I just saw the new Kerry commercial

[ST5]

Aub is right, "One has to wonder how many campaign dollars are spent to change the mind of only one voter on a single item to do with a particular candidate or one single platform item.

In my opinion, it appears that the Kerry campaign is spending money to deceive voters and the Bush campaign is spending money to enlighten voters. I am saying this, not because of my dislike for Kerry but for the obvious mistruths that are being spun about him. How can he honestly say that he is concerned about the safety of our nation when he doesn't even show up for intellegence meetings? Champ110, you mentioned that he has responded to questions about his voting records. Well, I have seen no response from Kerry. What does he have to say about all of his "did not votes" in the senate? How do we know that he will treat the presidency any differently? Based on his track record, he is only going to represent his constituants about half of the time. We cannot afford to have a part time president.

"However, Kerry's record makes the idea that he wouldn't be strong in the face of attack obviously wrong. He wouldn't have needed to have put his qualification in that area to the front but once had there not been the constant harping on how well some people believe Bush has done in ending the threat of terrorism." --Champ967

967, what qualifications does Kerry have in fighting the war on terror? If fighting in vietnam qualifies you for that, then there are a ton of former soldiers out there that accomplished more than Kerry did in vietnam.

[champion110]

There are, also, a ton of people just as qualified as Bush.

Of course you think that Kerry is spending money deceiving and Bush is spending money to enlighten. Every Bush supporter believes that and every Kerry supporter believes the opposite.

It doesn't matter how he defends his votes in the Senate. Bush supporters are not listening. It really only matters to the Kerry supporters and what those people that are undecided think. Hopefully, for Democrats, the answers are enough to get a huge turn out for the election.

[Champ967]

"However, Kerry's record makes the idea that he wouldn't be strong in the face of attack obviously wrong. He wouldn't have needed to have put his qualification in that area to the front but once had there not been the constant harping on how well some people believe Bush has done in ending the threat of terrorism." --Champ967

967, what qualifications does Kerry have in fighting the war on terror? If fighting in vietnam qualifies you for that, then there are a ton of former soldiers out there that accomplished more than Kerry did in vietnam.

That wasnt me, buddy. You wont find many posts from me on these threads on election politics. I've chosen my candidate, and it's neither Kerry nor Bush.

[Cool Hand Clyde]

That wasnt me, buddy. You wont find many posts from me on these threads on election politics. I've chosen my candidate, and it's neither Kerry nor Bush.

It's hard to tell one liberal from the next.

[Champ967]

Yeah ... and all you right-wing nutcases look the same too.

[aubunique]

I was explaining the obvious reason that Kerry's campaign feels compelled to emphasize his war record: Bush supporters have used a cliche that Democrats are soft on fighting the enemies of our nation for 3 years to bolster support for W and Kerry just happened to demonstrate his willingness to fight in person in the field long ago.
If he had died doing it he wouldn't be known at all, just another name on the Wall.
Clinton was criticized for NOT going to Vietnam and Kerry is being criticized for overemphasizing that he DID GO!
There really is no one supporting Kerry in a powerful way on this board. The few of us who have been tagged as liberal or Demo are mostly trying to objectively analyze the rhetoric and motivation for it on both sides.
Look at it as a ballgame. Both sides want to win and both appear to ignore fouls on the part of their team.
There are no real referees in the political game. However, the game tape isn't reviewed by everyone. Most just hear what their partisans say about it and don't bother to study it themselves. Thank goodness the fans don't get to vote after a game to pick the winner. The team with the most fans with Internet access would always win!
The only horse I support in the race is every person's search for knowledge, truth and understanding. Thinking for oneself and developing opinions based on knowledge of facts should be the goal. Unfortunately, the majority of voters hear opinions uncritically if those opinions come from people who at least CLAIM to be supporting their principles.
I probably have at least the average amount of access to information and ability to gather and study it, but I can't research everything and clearly no one on this board has time to go as deeply as he would like into researching voting records, war records, secret lives of candidates, the content of their prayers and attitude toward others. Every voter finally decides on the basis of less than an objective appraisal of candidates.
But, as long as our regime changes remain peaceful and occur on schedule, we will be OK as a nation!
Champ967, if Bush wins Arkansas by one vote, his critics will be reminding you every day!

[Cool Hand Clyde]

I think it's a bad move for Kerry to tout his Vietnam record. It opens up the war debate and he obviously was on the appeaser side.

And Ronald Reagan proved to him and all the naysayers that you can fight a war against communism and win it.

Everytime John Kerry is shown on tv in his arny uniform, I bet it loses him votes.

[Champ967]

Champ967, if Bush wins Arkansas by one vote, his critics will be reminding you every day!

Then they would be dumb. For the following reasons:

1. 50% of Arkansas voters will not vote. Tell the Dems to get some of them.
2. 30% of registered Dems in AR will vote for Bush. Tell the Dems to get some of them.
3. 3rd parties and independents have the same right to run as the big boys. My vote is not somehow "owed" to any party.
4. I am not impressed at all with Kerry. I should not feel compelled to vote for a candidate I do not support. To neglect my conscience would be contrary to civic responsibility.

But the biggest reason of all that any such critics would be off the mark ....

5. If Nader were not running, I would be voting for Bush. Not Kerry. Nader is "stealing" my vote from Bush.

[CARTEK]

5. If Nader were not running, I would be voting for Bush. Not Kerry. Nader is "stealing" my vote from Bush.

Boyd, can you briefly articulate why you would vote for Bush over Kerry? I understand your Nader position, but I would like to understand your overall position better.

[Cal&Ken]

Champion,

Please help me. I keep reading that you say Kerry has defended his voting record. I have not been able to find how he defended the fact that he was always gone - and when he did vote, he was the MOST LIBERAL. Please enlighten me on the subject of why he didn't have to go to work, when he is paid to do so by us - the taxpayers.

[Champ967]

Bush is consistent. And that is extremely important to me. I dont care for Bush's politics. But I cant shake that I just freaking like the man. (Reminds an awful lot of my dad, actually.)

Kerry ... I just dont like him. He bores me. He strikes as the archetypal politician. And I just cant get a feel for what he stands for. I know there's a copy of the Dem platform on the party website, but it (and Kerry) just seem to lack conviction ... unless he's trashing Bush of course.

I get the impression that Bush is doing what he thinks is right (even if I dont agree). I get the impression that Kerry is doing whatever it takes to win. Again ... I cant talk about purple hearts or voting records, because I dont know. This is all based on my impressions hearing them both speak. It's a gut response, and it's one that I've learned to trust.

I guess my choice between Kerry and Bush is a choice between "the evil you know and the evil you dont know". I at least know what I can expect from Bush.

All that said ... I feel I should restate my support for Nader. He's the only presidential candidate I've ever personally met. (And that does a LOT for a voter.) But even before that, I have long admired his career, and feel I most closely identify with his policy positions.

[DCDAWG]

Champion,

Please help me. I keep reading that you say Kerry has defended his voting record. I have not been able to find how he defended the fact that he was always gone - and when he did vote, he was the MOST LIBERAL. Please enlighten me on the subject of why he didn't have to go to work, when he is paid to do so by us - the taxpayers.

He's campaigning, just like Bush. The big difference is that Bush campaigns on Air Force One -- at our expense.

[Cal&Ken]

DCDAWG,

I find it interesting that you say that he was campaining and that is OK that he was not working. It is amazing that Bush is able to do both - why can't Kerry. That is is job.

[Bill Pup60]

Senator Kerry has talked about and answered questions regarding his voting record. I just don't think many of you are listening.

Well Champ, I certainly DO listen to (and read) Kerry's stuff. (You can't get away from it if you live near Pittsburgh). I have seen or heard virtually nothing from him about his Senate record (or non-record, as it were).

I can certainly agree that the campaign does cause some unavoidable absenses. But when I researched his record all the way back through most of the 90's, it was the same thing. Mostly "Did Not Vote!" The 38 out of 41 Intelligence Committee meeting he missed happened way before he bacame a candidate.

Further, why was it that during the long hard Democratic Primary campaign, guys like Joe Lieberman could find the time to get back to Senate for most of the votes but Kerry could not????????

Exactly where is it that he explained his Senate record?????????

[Bill Pup60]

He's campaigning, just like Bush. The big difference is that Bush campaigns on Air Force One -- at our expense.

Well not exactly!!! When the President (or VP) uses AF1 or AF2 for campaign purposes, the Republican campaign has to pay the government a fee for use of the equipment. Now one could probably argue all day that the fee does not really cover all of the costs. I'm sure it doesn't. It is "based on" what comparable private service would cost. And of course, it doesn't take an AF1 to provide only "campaign services". Kerry's 757 does quite well!!

But there is the fact that he is the President and he can't go anywhere without taking his office with him with all that entails. It's been that way with all Presidents and that's just the way it has to work. It worked that way for Clinton and if Kerry (God help us) happens to get elected and runs again, it will work that way for him.