jb2000

Quote from where, Ustwo? I'd be interested in following up on the case.

Lawyers are often the voices for people, especially in the court room. Such a statement could well be spun to seem like he's trying to do some voodoo ritual, but without any of the context, it is impossible to tell.

filtherton

Is that any more outrageous than bush claiming to be working directly for god?

Ustwo

You mean the 'quote' that was an arab translation of hand written notes?

Even if it were true, yes its a LOT different unless god was paying him and someone innocent was having to pay for it.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

jb2000

When did he say that? I mean I know he's an ideological crusader and all, but I think most Christians consider themselves to be working for God. Did he claim to have a special hotline to God ala Pat Robertson?

jb2000

Ustwo, I'm still eager to hear more about the case you cited. So far as I have seen, Edwards hasn't extorted anyone, unless one considers legitimate restitution for damages extortion.

Are you seriously charging that John Edwards knowingly sought unwarranted damages, in seeking damages in cases where he either knew that the injury was not real, or that the defendant was not guilty of causing the damage or liable for them? That is a very serious crime, grounds for disbarment, and for counter-suit for restitution against Mr. Edwards and his client. Since none of these have been pursued, you are going to have a tough time demonstrating that he did any of these illegal activities, when those (including some very good lawyers) who were involved with the cases were not able to demonstrate the same.

Or are you just drawing the conclusion that since he has successfully prosecuted cases, that he must be one of the very small minority of lawyers who engage in unethical behavior?

Ustwo

Yes. He is scum. If John Kerry were everything I wanted in a president I still wouldn't vote for him on the odd chance Edwards might end up president. I don't wish to derail this thread anymore so I sent you a pm (before you posted this).

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

gcbrowni

Did this come from 'Plan of Attack', the Bob Woodward book? I need to go read this.

__________________
From the day of his birth Gilgamesh was called by name.

filtherton

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2921345.stm
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_A...386439,00.html
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/S...ID=0&listSrc=Y
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...shfaith20.html

There you go, google is your friend.

mml

Note to everyone: Kerry is not finished. Bush's post convention bump is slipping away and we once again seem to have a race that is within the margins of error.

To win, Kerry needs to simplify his message and set down his vision for America in concrete and non-complicated terms (much like he began to do in his 9/20 speech). He needs to discipline himself and his surrogates to keep to these "talking points" and then continue to stress the errors and misleading statements of the Bush Administration. He should also continue to "soften" his image with the various talk show appearances, which have gotten positive reviews. Finally, he needs to win the debates.

Others have said it, and it is true. At this stage of the game, it is still anyone's guess who will win. It would be foolish (and while Karl Rove is many things, he is not foolish) for the Bush Campaign to assume they will win.

KMA-628

mml-

You are speaking as one who is already committed. These are the things YOU want to hear. These points will only work on the base Kerry already has.

In my opinion, coming from a person who is married to a Republican-undecided, he needs a completely different approach.

There are issues and ideas out there that would appeal across the board but Kerry isn't touching them.

Your points will only get him rah-rah's from the people that are already on his side (the ABB's). That will not win him an election. Especially when the guy isn't very interesting and likeable to begin with.

Superbelt

Great job Ustwo, you posted a very biased article and declined to give us a link to it. Hiding overtly partisan sources?

Here, I'll add the byline.
Ann Coulter, Frontpagemag

You wouldn't have done that on purpose now, would you?

mml

KMA, you may well be right, I am clearly in the Kerry camp. What I meant to imply is that to win Kerry needs to fine tune his message, make it more clear and understandable to people who do not spend hours a day reading or listening to politics. I agree that there are a multitude of issues that he should be addressing and that is more of what I meant by "vision" . I think many people would be appalled at some of the environmental decisions this White House has made as an example. What do you see specifically, as some of the issues he should be addressing? By the way, all is not Pro-Kerry in the mml family: some for, some against, some undecided.

smooth

You've said that a couple of times now, but I can't find in either of your responses the issues you think your wife would respond to.


My experience has been that some republicans claim they are independent or undecided, for whatever reasons (I don't know if they feel it gives them some semblence of rationality or discernment--but that's my suspicion), yet consistently vote Republican.

I usually ask these people when the last time they voted for anything other than a Republican candidate in an election other than their local community elections (i.e., mayor, council person, etc). It's not a very surprising answer to me that they may have done so about 30 years ago.


When has your wife voted for a democratic or third party president? I'd be curious to know whether she fits the pattern of other similarly situated republicans.

I suspect that if they were as undecided as they claim or wish they were, that they might actually vote for another candidate--not necessarily a democrat. So what they really seem to be saying is that they wish to be open minded and if a bombshell of a reason goes off in their heads, they would jump party in the ballot box.

But what they don't seem to consider is that, given their political predispositions, any bombshell that would otherwise go off in their minds will be filered through their political ideology and diffused before it presents an issue with the party they are voting for.

That's my armchair psychoanalysis of the 'undecided' republican.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

jb2000

Ustwo,

A google search on the text you first presented reveals the quote as you presented it came from an Ann Coulter column, since regurgitated on a number of other sites, some citing Ann, others anonymously.

As I first suspected, the presentation was one of creative editing, to make it sound like Edwards was having some kind of mystic seance in the courtroom, when really all he was saying was how it was up to him to as a lawyer to represent her in the courtroom where she couldn't speak on her own behalf.

For completeness, you left out some of Ann's interjections, and since I don't know if you were quoting her article or a regurgitation of it, here is her presentation (the whole column can be found a few places, this is one: http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles...e.asp?ID=14143):

Hard to disagree, huh? Edwards claiming to read minds or be some kind of clairvoyant medium in the courtroom? Nuts, right?

I will be the first to admit, I haven't the time resources to pull up the courtroom records and read every piece of the case, but here is a more complete quotation of that part of the testimony, putting it much more in context.

So no, it doesn't appear that little Jennifer spoke words to John, but he clearly isn't claiming any kind of clairvoiance either. He is merely interpreting the the medical information on the heart monitor in a way that we all can understand clearly what that information meant.

This is how Ann does business. She not only takes things out of context, but intentionally strips them of their original context and paints her own surrounding it, much of it complete fabrication. But even so, I don't discount your argument based on the source, I challenge it based on the information itself. I doubt that you would intentionally bring such ill-presented material to this forum, and you ay well have not even been aware that it was Coulter's work, or what the source was.

Keep in mind, this case was a successful prosecution. Edwards has a pretty high 'batting average' if you will. That doesn't come from prosecuting frivolous and unwarranted cases, no matter how slick you are. You have to back cases that have real merit, where there is a real case of wrong-doing, combine them with good law practice, and present them well in court, to have that kind of record.

I asked you earlier if you are seriously charging that John Edwards intentionally prosecuted cases which were not warranted, or where he knew that there either was not an injury, or that the defendant was not liable. The Jennifer Campell case is clearly not one of those. Or do you seriously expect me to believe that every one of those jurors, the judge, the appeals judge, and everyone else involved in adjudicating this case, who witnesses many long days of detailed evidence and knew every nook of this case, were wrong, somehow brainwashed by John's incredible aura?

Remember that ultimately the true value of the case was that hospitals and insurance companies changed their ways in regards to these cases, and started paying more attention to cases where there is fetal distress. Do I have the data in front of me to say it saved X number of babies lives and X number of Palsey cases, etc.? No, but I have no doubt it has saved many families a lot of distress.

This is the kind of person you call scum? I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you on that. Having had a baby who went through distress, it was taken totally seriously and we quickly went to C-Section, as opposed to what happened to Jennifer Campbell. No, I'm not trying to say it's John Edwards who saved my baby's life. But it is him and those like him who have improved the responsiveness of not as much doctors, whom I assume want to do what is best, but insurance companies and hospitals that have to front the cost for procedures and thus improved care for all of us. Should John Edwards be demonized for having gotten well rewarded for this? Should we demonize the captains of industry who bring improved products into our lives, supposedly improving our lives, and getting rich in the process? Only when they commit fraud and break the law and engage in unethical practices. As far as I can tell (although I'm open to presenting the case) John Edwards has not acted illegally, has not prosecuted frivolous/groundless lawsuits, and has not knowingly represented false claims. You say that he has, but have not pointed out a case where this was so. Even Ann Coulter was only trying to make him look like some clairvoyent fool, which even though silly, isn't a crime, even if it were what he was doing in that courtroom.

So what is it about John that makes him scum, Ustwo?

jb2000

Oops, forgot the link to the article for my second quote above:

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics...-7372374c.html

KMA-628

Smooth,

read again, I mentioned one. There are many I can think of, but that defeats the purpose of my agenda and isn't my point. I hinted to a whole slew of issues that W. is very weak on and that could possibly dissuade his base.

Regarding my wife: She voted against Bill Owens (Republican Gov of Colorado) and will every chance she gets. Voted Perot instead of Bush or Clinton in '92. She voted for W. the first time because she didn't like Gore. She is not happy with Jr. at all and I don't think I will be able to keep her on my side this election. (She met W. and Brother when campaigning for Phil Gramm at the RNC--she was so-so on W. but really didn't like Jeb).


I will repeat my point - I am not going to outline the issues/ideas but merely state that the direction Kerry is going only excites the ABB's. He is not likeable so he needs to do something different to draw from the "other side". The track he is on isn't gaining him any ground and, in my opinion, won't win him an election.

Honestly, it is boring. I can only hear the same talking points from any candidate so many times.

c'mon, I'm not doing myself any favors here. If it were up to me, Kerry should continue the course he is on and I would be happy.

OpieCunningham

What does Kerry need to do?

Not much more than he is doing now. That the incumbent is effectively tied with the challenger bodes extremely poorly for the incumbent. This is Bush's election to lose - and there's a very good chance he will.


Ustwo - Nice Ann Coulter quote. That's some finely tuned, clarity of vision, non-partisan information you provided.

KMA-628

It would be very easy to read this the wrong way.

might've been better said without the political tags. you seen to be inferring that someone who is true to the conservative cause isn't rational. That in order to "appear" intelligent, one must appear undecided.

smooth

The christian conservatives in my family and circle of acquantances are not rational--nor do they claim to be.

They base their decisions on religious ideology--unabashadly so. One of the most cited reasons they fall back on Bush (and other republicans) is because of their position on abortion.

Their position is based on mythical stories about what they believe a deity told inspired people to write down. They are not ashamed of their position--they believe it to be true.

You may be upset about that characterization of people in your party, and I don't know your religious affiliation nor do I make any assumptions about it, but that is certainly non-rational behavior and it governs their voting patterns.

I haven't met any democrats who similarly situate themselves politically, socially, and culturally.

Since I am neither, I couldn't care less whether such democrats exists. I was offering my analysis of republicans I have met who purport themselves to be independent. However, when confronted with issues that affect real people, in real time, even themselves, most notably in economic issues (which is really all the government should be involved in, but this whizzes over the heads of conservatives when I state it, although readily comes out as a plank in their platform when it becomes politically expedient), these republicans subordinate such issues to one or a few religious issus.

If you can find a religious, politically vocal group of liberals, feel free to post an analysis of them--I won't be offended. You drew a link betwen intelligence and rationality that I never stated. This fits into my earlier observation that many republicans welcome their situational victimstance.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

ARTelevision

I'm surprised Kerry didn't stick with the domestic issues. I think they are a sure bet winner. A democrat who focuses on improving the lives of citizens by means of government programs seems unbeatable to me. I really don't understand why he went after the strengths of his opponent rather than focusing on the strengths of his (and his party's) positions.

__________________
create evolution

cthulu23

What strengths would those be, Art? I would argue that Bush has been very weak on foreign policy.
As for domestic programs, it's a little difficult for Democrats to propose any wide spectrum programs these days. Although Bush may have driven up the deficits to record levels (as did Reagan), it's Democrats who are stuck with the image of fiscal irresponsibility. This is just another example of the triumph of sound bites over substance. Only nixon could go to China and only Clinton could dismantle welfare, not that you'd ever here many Republicans acknowledge that.

Boo

I am hoping that Edwards might prove to be a good president in the future. A few years in the political arena and he may be worth voting for.

Can we add sheeple to this list of derogative terms. It has an air of arrogance.

__________________
Back button again, I must be getting old.

maximusveritas

I think the reason is clear : 9-11
Kerry can talk about domestic issues all he wants, but as soon as Bush mentions 9-11, its all over.
This is why it was important for Kerry to take 9-11 off the board politically.
So far he hasn't done so.

I think Kerry should have relentlessly attacked the President and the Republicans over their shameless political exploitation of 9-11 at the Republican Convention. There is still time for him to do so at the debates. Perhaps its because this hits me personally, but I think this is the most important thing for him to do.

ARTelevision

These are the miscalculations I'm talking about. Not admitting that the strengths of the Republicans at this juncture - with the majority of the electorate - are security and defense and the response to 9/11, are the kinds of things that have backfired, as shown by the current polls. Admitting they are strengths and then addressing them as a means of taking them off the board hasn't worked either.

Yes, he'd have to withstand the accusations of fiscal irresponsibility if he focused on governmentally funded domestic programs but IMO I don't think folks care that much about it. And he could have countered with the high level of spending and deficits of the current administration.

So I am still not getting it. Why not focus on what is just about guaranteed to get you votes rather than what has been focused on so far in this campaign? It hasn't worked and isn't working.

__________________
create evolution

cthulu23

Art,

As you already know, there is a giant chasm between reality and voter perception. Bush has the public sentiment on security and defense although his policies have done nothing to increase our safety, perhaps decreasing it. In the same way, it doesn't matter what the Republicans have done financially...Democrats are "socialists" who only want to tax the rich. Petty things such as facts have nothing to do with it.

smooth

We don't know what people who aren't in the polls are thinking. They are the elusive 'unknown' or 'expected' voters, which many pollsters are trying to extrapolate via various formulas.

If nothing else, it's expected that more people who are currently off the radar will come out in droves. The issue I have is what makes people banking on them so certain that they won't break down similarly along political lines as the larger electorate?


but my main point is that we don't know how effective kerry's strategy has been on the people who weren't registered to vote last election cycle and are currently not being probed during these polls.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

OpieCunningham

This is completely unsubstantiated in nature - but one of the inherent weaknesses of many polls is a new aspect of society: the number of people who do not have land-line telephones. Not all polls are telephone based, but many are. There are somewhere around 170 million cellphones in use in the country. Assuredly, the large majority of them are business related, but there is and has been a growing number of people who only have a cellphone. And this segment of the country is typically young, which is also typically more apt to vote liberal. If even half a percent of the 170 million cellphones are people who are never sampled in these polls, that's 850,000 people - most of whom would probably vote Kerry.

But assuredly, it's all a guessing game until Nov. 2nd. I think a real concern is the high degree of probability that some of the individual State vote counts will be strongly contested. I do not expect either side to acquiesce as quietly as Gore did in 2000.

mml

Amen Art! I truely wish we could talk more about domestic policy, as the reality is that a Kerry Administration will do very little that is different from the Bush Administration in Iraq. Unfortunately, whenever these issues come up the Republicans say "The only way to do all these things Kerry wants to do is to raise taxes, and we believe the American pulbic knows how to spend their money better that the Federal Government." An overly simplistic statement, but an effective one. The fact is that taxes will be raised, particularly on the top 1% of the population, and rarely in Presidential politics does someone win by saying they will raise taxes. Kerry calls it a "rollback". All this being said, I do believe that he must begin to address some of these issues more agressively. Health care, social security, job training and development, environmental policy and education should be brought up much more frequently. The reality is that most Americans are concerned about National Security, so that is the topic of choice. Hopefully, the debates will allow the candidates and America to focus more on domestic policy.

vpbar73

Your choice is a man who says its alright to kill babies and claims that he can gain our soldier support.(He cant. Just ask a soldier near you. They want a president who keeps his word and supports them. That man is Bush. Like I said, dont believe me, ask a soldier.)
Or
A President who sticks to his promise. Has morals, and fears God.

Superbelt

Paq

why do i care if a president fears god. I'd much rather have a president who...oh, i dunno, can keep from pushing his religion on everyone, keep from scaring me with the "God says this is the right thing to do" type speech as that is kinda close to "allah says this is the right thing to do..."

__________________
Live.

Chris

mattevil

The polls are definetly all over the place. I was at electoral-vote.com this morning and it made VA(the state i'm voting in) look like a swing state with a weak bush rating I check back later today and it's strong bush all of a sudden?
whatever I'm doing the mail in for Kerry.

back to the issue at hand I think if Kerry really makes a strong showing at the debates and has some newsworthy soundbites there(so he reaches more people on cable news replays) he has a chance.Kerry really needs to hit Bush hard with the issues though and come back and respond to any muckraking news stories (Swiftboats,CBS documents,etc.). I mean really if he doesn't risk a little at the debates there's really no other chances to reach people.Hell after all the dirty tricks that Rove has been pulling I'd love to see Kerry attack the common man image Bush presents when he was really born to privlege possibly more than anybody else in the country.

mml

While I know I should not resond this kind of Trolling, I just had to comment on the rather large paint brush this statement was written with. My brother, who is a Republican and generally votes that way, is in the military and has spent time in the Middle East on a couple of occations (i.e. this war and the last) and is a devout Christian (opposes abortion, pro-school prayer etc...) cannot bring himself to vote for President Bush. Addditionally, one of my lifelong mentors, a retired Army Colonel who had NEVER voted for a Democrat cannot abide a President who, in his words, lied to Americans and rushed our military into a poorly planned war, and ignored obvious, tried-and-true military doctrines that would have helped protect the lives of American soldiers.

So, while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, please try to remember that it is only YOUR opinion and as much as you may wish it, you cannot make it a universal truth. ( I was also curious as to what the abortion issue has to do with earning the loyalty of the military? But maybe I am misreading your comment.)

edwhit

I think Kerry waited way too long to make any attempt to tell America what he believes in. I realize MANY don't care, as long as he is against Bush, but that's not good enough for me personally.

Ok, you don't like Bush and think he has done poorly. What would you do different? We are finally getting a few answers, but I don't know if it is soon enough.

I'm a Republican officially but will vote as I feel I should. I don't believe Bush is the ideal choice to lead our nation. However, I'm not yet convinced Kerry can do better. The "Vote Bush Out" campaign works for most of the democrats it seems. But I like to vote someone IN to office.

To convince me to vote for him, Kerry needs to convince me that he can stand for something consistantly and that he can protect America and is not afraid to take the fight to the enemy. I agree with him on SOME of his financial strategies. But I don't think either president is going to win an award for saving our economy.

Frankly, if Bush wins we only have 4 more years till we get 2 new choices! I do like the sound of that!

edwhit

I agree, it seems easy for both sides to make a broad statement and claim it as fact. I have close friends that are in the military who support Bush 100% and fear a man like Kerry leading them. I also am dating a woman who's family is military and sides more on the anti bush side (but he is democrat.) It works both ways.

edwhit

I realize it is hard for an atheist or non christian to understand where this train of thought comes from so perhaps I can shed a little light (or perhaps not, we'll see)

The term "fear God" has more implications than just doing everything God says and pushing those standards on everyone else. What does God stand for to a Christian? I would argue that most would say God stands for values. Values such as loving each other (respecting), Freedom to choose (yes, I'm sure many feel otherwise, but this is what a Christian sees), Not murdering, Protecting. Loyalty to your family.

I'm well aware that many anti christians would enjoy pointing out examples of how they feel Christians fail to live up to these standards as well as other standards. That's great for you but that is not my point so please save yourself the trouble.

"Fearing God" is also a way of stating that they feel there are moral decisions to be made. You don't have to be Christian to agree with those standards. Whether someone believes God wishes he follow these standards or not, if they are good standards that is all that matters.

It's easy to hear the word God and jump down someones throat while at the same time agreeing with the same principals.

The real debate is how the principals are applied and put into practice. For example, If you honestly feel/felt that Sadaam and his army would attack america and murder your family, is it better to attack him first? Or find better ways to defend yourself without attacking first. That is a debate that has gone on for decades.

And there is nothing wrong with Muslims or Hindus or whatever religion you care to pick feeling they should follow who they feel is their God! It's when they say that YOU also must follow that God or be killed that it becomes an issue. Bush is not saying you must be Christian (abortion and gay issue aside for now) or die!

I'm all for letting the world do what they want in their own countries. And while I realize no one can/should police the world, I also have a hard time watching people getting slaughtered and raped and tortured for no more reason that having different beliefs. So whether or not to go to war with people like sadam is not an easy issue for me personally.

Having a president that respects the lives of others enough to go to war for them is honorable to me. Much as seeing someone being raped in an alley and doing something about it instead of walking on by is honorable at the very least!

That's a trait I like. Now, how you go about taking care of the bad guy is another issue. That one is up for debate. Would I want a president that ignored Hitler and his slaughter even if it was far away from our land? It may not be logical or financially sound to go to war to stop Hitler, but any "God Fearing" man or woman would do his/her best to protect the standards they believe in. The standard that life means something and should be protected even at the risk of your own time/money/life, in this example.

Now I don't believe that Religion and Politics should be mixed. I strongly believe in the seperation of church and state and I DO believe that at times Bush crosses the line or at the very least attempts to. But the fact that he feels compelled to "do the right thing" doesn't scare me.

Tieing this whole post back to the thread topic....I want someone as president who will keep the seperation of church and state! I also want a president that will listen to his conscience and not just to his pocketbook!

How can Kerry Win? Convince me he has strong beliefs and that he will stick by them would be a good starting point for me.

Superbelt

You should revise that as it sounds to me, through your writing that you imply the Christian God and Islamic God are two separate concepts. Islam and Hindu should not be lumped together. You should be replacing "Follow that God" with "Follow that set of religious tenets." You do know that (for the most part) Islam is the same as Christianity except for Jesus being demoted to a major prophet and Mohammad being the final revelation, right?
Also, from this statement, "It's when they say that YOU also must follow that God or be killed that it becomes an issue.", It seems like you don't understand what has happened.
Al Qaeda did not attack us because we are Christian. Al Qaeda attacked us because they saw western society encroaching on Islamic nations again. They had just gotten rid of us in the 1960's with the end of colonialism. People like Osama saw America trying to start that up again in the first Gulf War, especially with the establishment of military bases. 9/11 is based on cultural protectionism, not religious fevor.
For that reason Bush's statement of "They hate us for our freedom" is so disgusting. It just shows that we have learned nothing from 9/11 and our leadership has absolutely no idea of how to deal with the Arabic psyche. And that right there is where the real "War on Terror" needs to be fought.

Watch the debates.

edwhit

Yes I suppose I could have written it more correctly. I could argue that what an islamic extremist feels his God asks of him and what a typical Christian feels his God expects of him are often VERY radically different! So different that they could not possibly be the same being. To avoid confusion when discussing different views of the same concept of "God" it is easy to refer to "them" as the islamic God or the Christian God.

One could argue that if working on a car is the most important thing in a person's life, that the car is their God. Or that being a forum whore all day makes the forums that persons God. This is not a new expression and I did not invent it. Using this terminology I feel free to "Lump" any groups as I choose. Further more, I'll lump whoever I choose if I feel it helps to illustrate a point. Guess it didn't help you and perhaps anyone. But it was intentional. Thanks for the PC lesson though

Perhaps I did make a mistake in what happened. In truth I can't at the moment remember the exact reason for the rape, torture and slaughter or innocent lives. However, you are talking about Al Qaeda. I didn't mention Al Qaeda did I? I was talking about Saddam and his actions in his own country. Thanks for your view of how we deserved to be attacked on 9/11 though.

Sorry, you CAN NOT justify targetting civilians for political or religious reasons to me. We may not understand their psyche, but they do not understand ours either if they felt that their actions would in any way make things better.

And yes, I have every intention of watching the debates. I hope it will answer many questions. However, memorizing a few lines for a night of scripted responses will not sway 100%. His many interviews, written statements as well as his voting record speak volumes beyond a night or two of speeches and responses to scripted questions.

On a personal note, do you believe in Kerry yourself? Are you a Kerry supporter or a bush hater?

host

Sorry, edwhit......our treasury, our citizens, and our constitution, cannot
afford four more months of Bush.....4 more years would be catastrophic !

<a href="http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm">http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm</a>
edwhit, if you are of the opinion that the Lone Star Iconoclast editorial
board is distorting Bush's presidential record to an extent that you can
offer a compelling reason to vote for him, in spite of the detailed list
of his negatives and the damage that they have caused (and will continue
to cause in years to come.....even if the electorate can put an end to
his regime on Nov. 2), please bring it on ! Bear in mind,,,,in the last 34 years,
only one president has balanced the budget....a democrat, Bill Clinton.

When Reagan took office in 1981, the entire federal deficit
was $930 billion. The deficit is now $7.2 trillion. Kerry served voluntarily in
Viet Nam. Bush joined the guard, checked the box that put him on record as
declining to serve overseas, did not fly the customary 5 years after the
military spent $1 million to train him, and can offer no records that confirm
that he took his required 1972 flight qualification physical. This link to
<a href="http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=269">http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=269</a>
Reinforces my point that Kerry has had a consistant position on the Iraq war.
Understand that Karl Rove has influenced you and many Americans by using,
with great success, the strategy of attacking the strengths of Bush's opponents in order to <br>distract attention from Bush's shortcomings by having Bush, Cheney, and cooperative media
(Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Fox News)
repeat the same distortions, half truths, and untruths over and over, in a highly coordinated presentation.
Did you know that Nixon met with Swift Boat officer O'Neill for an hour in
June, 1971, in an effort to blunt the impact that he perceived Kerry to
have on his Viet Nam policy?
Did you Know that Kerry initiated the Iran Contra investigation and exposed
the illegal support for the Nicaraguan Contras, the Reagan administration selling arms to Iran, as a freshman senator in 1985, gaining the support
of republican Jesse Helms by exposing the details of CIA operatives raising
money for the Contras by smuggling cocaine into the U.S.?
<a href="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB113/">Memos on
the Kerry Report, Contras and Drugs</a>

<a href="http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/062003.shtml">Kerry: With probes, making his mark</a>

edwhit, you indicate that you are keeping an open mind.
Discern what elements of your opinions of Bush and Kerry have
been influenced by Karl Roves "psych ops", and what the facts
are about the candidate's resumes. IMO, Kerry's life experience involves
bringing the details of how two past republican presidents were
actually conducting wars, to the attention
of the American people. Kerry knows from experience what and who
he is up against. He has never waivered in 30 years of taking Nixon, then
Reagan, and now.....Bush on. The most important factor in all three of
these historic struggles is that Kerry was armed with the truth, and the
agendas of the 3 presidents could not stand up to public scutiny.

Instead of four more years of an administration that shrinks from it's obligation to demonstrate a dialogue with the press and the people, (14 Bush press conferences in 40 months, Cheney's secret energy task force, repetetive talking points instead of detailed answers to questions from the press and the people, carefully pre-screened audiences at campaign stops, illegal, well orchestrated effort to bottle up peaceful protestors in out of view, offsite, secure locations.....), I look forward to a new regime, led by
a head of state who has pursued and exposed past leaders who refused to
govern openly, or who even thought that they were accountable to the
citizens who they took an oath to represent !

edwhit

host, I appreciate your response and will certainly take your words and the quotes and sources provided into consideration.

I have always tried to take anything I hear with a grain of salt and you will understand if I continue to do so even with what you have stated.

I am not happy with much of what Bush has done and much of what he intends to do. I have not been against a "regime change" but I don't want to blindly accept the next guy running as the answer on blind faith alone. Out of the pan and into the fire and all that.

I am well aware that Karl Rove and company are distorting the truth when convenient in order to have an effective attack against Kerry. I tend to not be very trusting of many politicians and even less trusting during election time. Kerry, of course, has not been free from distorting the truth and exaggerating the truth. But that is to be expected.

It is easy to see reasons to not want bush in office 4 more years. The bigger challenge for me has been to find reasons to want Kerry in office for the next 4. Cutting through the election year BS to find the truth. Yes, he promises great things. But what candidate in the history of politics has not?

Your essay () is very insighful and will provide more food for thought as well as more directions to continue searching. It's nice to see thought out reasons to vote for Kerry as opposed to merely voting against Bush.