerry still claim to be a good Catholic? It's funny, I'm an agnostic who swears off religion, yet I'm far more in line with the Church's positions on its critical issues than Mr. Altar Boy is. Shouldn't he just come out and say he doesn't believe in Catholic teachings?

The Republicans control congress. How is John Kerry going to keep any of his legislative promises?

In short, what compelling reason is there to vote for this man?

You have spent four years poking holes in George W. Bush. That's fine. But now that you've nominated a candidate with more holes than a sponge, are you willing to look at him as critically as you are the President? I took a long hard look at both Bush and Kerry, and despite my complaints about Bush, I decided to support him.

Will you take a long, hard look at John Kerry before you cast that ballot?

AS:

Or he didn't want to tell it to Gorbie's face? Heh... just joshing. Any better examples? That one doesn't satisfy my inquiry. IMO, Iraq, Iran and N. Korea being an axis of evil was spot on.

Textbook: Why don't you just go look at the Bleg for Kerry Supporters. I'm sure this will answer your "compelling reason" question.

He probably just didn't want to say it to Gorbie's face, but he sure as hell sounded sincere! Ha!

Hoodski: I'm not 100% sure about this, but I don't know if the question has ever been asked of a current president while in office? Much like a job interview, these men are not going to point out their faults if nobody is asking.

AS: Yeah, It seems like a silly request/talking point to me. Opposition parties will find faults where the presiding party does not. It was the same with Clinton, for the most part, and probably most all others.

Bill,

Great post. Sincerity is the biggest reason why I find it easy not to vote for Kerry. I'm sure he has a sincere position on Iraq and terrorism, but I can't figure it out from the years and years of contradictory quotes that a variety of bloggers have been digging up. If Kerry wins, maybe we'll find out where he stands, but that's not good enough to earn my vote.

But it's not sincerity which makes it so hard for me to vote for Bush. Like you, I'm pining for a third party candidate who, sadly, will not come. I agree that Bush is indeed sincere about his strategy and goals. But his sincerity, in my mind, does not make up for "policies and decisions that worry me greatly" as you said.

In the end, my vote will ultimately be a cynical one. Since Louisiana is not in play, I'll cast a third party protest vote. If I were in, say, Ohio, I'd hold my nose and vote for Bush simply because I prefer his mistaken policies and decisions to Kerry's unknowns.

It's too bad we don't have a viable third party alternative. Maybe after this is over some enterprising folks can give some sincere thought to pulling one together. I think a hawkish, fiscally responsible, socially moderate party could do well in these times. I'd be very interested in that.

Hey Bill,

Good post - I tried very hard to form my thoughts in an earlier response, but found myself absolutely unable. This comment struck me, thouhg:

There are plenty of issues on this blog, and I rarely post emotional material like this, but that's what's odd - I believe George Bush more than most any other politician - on certain matters

You know what's funny? I had the same feeling about Al Gore. As much trouble as the guy had with communication at a human frequency, I just got "where he was coming from".

I get this, to an extent as well, from John Kerry. Who knows why - maybe I just have good associations with breezy Northeasterners and bad associations with Texas fratboys.

More likely is just that I'm a liberal. When I hear Mr. Kerry articulate his concerns about the nation or his proposals to fix our ills, I know where he's coming from - I feel the same things in my gut. I assume you feel the same things when you hear sertain things from George Bush - you just believe him in your gut, and know where he's coming from.

I don't doubt Mr. Bush's general sincerity - sure, he's done some doublespeak and malpropisms and flipflops, but I know where he's coming from.

I find the same thing true of Mr. Kerry, though. I don't doubt his sincerity, and I think he's coming from a good place.

-Fe Wm.

Owen,

Not to be cynical, but even if your state won't go for Bush, he needs as many popular votes as he can get.

Amen.
Perhaps lost in campaign partisan noise is a simple concept of proof, which any prosecutor having trial experience knows: a person's true intents and motives are always manifested in conduct that runs counter to expected or reasonable behavior under the circumstances.
George W. Bush's critics flatly claim that he harbors evil intents and purposes. Indeed they equate him with fascists and dictators seeking an end to democracy as we know it.
But to them I ask one simple question: why would such a person ever take actions (such as going to war) literally guaranteeing criticism and jeopardizing re-election unless he had no other choice? At all times and in perhaps all circumstances respecting Iraq and the War on Islamofascism, Bush has chosen the principled but politically risky course.
The self-centered, self-adoring, manipulative politician, when faced with that choice, would expectedly and "reasonably" choose political self-preservation (think Clinton).
Try asking this to a Kerry supporter. They can't and won't answer the question.

TS: I'm not certain if your questions are sincere. I'll pretend they are.

He's telling me he's going to cut my taxes. Is that true?

Depends on your current income.

Then he says he's going to cut corporate taxes. Is that true, too?

He's proposed a slight cut in corporate tax.

Then he says he's going to raise taxes, but only on certain people?

Certain high annual incomes, yes.

Bush says: Ban gay marriage, leave civil unions up to the states. What is Kerry's position and how is it different?

Don't pass a consitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The proposed amendment, by the way, potentially bans civil unions as well. Mr. Bush's recent flipflop supporting civil union puts him at odds with his party platform.

What's his plan to keep social security solvent? He complains about Bush's plan to allow partial privatization of social security. Alright, what's Kerry's plan and how is it better?

Drawing funds out of the SS fund and diverting them to private personal accounts has nothing to do with keeping the system solvent. If it's such a great idea, then Mr. Bush should do it with NON-SS funds.

Neither candidate has suggested a way to make SS solvent longer than around 2030. Mr. Bush, though, has proposed a way to reduce its solvency by 15 years.

Isn't abortion the #1 overriding issue of the Catholic Church in the department of public policy? If that's true, how can John Kerry still claim to be a good Catholic? It's funny, I'm an agnostic who swears off religion, yet I'm far more in line with the Church's positions on its critical issues than Mr. Altar Boy is. Shouldn't he just come out and say he doesn't believe in Catholic teachings?

American Catholics, as you well know, are not necessarily doctrinnaire. There are many pro-choiuce Christians, even though some Christians find abortion their number one passion.

And are you telling me that you're a pro-life agnostic?!?! I've never seen one of those in my life! I haven't even heard of one!

-Fe Wm.

Fe wm,

I get what Kerry is saying and what Gore was saying and I know his is coming form "a good place". I'd love it if he (they) could slove those problems with the federal government.

But, (sadly for me i guess) I don't believe in magic wands.

I own my own (very small) company
and have outsourced some work to Eastern Europe, why? cause it saves be a butt-load of mullah. Is there anyting the feds can do to stop me? NFW.

Kerry CAN'T do anything to stop it. No president can.

irond_will,

If Kerry has all these grand plans, why doesn't the Truant senator offer these plans in the Senate as is his Job.

kerry and edwards are part of the Legislative Branch of Government. If they were really sincere about anything, which I believe they are NOT, they would do their jobs and submit their plans immediately as bills in the senate.

Please link to me all these plans kerry & edwards have submitted to the senate. I just can't seem top find them except mentioned as some grand illusions in their speeches.

You see, in the Progressive Liberals Dream world, they actually believe kerry & edwards would enact legislation from the executive branch. Guess what, they can't. They have to rely on their minions to do that in Congress.

And since the republicans have a Majority, guess what, the kerry & edwards truancy magical legislative plan is not going to happen either.

But the Progressive Liberals keep drinking the kool aid, and meanwhile more and more people are realizng what Senator Truant and Senator Gone are really all about.

Answer= Themselves, and no one else... Well maybe the UN, Kofi, France, and other insignificant countries and organizations.

Also known as "kerry's base"

Regards,
Sonar5

Thanks for the added clarity Mantis.

I guess what I'm looking for, and other even minded conservatives, is for JFK to lay out a plan. He talks so much about it but makes no mention of the details, at least it hasn't been presented to me. I think we can both agree the high and the low points of Iraq but the simple fact is we are there and we have to make sure we finish the job. Carping about what shoulda coulda woulda is worthless, I want to hear what JFK is going to do next, apart from the utopian idea that we're going to call international love fest conference and heal the world.

Part of Kerry's problem is that he is not clear, he does change his mind with the tides, and it leaves people confused as to what he really stands for. I mean you have to admit his statements made before the Deanomania are pretty hawkish, in fact I found myself agreeing with him most of the time. Why the change?

One nit-pick:

Irond_will: "Drawing funds out of the SS fund and diverting them to private personal accounts has nothing to do with keeping the system solvent. If it's such a great idea, then Mr. Bush should do it with NON-SS funds."

Ever hear of the mutual fund industry? A 7 trillion dollar industry? Most people have private 401(k)s and other investments precisely because they realize that Social Security is a complete and utter joke. Private accounts are a fantastic idea and will allow people to realize the long-term returns, even taking into account market downturns, that far outpace the measly 1% growth in funds that social security provides.

Only an idiot doesn't have a 401(k) or another sort of private investment, and only an idiot would rely on social security.

When I view the long list of maniacs(Arafat,Kofi Annan,Michael Moore,Ted Kennedy,Maxine Waters,legions of terrorists, et al) who want Kerry in office.....well, that makes it easy-Dubya just got my vote.

"Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry, who opposes gay marriage and hints he might support a limited ban, just two years ago signed a letter with other congressional colleagues urging the Massachusetts Legislature to drop a constitutional amendment outlawing homosexual nuptials.

This is what we refer to as " insincere behavior ".

Ooooops.....I forgot every lefties hero, Fidel Castro.

I look at it this way...If I don't have a head a budget deficit doesn't matter one iota.

What was this thread about again? Oh yeah, sincerity.

I do believe Bush is sincere, and I'm a convert (Dem right up until the end of the Clinton disaster/administration, was even a campaign worker in CA).

In addition to being sincere there is one other quality I see in Bush that I definitely do not see in Kerry -- he does what he thinks is right whether it is popular or not.

In the days leading up to the Iraq war, while watching all the demonstrations, reading the editorials, and listening the the opposition in general, I said to my wife one day "This could cost him his job." Her reply: "I think he knows that."

I believe that he went ahead knowing it could have cost him a second term and I respect that immensely. I also believe that Kerry--not unlike so many career politicians--will do what he needs to do to keep his job. And that is something I cannot respect.

Platforms, positions, opinions and parties can change, but if I have to put the safety of myself and my family into someone's hands I would rather it be someone who is sincere and wants to do the right thing.

And BTW, I do have a lot of issues w/GWB but he's got my vote.

I am a pro-life agnostic...

The reason is that life is a finite concept and it is black and white. You are alive or dead. You may want to decide when it is ok to end life but you are letting them die.. killing them. That may be a zygote or a brain injured patient, or a death penalty inmate.

I happen to think that we do have the power of life and death and we must use it wisely. That does not include killing unborn children. No matter how you slice it, right or left, religious or not, abortion is killing unborn children.

Never mind, Irond_will, I did it myself.

This is directly from kerry's website on health care, and comprisea apparently his whole plan for health care that I could find.

In other words, where are the specifics.

He says he is going to "Cover ALL Americans".

I call BS... Number one, how the heck is he going to do that. RAISE TAXES... That is how... And then he says he won't raise taxes... Balogney...

He says he will allow people to become part of the federal pool to get the same insurance he gets as a senator. BS... That would cost Billions upon Billions in new taxes to pay for that. IE: More Taxes...

Show me with statistical data, that this statement is true,"He will cover ALL Americans" and he actually has a plan to enact it. face it, he is a liar, and can't be trusted, and will say or do anything to continue his lies.

If he has such a great plan, he has a DUTY to present it as a bill in the senate RIGHT NOW. Why disenfranchise millions without health insurance NOW when over the last year his grand plan could have already been enacted.

Why... because it aint got a chance in you know what in passing.

Take every single one of kerry's great plans and explain if they are so good for our country, why he hasn't sponsored them as bills in the last year. He is one of the reasons why it has been a long time since a Senator has been elected President.

And as for bringing in drugs from canada, the 31 largest Pharamacies in canada have already stated they won't sell to any federal or municipality so how you are you going to get the drugs.

And as a percentage, the cost of prescription drugs has been growing more slowly under Bush than it did under Clinton. Still growing, but those are the facts.

You folks want to talk about kerry's grand plans,

Bring it on...

Regards,
Sonar5

*****
From Kerry's site....

Affordable, high-quality health care will keep our families healthy, our businesses competitive, and our country strong.

Over the last three years, family premiums have increased by more than $3,512 and prescription drug prices have grown four times faster than inflation. These skyrocketing costs have hurt our economy and forced many families into bankruptcy.

We deserve a president who understands that in America, regular check-ups shouldn't empty family checkbooks - a president who will put people ahead of insurance and drug companies.

John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to address soaring premiums and cut Americans a break. Their plan will lower family premiums by up to $1,000 a year, cut waste from the system, lower the cost of prescription drugs to provide real relief to seniors, and use targeted tax cuts to extend affordable, high-quality coverage to 95 percent of Americans, including every child. And because John Kerry and John Edwards believe that everyone's health is equally important, they will provide all Americans with access to the same coverage that members of Congress give themselves.

To make affordable health care a right - not a privilege - for every American, John Kerry and John Edwards will:

Cut Your Premiums
John Kerry and John Edwards will cut family premiums by up to $1,000. That's $1,000 in real savings people can use to buy groceries, pay the bills, and save for their children's future. And that will mean more jobs and more competitive American businesses.

Cover All Americans With Quality Care
The Kerry-Edwards plan will give every American access to the range of high-quality, affordable plans available to members of Congress and extend coverage to 95 percent of Americans, including every American child. Their plan will also fight to erase the health disparities that persist along racial and economic lines, ensure that people with HIV and AIDS have the care they need, end discrimination against Americans with disabilities and mental illnesses, and ensure equal treatment for mental illness in our health system.

Cut the Cost of Prescription Drugs
The Kerry-Edwards plan will reduce prescription drug prices by allowing the re-importation of safe prescription drugs from Canada, overhauling the Medicare drug plan, ensuring low-cost drugs, and ending artificial barriers to generic drug competition.

Cut Waste And Inefficiency
Today, approximately 25 percent of health care costs are wasted on paperwork and administrative processing. The Kerry-Edwards plan harnesses American ingenuity to cut waste, save billions, and take new steps to ensure patient privacy.

If John Kerry is so sincere, why has he not sponsored one single bill this year that has one of his grand plan talking points in it?

If John Kerry is so sincere, why does he expect to enact legislation in the executive branch when he would be leavbing the branch responsible for legislation?

If John Kerry is so sincere, why does he continually badmouth our military,and our commander in chief?

If John Kerry is so sincere, why did he vote against supporting our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and vote against providing them allegedly needed gear?

If John Kerry is so sincere about dangerous weapons missing in Iraq, why was he not concerend enough to do something about it before now?

Damn, Sonar5, I hadn't read Kerry's site. He's promising to do everything short of raising the dead and walking on water. Of course, we already know the crippled will rise from their wheelchairs when Kerry and Edwards are elected, so at least that's covered.

To those of you planning on voting for Kerry on Tuesday, I have a question: do ANY of you actually believe he's going to do these things which he has promised on his web page?

Big Brother,

If Kerry didn't do any of these Grand Plans the last 20 YEARS in The senate, what makes these progressive... errr... liberals actually believe he can build any type of consensus to enact any of these if he was ever chosen by electors to serve in the executive branch.

It is a pathetic attempt at pandering to the UNINFORMED who actually believe he will get any of this done.

No chance in you know what...

I tell every kerry supporter I see these same things. Ask them to explain kerry;s record in the senate, then his plans and ask them why he hasn't already presented them, and then show them the legislation this congress has enacted without kerry bothering to show up to vote.

And then ask them if they enjoyed their tax cut checks, lower taxes, lower interest rates, great mortgage rates, highest number of homeowners, low inflation, a growing economy, all of this while prosecuting a two front war on terror, that has nabbed more terrorists than any other administration.

Regards,
Sonar5

And furthermore,

Great job hitting on a 3-0 count, bases loaded by Nixon, Boston up 3-0 going into the top of the 4th... Man did he throw him a meatball or what. My kids love when meatballs are thrown to them. we're always on the lookout for meatballs in baseball.

Go Bo-Sox.... reverse the curse. Not everything is bad from massachusetts. Just the two senators....

Regards,
Sonar5

Well, I was doubting GWB's sincerity earlier today, but then I saw this and saw the sincere man you've all been talking about.

Just a joke.

Oh you mean the taping prior to being on tape. You mean the sound check that texans for truth lied about when they stated that is what Bush thought about Democracy... And it wa staped while he was Governor.... great Bring it on, it was a joke if you actuallt saw the video.

Yeah, ok mantis... Nice defense and nice delfection attempt.... And that is the best you can do.... Well nice try anyway. I chickled as well as george W, Bush did. Shows he's human. Same as the Clymer NY Times an ass. That was funny too. It's called a sense of humor, something kerry lacks big time.....

I'm still waiting for an example of kerry being sincere.... Find it yet?

BTW, mantis see this yet?

"Russia tied to Iraq´s missing arms; Pentagon: Weaponry relocated before war"

"GERTZ // THURSDAY // WASH TIMES: Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned. John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, “almost certainly” removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041027-101153-4822r.htm

Oh yeah, bottom of 7th, 3-0 still Boston....

Now I wonder what else was in this RUSSIAN convoy that came under attack, Hmmm....

Maybe there was a valid reason that convoy was attacked.

From:
April 7th, 2003
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/06/iraq/main548005.shtml

"(CBS) Russian diplomats who came under fire while trying to flee Iraq entered Syria on Monday, after leaving behind an injured diplomat in an Iraqi-controlled hospital, the Foreign Ministry said.

It was unclear whether U.S. or Iraqi forces were responsible for the attack Sunday."

Forget the sincerity for a moment and concentrate on the Russian convoy, arms removal, Oil for cash, and the UN, France, and Russia complicity in obstructing and assisting Iraq in the violation of UN resolutions before we acted.

Kerry is now TOAST on this issue....

You want an October Surprise, kerry and his UN buddies brought this on. I wonder what he will say on the stump tomorrow...

Funny stuff, kerry self destructing in front of everyone. No one deserves it more than kerry himself.

MSNBC, and FOX are both reporting Bill Gertz article...

Can't wait to see how kerry spins this one....

If the russians did take this and other arms, like maybe I don't know, WMD, maybe they did so to keep them out of the hands of Chechyan terrorists, who knows...

And keep trying to get the article, it's pretty busy to log into that site right now...

More:

" "The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units," Mr. Shaw said. "Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units."
Mr. Shaw, who was in charge of cataloguing the tons of conventional arms provided to Iraq by foreign suppliers, said he recently obtained reliable information on the arms-dispersal program from two European intelligence services that have detailed knowledge of the Russian-Iraqi weapons collaboration.

...

The RDX and HMX, which are used to manufacture high-explosive and nuclear weapons, are probably of Russian origin, he said. "

**************

You know, this has always been suspected, but not really confirmed, it will be interesting to see where this develops tomorrow.

Regards,
Sonar5

Of course the Progressive Liberals will still say we should have secured the weapons before we went into Iraq...

or something Stupid to that effect....

*** HOT NEWS ***

"FOUNDER OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY ENDORSES BUSH"

An Open Letter To Libertarians
by John Hospers (founder of the Libertairian Party):

A MUST READ (also note the links to other promanant Libertarians who now are endorsing Bush):

Go to:

http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?entryid=181

Outstanding arguements for supporting Bush, brought to you by the Libertarian Party.

And Look at this from whom.... Oh the NY Times, now isn't that convenient....

Funny stuff....

Hmmm, more thanOne source, Imagine that...

1) washington times Article
2) CBS Story about Russian Convoy
3) NY Times article citing 3rd Source about this scenario...

Election..game....Set....match..., IMHO., but watch the LSM try and bury this one as fast as they can.

Any prediction on what page this shows up on in the NY Times???

Anyone...Anyone...ANyone.,...

Regards,
Sonar5

********

From:
http://cshink.com/weapons_syria.htm

"Official Suggests Iraq Hid Weapons in Syria

October 29, 2003
The New York Times
Douglas Jehl

Head of spy agency points to signs of heavy travel before U.S. invasion

WASHINGTON - The director of a top American spy agency said Tuesday that he believed that material from Iraq's illicit weapons program was transported into Syria and perhaps other countries as part of an effort by Iraqis to disperse and destroy evidence immediately before the recent war.

The official, James Clapper Jr., a retired air force lieutenant general, said satellite images showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria just before the American invasion in March had led him to believe "unquestionably" that illicit weapons material was moved outside Iraq.

"I think people below the Saddam- Hussein-and-his-sons level saw what was coming and decided the best thing to do was to destroy and disperse," Clapper, who heads the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, said at a breakfast with reporters.

Clapper said he was providing a personal assessment. But other American intelligence officials said his theory was among those being pursued in Iraq by David Kay, who is heading what has so far been an unsuccessful American effort to uncover the weapons cited by the Bush administration as the major reason for going to war against Iraq. "

- Being one of those elusive animals myself, an Independent, I totally agree with Bill's assessment. I would add one more thing....

- I have no idea why the Dem's decided to run the candidate they did. Unseating a war time pres. is the hardest of opponents to overcome, particularly when you have successes like Afghanistan to point too, an economy that may be very hard on some but overall is basically steady, and most of the other issues at hand arguable from both sides. What I do know is I react negatively to the heart of Kerry's campaign that finds ill in everything, defeatism in regards to the war, under cutting the young men and women over there fighting and dieing every day so we can sit here and blog in reasonable safety. I can't get past that. Every time he does it, it just turns my stomach.....

Yes I know its probably the only approach HE could take....But other more popular warmer well liked candidates might not have had to do that as heavy handed. The whole Vietnam thing brought up a ton of bad memmories. Again things I just can't get beyond...

- For those of you that did not live through that era I don't expect you to understand....That would be unfair...You'll just have to judge for yourselves...

- And Megan I hope you speak your mind freely. Not everyone feels compelled to attack, unable to seperate their personal issues from their politics even long enough to exchange intellectually honest ideas....

- I'm probably the oldest person in this group and the one thing I've learned in life is you don't learn anything when you won't listen.....

Boston wins the World Series....

Wins 8 Straight Post Season Games in a Row... A record....

That and the patriots are two good things form that state, kennedy and kerry are two bad things, in my opinion.

Congratulations Red Sox...

Regards,
Sonar5

- Ok. Based on the "Russian" connection will we see Kerry suck it up and publicly retract the last two days of rhetorical attacks on Bush regarding the stockpile?....

No, look for the spin, he will try something else..

maybe the Nightline story.....

Or some new 60 Minutes Story sure to appear... Pick one, and kerry will spin that instead....

Just watch.....

You sold me, Bill. God help me, I love George W. Bush. Even with his myriad faults. I love him like I loved Ronald Reagan.

Wow Sonar5, had enough coffee today? I never claimed Kerry was sincere and feel no need to find an instance of him being so. I don't believe either are sincere, just like most politicians. Call me a cynic. But calm down with the game set match stuff, it's not a tennis match, its an election. Get some rest.

Umm Mantis, scroll up, Meagan the Progressive did.....

I never said you stated he was sincere.

And If you question me about Coffee, perhaps some prescription glasses might do you some good.. ;)

Yeah, ok mantis... Nice defense and nice delfection attempt.... And that is the best you can do.... Well nice try anyway. I chickled as well as george W, Bush did. Shows he's human. Same as the Clymer NY Times an ass. That was funny too. It's called a sense of humor, something kerry lacks big time.....

I'm still waiting for an example of kerry being sincere.... Find it yet?

BTW, mantis see this yet?

That was what you typed, and I'm wearing my glasses thank you.

Well I had my last cup of Coffe about 13 hours ago. I only have one per day...

And that was a general statement I made, my apologies if you felt it was directed at you specifically. I did ask it several other times as well.

I should have phrased it differently.

BILL!!!!!! U dissed me man! U deleted my post repsonding to the difference between opposing the war and slandering the troops. I even kept it clean and positive. You hurt me man....This doesn't bode well for you in next years "Best of the Blogoshpere" voting. I'm gonna have to vote for captain ed. Is this any way to treat your friends?

Yahoooo Sox!

Well, I'm not much for signs from God, but I'm getting a bit creeped out.

* An unprecendented 4 hurricanes hit Florida in just 5 weeks -- this is Jeb's state, and the state where the election was contested. If you look at the hurricane track maps, they track almost precisely over the counties where Bush won. Look at this map Note: this map doesn't show the last hurricane...

* The Red Sox won the World Series after 86 years of not winning. Even more, it was under a full lunar eclipse! This is Kerry's state with many statewide polls showing a 30% split.

I don't know, you take it however you want. Are these signs from God?

Hey AS -

I hate to break this to you, but Bush's approval rating for handling the hurricanes was over 80%. It helped him.

And celebrating hurricanes for political advantage, well ...

Bill: I was being silly.

Bill, this is out of context, but I wanted to post it on your site, as you are the only blog I post to. My aunt in PA just wrote to me that they did a mock election in my niece's kindergarten class. She said:

"They had a mock election in [Niece]'s kindergarten class on Tuesday. She told me she voted for George Bush because there is a bad boy in her class named John, so that's why she didn't vote for John Kerry. Now they have 5 year olds involved. She told your dad how she voted (I was present in the room) and he said "At least I have one smart grandchild"..he then looked over at me...and I said "Yeah, right, she is only 5 and doesn't know better. He said nothing."

Does this seem as wrong to you as it does to me? What the hell is going on in this country?

AS

Sounds to me more like the old "Truth out of the mouths of babes", and the Biblical prediction "And a child shall lead them"....

You got some smart kids growing up in your family. What happened to you? Just kidding....The election is almost over thank God. Have some fun!

Michael: I realize that you were trying to be funny, however, it's really kinda sick. Not your comment, but the fact that we are having mock elections in kindergarten classes. There's plenty of time for children to lose their innocence later in life. Thanks for the half compliment - we do have genius in our family - it's in our genes.

This is silly and meaningless, but I found it funny. It looks like Bush's video people digitally added soldiers to this commercial. I know it's Kos and all, but you can see a still on GeorgeWBush.com

Wow, whoever did that work should be fired. At least they could have Photoshopped in some different faces. Idea... they should have Photoshopped all of the members of the administration that never served. Wait, there would have been way to many soldiers in the frame. Ha! Ok, take it easy Cons -- it was an attempt at humor!

good one but the link should be this

Sincerity perception is a cultural thing. I'm from Australia. To me, Bush looks like an actor in a B-grade cowboy movie who never quite gets his lines right and Kerry looks like a calculatingly cautious type whose ideals don't always match his polling intelligence.

If Bush weren't making the super-rich richer and the middle class & poor poorer thereby turning a Democrat surplus into a Republican deficit (isn't that supposed to be an oxymoron?) and if he hadn't used 9/11 as an excuse to go after Iraq like he already planned to for no good enough reason instead of Bin Laden and if he didn't tell all the lies about WMD and Al Qaida-Iraq linkage and African yellowcake and if he was not so unscientific as to deny global warming on behalf of his energy industry supporters, maybe I'd be more predisposed to see him as sincere.

From this distance, it looks to me like Bush (who never went overseas before becoming POTUS) appeals to the insular and ignorant while Kerry appeals to those with a grasp of the US's place in the world -- a bit like Khomeini appeals to the fundamentalists in Iran while Hatami appealed to the moderates.

I guess this post will just reinforce the FoxNews-type scorn that Bush and his supporters have for just about all things non-American, but sorry folks you need to know that there's a big wide world out there which is very worried by Bush, Cheney-Halliburton cronyism, arrogant Rumsfeldian incompetence, and a version of Christianity that departs more from Christ's teachings than most other versions of Christianity to be found around the world.

The other worry is that the US has an electoral system that is looking very wonky compared to most other democracies. To this observation, Bush would respond with a hyper-patriotic blast and Kerry would partly agree while trying not to sound unpatriotic. Who would be the more sincere? If Bush, what is sincerity worth?

Anyway that's my foreigner's 2 cents worth. I only bothered because Bush and his supporters truly scare me and the US is the 800 pound gorilla.

Great comments, AlanDownunder. If only more Americans were as well-informed and thoughtful as you.

Unfortunately, 52% of Bush's supporters still believe Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001, and 84% of them think Saddam Hussein had strong links with Al Qaeda. See http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=508

If it weren't for these persistent myths, George Bush wouldn't stand a chance of getting reelected!