Just Another Conservative Rant!!!

Sunday, October 24, 2004

Can't Be My President!!!

 

It seems interesting to me that John Kerry’s posing as a conservative today!  If he is such proud democrat and what we would consider a proud liberal then what is the problem acting like one!  Seems to me that John Kerry and his pundits are beginning to understand that liberalism doesn’t win elections!  Conservative values always trumped liberalism and always will.  This is something that John Kerry’s people in his circles are beginning to understand.  The problem is that John Kerry is a liberal and his record reflects that!

 

On John Kerry’s return from Vietnam he decided to speak out against the war he fought in.   My problem isn’t so much with his record during his Vietnam service.  My problem is more with his actions when he came back.  This is something that he hasn’t figured out a way to hide from the American people!  This is why he’s trying to block the viewing or should I say the showing of the movie “Stolen Honor”; that from all accounts truly depicts his actions during and after the war.  He is a self proclaimed baby killer.  This is something normally; you wouldn’t be very excited about.  But John Kerry didn’t only indict himself, he indicted his fellow soldiers.  And for what?  What did it accomplish?  It took people like John Kerry ten years to convince the American people that the Vietnam War was a mistake.  For all intents and purposes we won the war but because of weak leadership that pulled us out we lost the battle!  John Kerry’s actions 30 years ago are reprehensible at best and disgusting at worst.  Instead of being ashamed of himself he decided that he will put his Vietnam record on the front burner.  But people like John O’Neill and John Corsi decided that American needed to know what John Kerry wasn’t going to tell them.  So they wrote a book called unfit for command.  And this book was on the New York Times bestseller list for two months.  According to John Kerry in his camp, it was filled with lies and untruths. And therefore, the American people shouldn’t be allowed to read it!

 

There are people out there that want to believe that John Kerry will be a stronger leader and George W. Bush in the war on terrorism. I don’t think that could be farther from the truth. You can’t even arrive at this from the fiction that John Kerry would like you to believe is his record! Think about it?  Every time John Kerry speaks, he follows up what he said by telling you that he has been consistent.  That is just an outright lie.  And John Kerry knows it!  Now that John Kerry has been exposed as a fraud it will be just a few more days until America makes a decision as to whether or not they can tolerate someone who can’t tell the truth! Strong leaders stick to their convictions week leaders will bow to any special interest that threatens to strip them of political power. This is why John Kerry cannot be trusted to be the next president of the United States.

 

There are lots of things I don’t understand about politics. I don’t understand why John Kerry one out into the woods in Ohio with bad camouflage on and pretended to shoot a boost out of the year trying to Woo a conservative voters. It seems to me like I said before that this man has decided that his base isn’t strong enough to elect him president that what he needs to take conservative votes to win this presidency.  This alone should make everybody aware of what John Kerry really is!  He’s an opportunist!  He’s a liberal!  He is the antithesis of what he wanted as a president of the United States.

 

Tedro

 

2 Comments:

  • YOU CAN'T BE MY PRESIDENT
    You never stated what led you to believe Kerry was "posing" as a conservative, so I'm going to assume that you meant holding a gun was posing. Kerry hunts. And he isn't opposed to gun ownership, but he thinks gun control is necessary. I agree with him, especially if the government can now tap my phones and know what book I am currently reading.
    It's good to hear that you don't have a problem with Kerry's record during his Vietnam service, considering Bush doesn't have a record, unless you count his arrest records which are locked away and hidden from public viewing. I'm amazed that even though Bush didn't go to Vietnam, he criticizes Kerry for disagreeing with Vietnam even though he was there, serving his country. I'm even more amazed that you judge Kerry for disagreeing with the Vietnam war when you state in the same paragraph that "It took people like John Kerry 10 years to convince the American people that the Vietnam war was a mistake." So you agree that it was a mistake, but you hate John Kerry for saying it was a mistake? Hmm.
    And let me ask you this. Did you read "Unfit"? If not, you should know that the men who wrote it were nowhere near John Kerry at that time. It was their word...words of men who weren't there, against Kerry's and the men who were. Hmm.
    And Kerry constantly says he's consistent because Bush constantly says he isn't. Should Bush be allowed to state Kerry isn't consistent over and over, yet Kerry be limited to the number of times he can defend himself by stating he isn't? My opinion is no.
    I don't think Kerry has been "exposed as a fraud." I'm wondering what information led you to make that statement. And it can be argued that Bush is sending mixed messages as well. Last week (Friday, I think)on the same day Bush gave a speech about how Kerry is negative, pessimistic, and creating fear, and that Americans should feel safe and secure; Cheney gave a speech stating that the war on terror is far from over, America is still very much vulnerable to terrorist attacks and these attacks could happen at any time. Know what I call that? A mixed message.
    And you state something about America making a decision about whether or not they can tolerate someone who can't tell the truth. Where are the WMDs? Where is Osama bin Laden, and why wasn't he the number one priority instead of Hussein? Why did Bush try to stop investigations into the hows and whys of 9/11? Why did Bush and Cheney refuse to allow what Bush called their "visit" with the 9/11 Commission to be documented? Not to mention the 28 pages left out of the published copy of the commission report, although my personal thought on that is that it could have been for Intelligence reasons or investigative purposes. But I'm not certain of that. And why did Bush and Cheney insist on visiting with the commission as a team? Did you ever hear the story about the four boys in college who went off on a rip-roarin' vacation and didn't make it back for their last final? Well, they agreed that they would tell the professor that they had a flat tire and that's why they didn't make it back, even though it was because they were hungover. So the professor agrees to let them make up their final. He puts them in four separate rooms. The final has only two questions. One pertains to topics covered in class, and the other asks "Which tire?" I think Bush and Cheney were afraid they'd be asked "Which tire?" and had to keep their story straight. That's my own opinion.
    And of course Kerry wants conservative votes. Do you think Bush would refuse liberal votes? This is an election. That's what politicians do, that's how they get elected. "This alone should make everybody aware of what John Kerry really is! He's an opportunist! He's a liberal!" Well, aren't all politicians opportunists? And it's no secret that Kerry is a liberal(although he isn't the #1 most liberal in the senate as it has been said by some conservatives...he falls around about 11 or 12). That isn't exactly breaking news.
    THE KERRY MISTAKE
    I love how Kerry said Cheney's daughter is a (gasp) lesbian and the conservatives jump all over it, calling it an "attack" (ahem, as I believe someone in this post did as well....). I love how it was spun into an "attack." Go back and read the transcript or download the debate. Clearly there was no "attack!" It's almost as good as Theresa Heinz-Kerry apologizing for her mistatement that Laura Bush never had a job and the spin Karen Hughes put on that one. Heinz-Kerry she was wrong and that Laura Bush had most certainly had a real job and proceeded to make an apology. Know what Karen Hughes said on behalf of the Bush family? She said that Heinz-Kerry still disrespected mothers because in her apology she failed to recognize being a mother as a full-time job. Heinz-Kerry is a mother, and yet she disrespected mothers. Hmm. And what makes it more laughable is that she apologized and it still wasn't good enough. Spin it, baby, spin it.
    (Your assessment of who is "real" and who isn't is a generalization and putdown of abour 50% of the voters and completely ridiculous so I'm leaving that alone.)

    CHENEY WILL EAT EDWARD'S LUNCH (I don't even get that one...although it looks as though Cheney has eaten several people's lunches. Sorry, but if you can put Kerry's photo next to Frankenstein or Herman Munster or Lurch or whomever that was then I feel entitled to one, too.)Again, much spinning and not enough listening about the whole "global test" thing. Kerry clearly explained his meaning both at the debate and the next day on the campaign trail, yet all the Bush administration heard were those two words. That's all I heard for the next ten days...."global test" from Condi Rice and numerous others who were on the early political shows. I have to, again, refer to the transcript. If you read it within the context of Kerry's statement (or if you actually listened to it the first time he explained it) his meaning is very clear. Seriously, go back and read his exact words.
    And I agree that Cheney was very comfortable with the way the VP debate was set up, although you're a little off on how long he's been going on political shows with the same type of forum. It's much longer than four years. I now he's been on several of them many times for at least ten years (that's the amount of time I've been following politics...my parents forced me to begin paying attention to politics when I was still in high school; of course now I'm glad they did) and I'm going to make the assumption that he's probably been on much longer than that. So yes, he was comfortable--as I knew he would be. Knowing that made me even more pleased to see Edwards holding his own.

    THE FIRST DEBATE
    I agree that even though Kerry clearly won the the debates it really didn't change anything. I'm with you on that. However, both candidates stretched the truth about as far as it would go at times. Go to factcheck.org and find the truth. And factcheck.org isn't like other places you can "check the facts." It really is unbiased and non-partisan. Dick Cheney endorsed it himself during the VP debate (although he got it wrong and said factcheck.com which linked viewers to another site owned and operated by none other than George Soros--now he is one nutcase of a liberal...I mean that man is crazy) Anyway, factcheck.org --great site. And although Clinton has nothing to do with the debates, I feel I should address your bashing of his presidency. He was a great leader, and both liberals and conservatives will say so. I would bet my entire savings (which isn't much) that if Clinton were allowed to run right now, he'd get at least 70% of the vote. Great man, great president.
    Now, back to Bush/Kerry. I'll agree that Bush holds steadfast in what he believes, for the most part. However, I disagree with all his beliefs (except capitol punishment) so I still won't be voting for him.
    And you must admit that both candidates have been vague at times and specific at times. To ignore that Bush has dodged some of the issues while harping on Kerry's vagueness is basically tuning out, which is unwise.
    By the way, Kerry didn't say he would have the troops home in six months. He said he would be able to start bringing them home in six months. Now I don't know if it will be six months, but knowing that he's at least trying to start planning to send my cousin and friends back home is better than no plans to send them home. These men and women are tired--some have been called in not two but three times. Of course he can say "Bring it on!" He isn't even there. Kerry said he would raise taxes for the rich. Well, considering Bush just gave them another tax cut ever-so-quietly yesterday(you can read about it at msn.com), I'm okay with Kerry raising them a little.
    And Kerry..an admitted war criminal. Okay, well Bush is a cokehead alcoholic deserter. Potay-to, potah-to.
    I agree with you about moveon.org, but there is an equal amount of conservative diatribe to be found on the internet as well. Anyone with common sense is aware of the possible bias of the media and the internet. I don't think there are many people who believe Bush caused the hurricanes, although it is scientifically possible to change or prevent certain types of weather. Paul McCartney did it(I thought it was pretty amazing, actually). But I don't think Bush did.
    And yes, Dan Rather messed up. If Cronkite was embarassed, Ted Koppel and Tom Brokaw were understanding. Both stated that a man's entire career shouldn't be judged by one mistake. And I agree. Also, as you said, no one has really taken him seriously for a while.

    UNPATRIOTIC LIBERALS???
    Okay, this is where I got a little touchy. But I'll get to that in a minute. I must go back to my earlier point that the very fact that John Kerry set foot in Vietnam (twice) and could have been killed or hurt at any given moment, risked his life, saved a life (and I find it extremely difficult to believe that he was in Vietnam thinking "Hey maybe if I save a life I can run for president and talk about how I saved a man's life." I'm not saying it's impossible, but I feel it's highly unlikely. He was in a war zone. Come on.) and won purple hearts makes him much more patriotic than Bush, who, again, didn't even go. However, I'm not going to start the "My candidate is more patriotic than your candidate" debate, because neither of us would change opinions and it would lead to nowhere. I just feel that Bush is has said to half of the world that the U.S. doesn't need them, and the soldiers are the ones suffering for it. Go to google and find the number of soldiers from these countries in the coalition. I'm not disrespecting them, but it isn't enough. Bush himself approached the UN last week to ask for assistance in the rebuilding of Iraq. Now, I admit I didn't watch all of it because I couldn't, but I wonder what the UN's response was.
    Kerry is not going to place the safety of our nation in the hands of anyone but our nation. He has stated this over and over. It's like the draft. Kerry won't turn us over to France and Bush won't call for a draft.
    Changing the subject a little, has it ever occurred to you that it may not be as cut and dry as "Well, we've killed all the terrorists. Let's call it a day."? We aren't hated because the Iraqis are jealous of our freedom. We're hated because we invaded them. Have you ever heard any war stories? It isn't like what you see in the movies. It's like 9/11 every single day. All day. And now there "gearing up" for elections, which only a certain amount of people in certain areas will be able to participate in. And the buzz going around is they're going to elect a very religious leader. And there are parts of Iraq where women can't leave their home for days because for fear that they'll be raped and/or murdered. Some have developed an addiction to drugs like Valuum(I'm not certain on the spelling) to escape the horrifying reality of their day to day lives. And in most parts of Iraq, the electricity is turned on for two hours, then turned off for four. This is all day and night. But I've diverted from my point. Do you think the terrorists will be killed and that's that? First of all, how are we going to get to all these terrorists without enough backing from other countries? I just don't see how it's possible. And second, don't you think there are boys who have lost their fathers, brothers, cousins, etc. who are angry, and will remain angry? This perpetuation of hate and war could continue for countless years, decades. It isn't as simple as getting the terrorists and everyone is safe. That's why it's important to be both strong and smart. Arrogance, ignorance and impatience got us into this. And now, whether or not this concerns you I don't know but, the economic weight of this will fall on the shoulders of my generation. I don't look forward to that.
    Now, here's what upset me. I am personally offended by the declaration that as a liberal, I am unpatriotic. I love this country and my family is full of generations of men--brothers, uncles, cousins, grandfathers, great grandfathers who served this country and continue to serve it. I have a cousin in Iraq, as well as friends, some of whom are already there, others who are being sent there in the next three months. How dare you make a blanket statement that liberals are unpatriotic. There are liberals right now fighting your cause, and one might say it's unpatriotic of YOU to call THEM unpatriotic. You can love America while not loving George W. Bush.

    ANGER? THEY HAVEN'T SEEN ANGER YET
    I saw that you eventually stated that Cheney did, in fact, avoid Vietnam, so I'm leaving that alone. But as far as knowing "the common man" I'd say Kerry and Bush have about the same amount of knowledge: not much. Let's not forget that both were born with silver spoons (although Bush was wealthier than Kerry until Kerry married Theresa Heinz), both attended an Ivy League University (although a comparison of their endeavors and "activities" is laughable. Bush played while kerry worked...), both were members of the elite Skull and Bones. So neither can really say he is "the common man."
    And oh boy. If you're taking Zell Miller seriously, I might wonder why I've taken all this time to type this to begin with. Zell Miller? Come on. You might as well start quoting Ann Coulter and I'll throw out a little Michael Moore and Al Franken. Please. I think Zell Miller and Dan Rather should be put on the same medication.

    So there you have it. My response to what is, indeed, a number of conservative rants. Sorry, but I'm not going back to proofread. I'm just too tired. Just excuse any grammatical or punctuational errors in my writing (I ignored the ones in yours :)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:55 PM  

  • " Conservative values always trumped liberalism and always will"

    Wrong again bud : conservatism works when the ruling class (Bush etc.) controls flow of information and sticks it to people like you, me, professionals in general, and the poor and unrepresented.

    That's changing, ironically through the blogging medium which you have attempted to co-opt as a support mechanism. Boy - are you going to be surprised when GW's friends outsource YOUR job. THen again, maybe you're one of those outsourcing other people's jobs.

    Any case, conservatism won't win anymore - people all over are waking up to the fact that the majority holds the power; wait until the votes are counted - you will see that ordinary people are taking control through democracy - liberalism is the future - it's about people and living, not factories, trade-deals and rocketing healthcare costs.

    Sounds like you're doing fine - (Hemingway super-cigar or whatever). Funny - so am I, but I have empathy for people who can't feed their kids; I donate my tax refunds to shelters for abandoned children. What did you do with yours (surely you got some big chunks . . . maybe bought some more of those Hemingway Supremes . .. . )? By the way : Ernest Hemingway would have been disgusted at the blatant "I'm OK so screw the poor" attitude you have.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:04 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home