Any other CPers at the Kerry/Edwards rally?

[Mark]

If so, thoughts?

[kellyc]

I wasnt there, but I heard a rumor that John Barbara and Don Hyatt were leading the cheers in the front row and chanting:

RAH RAH RAH Kerry is for me
RAH RAH RAH Edwards for VP
RAH RAH RAH Donkeycrats are awesome!
WE Love you Mr. Johns!

[Mark]

I thought that was Hyatt I saw... something about tearing down the big banners... couldn't really make him out.

Actually there was surprisingly little counter rally/protest around. I saw one truck with a large Bush/Cheney sign go by with a "honk for Bush" banner. It was pretty quiet.

I was also surprised by Kerry. I was expecting to be unimpressed with his speech and delivery, but he poured a surprising amount of conviction and emotion into it. Being the progressive liberal that I am, I went into the rally thinking that Kerry and Bush shared a little too much in common. Though they're not by any means on complete opposite sides of the spectrum, I left feeling much more sure that the substantive differences were there, and they were good.

[johnb]

Kerry has a lot of work to do to keep the lunatic mainstream of the Donkeycrat Party quiet til election day.

Clinton was able to do it twice, although you could almost see the bolts in Barbara Boxer's neck swell with adreneline at the prospect of being able to nationalize the US health care system back in 92-93.

[Anonymous]

The usual suspects were evident on television at the
Kerry/Edwards lovefest. Frankly, less than 25,000 people
is surprising, seeing as how they gave free bus rides from all
over the state.

The "anybody but Bush" hate crowd had best be careful
what they wish for because these two politicians are the
most liberal in Washington. Can you say "far out?"
I go by what they have done and not by pretty hair or
well honed speeches. After all this time, and criticism,
Kerry *should* have more emotion in his speeches. For pete's
sake, even a stray dog learns how to howl when put
in the pound with other dogs enough.

What has Kerry really done in decades in the Senate? Little
enough to be ashamed of it.

Edwards whines about rich vs poor but his own experience
shows that if a poor person applies themselves they can become
educated and prosperous in America. He does dump on
his Father a bit much in pretending that his Father was to poor
to help him with college. His Father was PRODUCTION MANAGER
at the mill, not a minimum wage worker. Not a rich man to be
sure but, by mill standards he was a cut above most.

Edwards also whines about health care and yet he, as much
as anyone, drove up the cost of health care with his multi million dollar
lawsuits. Just helping the "po?" Then why take up to 40% of the
award, especially after he gained many millions and could
afford to be generous to the crippled plaintiff. Also, how about
the greater number of "po" who Edwards staff culled out and
would not represent? Unless the case was heavily slanted
toward an Edwards victory it was tossed on the scrap heap. He
only took the cases that he felt he could win...regardless of
the facts of the case.

Lastly, Edwards saw that his multi million dollar payoffs would
be heavily taxed and that he'd have to pay heavily into
Medicare. With that he set up a Subchapter S corporation with
himself as the sole stockholder and paid himself a salary
of $350,000 a year...to avoid taxes. The rest he took as corporate dividends at a much lower rate. That way he avoided almost
$600,000 that would have gone into bolstering the Social
Security/Medicare system. Illegal? Not at the time, just
a convenient loophole that rich politician pays CPA's to find
while the rich politician is pretending to want a fairer tax burden on the
"po." Well, somebody had to make up the Edwards shortfall of almost
$600,000 and it wasn't the Edwards, kerrys, Kennedys of our
world.

Keep the hair and the phony rhetoric. I'm disappointed
in somethings Bush but not enough to shoot the toes off
of both feet. I'll leave that for my liberal friends.

[johnb]

You seem to have more than an liberal tv reporter's knowledge of little Johnny Edwards' financial shenanigans my friend. B-)

[Cathy]

Keep the hair and the phony rhetoric. I'm disappointed
in somethings Bush but not enough to shoot the toes off
of both feet. I'll leave that for my liberal friends.

I like that analogy.
Whenever I ask Kerry supporters to tell me the qualifications that would make me want to vote for Kerry, so far all I get in response is all the reason's I shouldn't vote for Bush. Not good enough for me.

Cathy

[Mark]

Perhaps I could try, Cathy.

First let me suggest that what has probably been the case is that Kerry supporters often find his positions so dissimilar which those Bush advocates that the most effective way to highlight them is by comparison with Bush's positions. For a Bush supporter the outcome of this line of reasoning will often sound like Bush bashing. It is, in a way, but not in the manner which most people react to it. It is also the tactic used by challengers of incumbents from time immemorial; the issues that which we expect most people to be familiar are those of the sitting politician. How else to challenge anyone without first describing a certain failure or lack in those policies?

Anyway. I'm voting for John Kerry because he wants to expand greatly, and in a way that distributes cost broadly, the national health care system.

I'm voting for John Kerry because his energy policy, as articulated, seeks to encourage more efficient energy use and does so in a way that would tend towards decreased environmental damage.

I'm voting for John Kerry because he wants to expand the opportunities and support for national service on the community level.

I'm voting for John Kerry because he wants to expand the commitment to military veterans, most importantly by increasing funding to VA system hospitals, and those unfortunate few currently serving by increasing reservist pay and general compensation.

I'm voting for John Kerry because he believes that the United States should never go to war because it wants to, only because it has to.

I'm voting for John Kerry because he received a 100% rating for legislative votes since 1995 from the Human Rights Campaign.

Those are five things off of the top of my head, in no particular order of importance. I tried as best I could to write them positively with no reference to the acting President. Naturally, all five of those issues are ones where Bush's position is much different and, for me, much less satisfactory in attempting to make the United States, and perhaps the world, a more just and better society.

You did mention "qualifications" in your post, so I'm not sure whether or not you're actually concerned with Kerry's credentials to be President - as the tone seemed to indicate that the content of the issues where a more pressing concern. But, in case you're interested... (copied from his bio)

"In 1984, after winning election as Lieutenant Governor in 1982, Kerry ran and was elected to serve in the United States Senate, running and winning a successful PAC-free Senate race and defeating a Republican opponent buoyed by Ronald Reagan's reelection coattails. Like his predecessor, the irreplaceable Paul Tsongas, Kerry came to the Senate with a reputation for independence -- and reinforced it by making tough choices on difficult issues: breaking with many in his own Party to support Gramm-Rudman Deficit Reduction; taking on corporate welfare and government waste; pushing for campaign finance reform; holding Oliver North accountable and exposing the fraud and abuse at the heart of the BCCI scandal; working with John McCain in the search for the truth about Vietnam veterans declared POW/MIA; and insisting on accountability, investment, and excellence in public education.

Sen. Kerry was re-elected in 1990, again in 1996, defeating the popular Republican Governor William Weld in the most closely watched Senate race in the country, and in 2002. Now serving his fourth term, Kerry has worked to reform public education, address children's issues, strengthen the economy and encourage the growth of the high tech New Economy, protect the environment, and advance America's foreign policy interests around the globe."

A war vet by 27, an accomplished lawyer (state's prosecutor, not defense) in the DA's office in his 30's, a Lt. Governor by 40, and U.S. senator by 42 a position which he's been reelected to 3 times, serving for 20 years and a member of, currently, the Small Business and Entrepreneurship, the Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the Finance, and the Foreign Relations committees, 3 of which he is a ranking member.

That sounds, objectively, to me like a man who, simply, has his bases covered, and has enough practical and political experience to participate, with knowledge and effectiveness, in the political leadership of this, or any, country.

And, again, as a means of comparison (and I'm not suggesting that this applies to anyone here or to the post to which I'm responding) that Kerry's qualifications sound objectively better than do Bush's. I will not for long take seriously someone who insists on questioning John Kerry's credentials who also admits to thinking that George Bush's were sufficient to vote for him. That would be a double standard of unallowable proportion.

[Cathy]

Thank you Mark,
That's exactly the kind of answer that I have tried to get from other Kerry supporters to no avail.
The information will be useful to me.

Cathy

[TJ]

Kerry wants to expand greatly? Expand what? No one
argues that he does not have age on him or that he
was reelected in the most liberal state in the union, nor
that he speaks of things that he "would do," but what
has he *done* in the Senate all these years? What
serious legislation has he proposed and gotten into
law? When does he ever arrive at a *real* conviction,
rather that flip flop back and forth? What, specifically, is
his plan on energy? Not his rhetoric, a real plan that
can pass and that makes sense?

Everyone is free to vote for whomever they wish and
I wish, frankly, that we had another choice because I
don't endorse all of the Bush agenda, BUT, John Kerry
is far, far from the answer. I guess we'll just cancel
out each others votes.

[Cathy]

Thanks TJ, I agree with you completely.
It is tiring to listen to candidates make general statements about what they are going to do or where they stand. I may be unusual, but I like to hear more of a plan on how they will accomplish something. Or at least be a little more specific about their plans and positions.

Campaign vagaries aren't saying much. It says so much more to look at the candidates record.

Cathy

[Anonymous]

Just wanted to let you all know that sexually transmitted diseases are up 57% since 1995 here in the UK (Headline in one of the local papers). The major problem per the paper....."the long wait for health care treatment here in the UK." There is a national health care system over here.

Wuptdo (In London Internet Cafe) B-)

[Cathy]

Just wanted to let you all know that sexually transmitted diseases are up 57% since 1995 here in the UK (Headline in one of the local papers). The major problem per the paper....."the long wait for health care treatment here in the UK." There is a national health care system over here.

Wuptdo (In London Internet Cafe) B-)

Thanks for sharing that with us Wuptdo.
I for one DO NOT want the socialized health care that Kerry is touting, and it's reason enough for me to not vote for him. That and his sell out attitude toward dealing with the UN.

[Anonymous]

the socialized health care that Kerry is touting

I for one do not want the socialized military Bush is touting.

You know, socialized, something everyone pays for and from which everyone is supposed to reaps benefits.

Like this **** socialized schooling thing that the U.S. is known for. Or, how about this, all of those socialized highways.

Conservatives like to call universal healthcare socialist in hopes that they then don't have to discuss the issue on its merits. Try again. I'm not here to defend it, it may not work, but you'll have to do better than crying socialism. Or, if you want to be consistent, start complaining about socialized food safety, or something like that.

And, for TJ, HERE (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/energy/) is a link to Kerry's admittedly abstract energy policy. Also check out the national platform where there is likely to be some more detail.

[johnb]

Roads are a traditional function of government. There is a significant difference between being denied sidewalks and being denied a bypass operation. Road construction is one of the few things government does that it is actually supposed to do in this nation. If government ever gets direct control of the health care industry we will have the medical system of a 3rd world nation. That is guarantteed, it is the only way socialized medicine can be.

The left has done a great work in turning the US constitution into a worthless scrap of paper. There was an agreement once under which this nation was organized. It limited the roles of the various levels of government and sketched out the basic rights of the people. There never has been and is not now a justification in the Constitution for HilaryCare, Social Security, and most Federal activities these days. It doesn't matter though, the left hates individual liberty and most people are too afraid to assume responsibility for themselves to care.

[Cathy]

Anonymous "Guest",

Article I- Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says:


The Congress shall have power.....to regulate commerce....among the several States...

To establish post offices and post roads.

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.....

I think that the Constitution establishes the Federal Governments role in developing a system of interstate transport that would facilitate commerce throughout the country in as efficient a manner as possible.

And as it was originally set up, this highway system paid for itself through fees and taxes on the vehicles using these roads.

Now, that is diminished by TEA legislation that diverts around 20% of the money collected from automobiles and freight trucks to public tranportation and other "things" that will never be financially self-supporting. Public transportation is "transportation welfare" whether you agree with supporting it or not.

The Constitution also charged the Federal Government with the power to raise and maintain an Army and Navy, and fund it with limitations. And to use the militia to protect U.S. citizens from invasion.

Please point me to where the Constitution gives Congress the reponsibility to provide "social safety nets" for it's citizens.

And please try to contain your vitriolic hatred of George W. Bush as you do this.
It really hurts your ability to sell anyone on why John Kerry is a better choice.
"Because he is not George Bush" is not good enough.

(I did listen to Kerry's speech to the DNC.)
Cathy