Why should I vote for Kerry?

[Bisquick]

Because I said so that's why! That was bushes reponse to why he insists there is a connection between Iraq and Al Qaida despite there being no credible evidence.

Prove that statement from an unbiased source.

Most of these types of points 1) war was for oil, 2) bush lied about WMD, 3) bush lied about ties to terror (I think you claims of no intelligence pointing to this are not valid, we absolutely know he was supporting Hamas(sp?).  We know he had harbored terrorists.) honestly seem hollow to me.  Bush was surrounded with brilliant strategists.  If they were trying to pump up reasons for a war, don't you think they would have used ones they thought were valid?  To do otherwise is obvious political suicide.  Come on, we aren't dealing with a bunch of 5 year old strategists that can't understand the effects of their actions.  Their are much cheaper and politically effective ways of getting oil (probably ways that would have made the Bush family much wealthier).  There were other reasons for going to war that could not have been proven false (i.e. Hussein is an butcher that thumbed his nose at the UN for a decade).  Wouldn't it have been easier to beat those until they drummed up enough support?  Do you think they wanted to not get re-elected?

Yes, I'm still holding you guys to a so-called higher standard.  Tell me why I should vote for Kerry.  Most of this is still why I shouldn't vote for Bush (and essentially left jargon why I shouldn't vote for Bush).

Dr. Draino has put forth some of the only well-reasoned arguments thus far (unless I give Casino credit for the first "he's not Bush")

[The ZAPINATOR]

Why Kerry:

1)  Despite the controversy over whether he deserved his decorations, the real issue is not Kerry's purple hearts.  The issue is that he SERVED in the military, in a real war, overseas, being shot at.  This is undisputable.  Let's not bring Bush's national guard service into this at all except to say that Bush did NOT serve overseas and never saw combat.  All of this tells me that Kerry would be more able to fully empathize with mobilized troops... and he'd be less willing to put them in harm's way.  This would lead to a responsible, less radical foreign policy.

2)  When Kerry got back from Vietnam he protested the war, which was politically unpopular in mainstream America.  He seemed to be following his conscience then, speaking out against a war he'd served in, but a war he saw as unjust.  So in my mind that tells me John Kerry is capable of making hard, unpopular decisions that will nevertheless reflect his honesty with himself and the truth of a given situation.  This speaks to the man's integrity on so many levels.

3)  Over the course of his Senate career, he has developed strong bonds with men I trust, such as John McCain.  If they don't think he's a feminine hygiene product, maybe we ought to trust their judgment.

4)  His economic policies will be more focused than Bush's upon not running massive deficits, if his platform is to be believed.  He'll also roll back tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and will try to improve our healthcare system.   

5)  He claims he has better hair, and there's no doubt his running mate has excellent hair.

All that said, I'm not voting for him.

ZAP

[Bisquick]

I like 2 and 3

4, I'm still not sure he isn't just doing the opposite of Bush.  I think Bush did the right thing, but Kerry is claiming a better plan going forward.  However, I don't think he has stated the right reasons.  If he would state that we should spend out of a recession, but this economy is recovering and we (the Kerry Campaign) believe maintaining these cuts is not the proper way to go forward, I would give him much more credit.  I think understanding the reason for a candidates promises is more important.  Campaign promises are hollow, a candidates ability to logic is not. 

[TyroneShoelaces]

Because I said so that's why! That was bushes reponse to why he insists there is a connection between Iraq and Al Qaida despite there being no credible evidence.

Prove that statement from an unbiased source.

First off I said between Iraq and Al Qaeda not between terrorists in general (hamas).  As for your unbiased source, take a look at the 9/11 commission report. That is what the Bush response of "because I said so" was in reference to.  Bushes exact quote on the issue was "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda." Sure seems like circular reasoning to me. I'm sorry, but I don't blindly follow people, and I need a little more proof than George W. Bush's word. The fact is that Bush pimped the war on the link to Al Qaeda and WMD. The 9/11 report showed no link to Iraq, and there have been no WMD found. It is bull to try to justify the war after the fact on Saddam being an evil dictator.  If the US really cares about evil dictatators, then why have we done nothing to stop the millions of people being killed in Sudan? Isn't that far worse than anything Saddam has ever done? Even if the Bush administration believed there reasons for war were valid, they still should have done a hell of a lot more to verify them. 

As for why to vote for Kerry, he wants to gather more international support for Iraq.  Whether he would actually be able to gather that support is hard to say. I do feel he would have a better chance of gathering international support than Bush would. Bush has burned all bridges in the international community, and a new president could provide a fresh start. 

[The ZAPINATOR]

Either America needs to be isolationist or a world leader.  We don't need to be internationalists.  And if we're leading, we can expect that with time international opinion will change and view us in a more favorable light.

The last thing we need to do is listen to the French, the Germans, and the Russians.  The Russians in particular are so humane... just look at how they've been storming that schoolhouse in Chezchnya with those kids inside it.  It seems like it's all good and fine to talk about peace when it's not a war THEY have anything to gain from... but as soon as they're threatened, their position is "blow it all up".

Sorry.  I don't care about international opinion except in the long run.  In the long run, I think Bush's foreign policy will look a lot more wise than it does to you in the short term. 

ZAP

[nonobvious]

Here's an editorial you might be interested in, from a conservative paper that endorsed Bush in 2000 but this time around supports Kerry:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2002016659_kerryed27.html

Anyway here are my thoughts, and I will try to get around to pro-Kerry reasons in another post, but for now here are some of my not-Bush reasons (and by the way I do think inadequacy (or worse) is a valid reason to vote against an incumbent out of office in any election).

Not-Bush Factors:

* Pre-emptive war = very bad precedent to set. It does not sound convincing when Laura Bush tries to compare President Bush's decisions to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan with Lincoln et al--
"No President wants to go to war"?-- That's hardly a viable characterization of the Bush administration's actions. The shadiness of the justifications used is also very troubling, and certainly the way it has dragged on suggests major mismanagement.

* Breaches of civil liberties. Think Patriot Act, which was forced through Congress so quickly barely anyone had a chance to read it and see how much it grants new powers to chill free speech and intimidate peaceful citizen groups. Or how about the Pentagon's aborted Total Information Awareness program, which would have further expanded surveillance authority of homeland security agencies.  Have you ever read anything about the FBI's COINTELPRO program in the 1960s? It was originally authorized under a narrow mandate to target Communism, but like terrorism the target was such a nebulous concept that the program overran its intended boundaries.  As a result many legitimate, peaceful citizen groups were intimidated and disrupted,
many innocent people were held in jail without even being told on what grounds (much like many Middle-Eastern-looking citizens after 9/11), some people's lives and reputations were ruined by fabricated rumors anonymously planted by FBI agents [I did research on the topic for a previous internship and can find references if necessary]. Although overall I thought Fahrenheit 9/11 was cheaply bombastic and badly-argued, it did point out the resurgence of those kind of tactics in the wake of 9/11. The founding fathers were guided by the principle that when a government is given power without checks and balances, the government will abuse that power.  For an administration that is so keen on appointing judges that claim to be strict Constitutionalists, the willingness to compromise basic Constitutional rights is extremely disturbing.

* Alienation of the international community.  We went from having universal support after 9/11 to being reviled and distrusted.  It's all very well and clever for Cheney to say (as he did last night) that Kerry wants to "outsource homeland security to France" but when US foreign policy seems to consist of nothing more than acting like a rebellious teenager whenever international consensus doesn't go our way, we're undermining the goals and purpose of having international diplomacy or a United Nations in the first place. We may get away with that kind of flagrant disrespect in the short-term, but in the long-run a good President has to be able to create diplomatic allies otherwise there will be a backlash that will thwart the things we want to achieve but can't get just by threats with our big economic and military sticks.  Being a "world leader" does not simply boil down to giving orders, it also requires cooperation, or at the very least negotiation -- and neither of those can be achieved effectively when we're sowing grudges with everyone else.


* Free-market economics, etc. You know, deregulation is not the *only* way of promoting economic growth.  If, for example, we were to put tighter environmental regulations on an industry, we haven't just necessarily stifled profit-making innovation-- in many cases it just provides a re-directed incentive for the company to profit by staying ahead of its competitors in developing more efficient ways of adhering to the regulations. Along other lines, investing in basic instrastructure, and services like education and health care will in the long-run provide a much more stable economic foundation than tax cuts targeted to people and corporations who will more likely invest it overseas anyway.
  The editorial above also makes a good point about the danger that the FCC's deregulation of media poses to free speech.  The major media outlets today are not so much biased towards one party or another as they are influenced by their consolidated owners.  Even putting aside what this does to coverage that might affect the interests of their corporate backers, the lack of competitors in the same market allows them to cut corners on the pricier aspects of the business, like generating well-researched content -- hence the death of real investigative journalism in major outlets. In the past few years especially the media has not given serious scrutiny to political events and other issues until there is a federal investigation underway (and sometimes even when real investigative work is HANDED to them they don't bother taking the risk of reporting something contentious, as was the case when Enron was first investigated by an independent journalist in 1999 and the media didn't touch it until they had offical federal proceedings to cover).

* As mentioned above, the Constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

* Evidence that the Bush administration has suppressed scientific data that runs counter to its policy positions, that prospective science advisory board members were asked improper questions about their political affiliations during the hiring process, and that advisory panels were 'stacked' with candidates with questionable ties to industry groups.  THe Bush administration has received criticism on these fronts from various science groups, as well as science advisors who served under previous Republican administrations [References easily made available as this is the subject of a report I am writing when I'm um, not procrastinating on LSD...]

 Okay, that's it for now, hopefully I will have time later to hit some pro-Kerry highlights...

[cascagrossa]

i think this election may be the most important of our lifetime.  there are huge long term effects that you have to consider.

to paraphrase chris matthews:

do you really want the US continue with the "go at it alone" attitude?  because soon enough tony blair and musharraf will be gone and we will be TOTALLY alone in the world.

do you want an economy that will focus on tax relief for the wealthy? to see the middle class slowly dissapear?

do you want medical research to advance to its maximum potential?  or do you want the same stupid diseases affecting your children in 20-30yrs?  bush will not fund embryonic stem cell research

do you believe in SCIENCE?  bush denies the existence of global warming?!

do you like the idea of separation of church and state?  bush has said he wants to fund faith based organizations.

[The ZAPINATOR]

"do you really want the US continue with the "go at it alone" attitude?  because soon enough tony blair and musharraf will be gone and we will be TOTALLY alone in the world."

True.  Until other countries are hit hard in the face with Terrorist threats.  They'll come around soon enough once they realize the hatred brewing among Islamic Fundamentalists in the Middle East.  When that is focused on THEM instead of us, shouldn't be long until they are changing their tunes.  (Not to mention the plethora of non-major world powers that did back us in going into Iraq, so the over-simplification of this situation in saying "everyone hates us" is not exactly accurate.)

"do you want an economy that will focus on tax relief for the wealthy? to see the middle class slowly dissapear?"

The middle class is disappearing because of a convergence of factors, and those factors have been in place for a long time.  I hardly think a couple rounds of tax cuts have been the prime mover here.

"do you want medical research to advance to its maximum potential?  or do you want the same stupid diseases affecting your children in 20-30yrs?  bush will not fund embryonic stem cell research"

This whole issue has been hyped and very politicized.  Great claims have been made regarding stem cells.  Actual scientists seem to be more skeptical, and think the case has been overstated.  Regardless, there IS stem cell research going on as we speak.  Bush compromised on the issue... but anything short of an all-out victory for the left is unacceptable to the left, I guess.

"do you believe in SCIENCE?  bush denies the existence of global warming?!"

Excuse me, but global warming is a THEORY.  When did it get scientifical validation as being anything more than a theory, as being absolutely, unarguably true?  People make convincing cases BOTH for and against it, so don't try to use "Bush hates science" as an argument.

"do you like the idea of separation of church and state?  bush has said he wants to fund faith based organizations."

There's been a debate on this issue ever since the beginnings of our secular Constitution.  There has also been considerable divergence of opinion as to what "an establishment of religion" in America would look like.  To me, as long as we're not favoring denominations or religions over one another and equally funding all people of faith who'd like to provide services more efficiently than the government, it's an excellent plan!  And under those conditions there's been no establishment of religion.  Separation of church and state is not necessarily what the left says it is.

Plus, you didn't even begin to answer "Why Kerry".  I think Biscuit stated upfront he didn't want to hear "Why NOT Bush" or "because Kerry's not Bush".

ZAP

[Bisquick]

i think this election may be the most important of our lifetime.  there are huge long term effects that you have to consider.

to paraphrase chris matthews:

do you really want the US continue with the "go at it alone" attitude?  because soon enough tony blair and musharraf will be gone and we will be TOTALLY alone in the world.
        this may be your only valid point

do you want an economy that will focus on tax relief for the wealthy? to see the middle class slowly dissapear?
        Tax cuts in recessions are Dem. policy.  The tax cuts for the wealthy were largely tax cuts trying to spur investment and savings, which helps everyone and everyone could take advantage.  (If you don't believe me, look at the Japanese economic growth and individual savings rates from the 50's thru the 80's)

do you want medical research to advance to its maximum potential?  or do you want the same stupid diseases affecting your children in 20-30yrs?  bush will not fund embryonic stem cell research
        I'm a biomed engineer and support this research, but it is not worth the election.  Embryonic stem cells have been drastically overhyped to get votes, tragically giving people false hope.  Embryonic stem cell research has not been outlawed and can still be carried out in two ways.  Thus far adult stem cells have shown much more promise.

do you believe in SCIENCE?  bush denies the existence of global warming?!
        I think I believe in science and am probably more overqualified in the area than all but the two-three PhD's on the board.  This is a THEORY.  I'm not sure I buy it either.  I do support environmental causes because it is the right thing and best thing to do for our world long term.  I do not support ignorant fear mongoring based on a theory.

do you like the idea of separation of church and state?  bush has said he wants to fund faith based organizations.
        Guess who does most of the charitable work in this country that actually works?  Not the government.  Not generally secular groups.  Faith based organizations do.  As long as this money is still being distributed based on merit of the program and not on religious affiliation, this has nothing to do with church and state and everything to do with actually helping people turn their lives around.

[The ZAPINATOR]

So let's recap the reasons for Biscuit to vote for Kerry so far:

He's not Bush
He'd be more multi-lateral and internationalist
In the past he's known to stand for unpopular causes he believed in
John McCain likes him

Does that about sum up the reasons you'd be inclined to vote for Kerry, Biscuit?

ZAP