Thoughts that just come to me...
Published on November 23, 2004 By Genghis Hank In Politics
OK, so the media is catching on to the fact that "moral values" didn't mean we were all gay bashing crazed christian fanatics. So what do we make of the exit polls? Here's my take...

First, Kerry went to Vietnam and became a war hero. Some argue that he didn't deserve the medals. I don't know, I wasn't there.

Then Kerry marched on Washington and testified to the senate that the US was committing "war crimes" and that the Pentagon was ordering these acts. Well, that's very commendable for him to do if it was true. I don't know if anyone ever proved it, or refuted it properly either. This debate has been going on since I was a small child, and it wasn't going to get solved for this election. Still, free speech and all, he was free to say what he felt.

Then he goes to Paris and repeats these charges to the North Vietnam delagation at the peace talks. Now I'm getting a little hot. Free speech is one thing. Aiding and conforting the enemy is quite another.

OK, life goes on. Kerry eventually gets elected to the senate, where he establishes a 20 year record of being the most liberal senator in Washington. Well, I guess we know where he's coming from.

Then he stands on a stage, says he's reporting for duty, and says to vote for him because he is a war hero that would do everything Bush did, only better?!?

Moral Values. Kerry was a bigger liar than Bush.

Comments
on Nov 23, 2004
Good article.

"moral values" didn't mean we were all gay bashing crazed christian fanatics.

Moral values is more about integrity and honesty in my book.
on Nov 23, 2004
Good article.

"moral values" didn't mean we were all gay bashing crazed christian fanatics.

Moral values is more about integrity and honesty in my book.


Thanks iamheather

I would have had more respect for Kerry if he had run from the left. I still wouldn't have voted for him, but at least we could have had an honest debate about where this country is heading instead of listening to what they thought we wanted to hear.
on Nov 23, 2004
If you leave out the last line, it could be a direct quote from Karl Rove. Do you really know anything about Kerry's 20 years in the Senate? One of the things that Bush said about Kerry is that he was going to cut millions from intelligence. In actuality the cuts were to about 4%. What he doesn't mention was that his current CIA chief during the same year called for a larger cut of 20% from the intelligence budgets. If you want to depend on your information and believe everything that is told to you by partisan sources than the information is going to be wrong and skewed. I don't know how you quantify that someone is the most liberal senator in the Congress. I am sure that the next Democrat that runs will be amazingly the new most liberal senator in Congress. Depends where you get your information from.
on Nov 23, 2004
If you want to depend on your information and believe everything that is told to you by partisan sources than the information is going to be wrong and skewed. I don't know how you quantify that someone is the most liberal senator in the Congress


It's true, I don't know all the details of every vote Kerry cast. I can offer the following link for supporting evidence:

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattjk11.htm

Tell me why the National Journal is partisan, and I'll listen respectfully to your answer. But let me ask you. Did you believe that Kerry would have fought either the "War on Terror" or Iraq "better" than Bush? Or that if Kerry were the president, that France and Germany would have sent troops to help? I would guess the answer would be "No, Kerry wouldn't have gone to war in the first place", because that is what I hear from more Kerry supporters. Only Kerry didn't run on that platform. And that is the point of the article.
on Nov 23, 2004
First off, Matt Druge certainly isn't a nonpartisan source. The National Journal, however, isn't partisan, but those rankings were widely acknowledged inaccurate. The ranking consisted only of votes cast in 2003, a year when Kerry was absent from many votes due to the campaign. The ranking was based on 62 votes split amongst three areas - economic, social, and foreign policy. Kerry's ranking was formulated from only 20 votes, all of which were on economic policy. His lifetime rating is actually 85.7%, or 11th place.

And by the way, the atrocities Kerry talked about have been proven.

If this election was truly on honesty and moral fortitude, neither candidate would have come out on top. President Bush does not have some kind of monopoly on morality.
on Nov 23, 2004
First, thank you for your reply Eswiv.

First off, Matt Druge certainly isn't a nonpartisan source. The National Journal, however, isn't partisan, but those rankings were widely acknowledged inaccurate. The ranking consisted only of votes cast in 2003, a year when Kerry was absent from many votes due to the campaign. The ranking was based on 62 votes split amongst three areas - economic, social, and foreign policy. Kerry's ranking was formulated from only 20 votes, all of which were on economic policy. His lifetime rating is actually 85.7%, or 11th place.


Thanks for pinning that down for me a little better. A couple of points, though. First off, 11 th is still rather left of center, and he did rank 1st on two other years besides 2003. So maybe I did fall victim to some Bush side propraganda, but it is still fair to portray Kerry as "Liberal" or maybe even "Strongly Liberal". Second, if Kerry wanted to run as a strong wartime leader, why didn't he make it a point to make it to at least a couple of those foreign policy votes? Finally, Kerry never did publicly answer the Zell Miller charges about all those, well, non-pro-military votes, at least that I heard about. In my mind, that really hurt him in the "wartime president" department.

And by the way, the atrocities Kerry talked about have been proven.


I'm going to sidestep this. I only brought it up to make the point about his trip to Paris afterwards. Even if there were specific charges that were true, I think it bad form to go to the North Vietnamese and let them use it for propraganda. Also, the charges made were painted with a rather broad brush and seemed to imply that all Americans in Nam were there to "cut off ears" and the like. I believe that even Mr. Kerry later stated that he used "unfortunate" wording in his testemony.

Now let me explain why I am sidesteping this issue. I had the privilage of knowing a man that earned my respect, loyality, and, yes, even my love. He was my boss, mentor, and friend for the last 10 years. He passed away just a few months ago. And he was a bronze star and purple heart recieptiant in the Vietnam War. It was 8 years before I even found that much out. You see, he didn't talk much about what he did there. Not from a sense of shame, but from humility. He did tell stories about what it was like there, both good and bad. I could go on about what an honest and determined man he was, but that isn't really the subject at hand. Anyway, the arguement is just a little too close to me emotionally to debate here and now.

If this election was truly on honesty and moral fortitude, neither candidate would have come out on top. President Bush does not have some kind of monopoly on morality.


Yes, I agree with this. Bush is no angel. I won't debate wether Bush lied about WMDs here, it's been done to death elsewhere. But what Kerry did was lie about who he was. If he had come out against Iraq up front, and argued from his liberal background, fine. Let the voters decide. But he tried to run as a strong wartime president. "Reporting for duty!" "I fought for America as a young man and I'll fight for America as your president!" As if the last 30 years suddenly vanished. Then, when asked what he would do differently, the answer usually came down to one of three responses. 1 - I would have done the same things, but I would have done it better. 2 - I have a plan, but I can't tell you about it now. 3 - I would have gotten the world to support us before I did it. I felt that the reason he was giving these answers is because he didn't want us to know what he really would have done differently, either because he didn't know, or because he thought that if he said what he really thought, we wouldn't like it because he was pretending to be something he wasn't - a right of center moderate. Bush did a better job at showing who he really was, even if you didn't agree with all of it.

You see here when people aren't being who they really are. Texas Wahine just had an article talking about it. That's my problem with Kerry, and that's why I say he was the bigger liar.
Meta
Views
» 602
Comments
» 6
Category
Sponsored Links