Former Republican Governor of Minn. and longtime Conservative sums it up

Search

I'm still here Mo-fo's
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
8,359
Tokens
Elmer L. Andersen: Why this Republican ex-governor will be voting for Kerry

Elmer L. Andersen October 13, 2004 <SMALL>ANDERSEN1013 </SMALL>

Throughout my tenure and beyond as the 30th governor of this state, I have been steadfastly aligned -- and until recently, proudly so -- with the Minnesota Republican Party.

It dismays me, therefore, to have to publicly disagree with the national Republican agenda and the national Republican candidate but, this year, I must.

The two "Say No to Bush" signs in my yard say it all.

The present Republican president has led us into an unjustified war -- based on misguided and blatantly false misrepresentations of the threat of weapons of mass destruction. The terror seat was Afghanistan. Iraq had no connection to these acts of terror and was not a serious threat to the United States, as this president claimed, and there was no relation, it's now obvious, to any serious weaponry. Although Saddam Hussein is a frightful tyrant, he posed no threat to the United States when we entered the war. George W. Bush's arrogant actions to jump into Iraq when he had no plan how to get out have alienated the United States from our most trusted allies and weakened us immeasurably around the world.

Also, if there as well had been proper and careful coordination of services and intelligence on Sept. 11, 2001, that horrific disaster might also have been averted. But it was a separate event from this brutal mess of a war, and the disingenuous linking of the wholly unrelated situation in Iraq to 9/11 by this administration is not supported by the facts.

Sen. John Kerry was correct when he said that seemingly it is only Bush and Dick Cheney who still believe their own spin. Both men spew outright untruths with evangelistic fervor. For Bush -- a man who chose to have his father help him duck service in the military during the Vietnam War -- to disparage and cast doubt on the medals Kerry won bravely and legitimately in the conflict of battle is a travesty.

For Cheney to tell the hand-picked, like-minded Republican crowds in Des Moines last month that to vote for John Kerry could mean another attack like that of 9/11 is reprehensible. Moreover, such false statements encourage more terrorist attacks rather than prevent them.

A far smaller transgression, but one typical of his stop-at-nothing tactics, was Cheney's assertion in last Wednesday's vice-presidential debate that he'd never met Sen. John Edwards until that night. The next day -- and the media must stay ever-vigilant at fact-checking the lies of this ticket -- news reports, to the contrary, showed four video clips of Edwards and Cheney sitting next to each other during the past five years.

In both presidential debates, Kerry has shown himself to be of far superior intellect and character than Bush. He speaks honestly to the American people, his ethics are unimpeachable and, clearly, with 20 respected years in the Senate, he has far better credentials to lead the country than did Bush when he was elected four years ago. And a far greater depth of understanding of domestic and foreign affairs to do it now.

Not that the sitting president has ever really been at the helm.

I am more fearful for the state of this nation than I have ever been -- because this country is in the hands of an evil man: Dick Cheney. It is eminently clear that it is he who is running the country, not George W. Bush.

Bush's phony posturing as cocksure leader of the free world -- symbolized by his victory symbol on the aircraft carrier and "mission accomplished" statement -- leave me speechless. The mission had barely been started, let alone finished, and 18 months later it still rages on. His ongoing "no-regrets," no-mistakes stance and untruths on the war -- as well as on the floundering economy and Bush administration joblessness -- also disappoint and worry me.

Liberal Republicans of my era and mind-set used to have a humane and reasonable platform. We advocated the importance of higher education, health care for all, programs for children at risk, energy conservation and environmental protection. Today, Bush and Cheney give us clever public relations names for programs -- need I say "No Child Left Behind? -- but a lack of funding to support them. Early childhood education programs and overall health care are woefully underfunded. We have not only the largest number ever of medically uninsured in this nation, our infant mortality rates, once among the lowest in the world, have worsened to 27th.

As taxes for the wealthy are being cut, jobs are being outsourced if not lost and children are homeless and uninsured, this administration is running up the biggest deficit in U.S. history -- bound to be a terrible burden for future generations.

This imperialistic, stubborn adherence to wrongful policies and known untruths by the Cheney-Bush administration -- and that's the accurate order -- has simply become more than I can stand.

Although I am a longtime Republican, it is time to make a statement, and it is this: Vote for Kerry-Edwards, I implore you, on Nov. 2.

Elmer L. Andersen was Minnesota's governor from 1961 to 1963.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
699
Tokens
How about this speech for required reading.

Transcript of Zell Miller's speech
Text of speech by Democratic Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia as prepared for delivery Wednesday at the Republican National Convention:
By Associated Press
Published September 2, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren.

Along with all the other members of our close-knit family, they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions.

And I know that's how you feel about your family also. Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face.

Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in.

And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?

The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party.

There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush.

In the summer of 1940, I was an 8-year-old boy living in a remote little Appalachian valley. Our country was not yet at war, but even we children knew that there were some crazy men across the ocean who would kill us if they could.

President Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America "all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger."

In 1940, Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.

And there is no better example of someone repealing their "private plans" than this good man. He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time.

And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

Shortly before Wilkie died, he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom," he would prefer the latter.

Where are such statesmen today?

Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most?

Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief.

What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in?

I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny.

It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.

Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter. But not today.

Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.

And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.

But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.

They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

It is not their patriotism - it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace.

They were wrong.

They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war.

They were wrong.

And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?

U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric.

Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.

Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations.

Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending.

I want Bush to decide.

John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security.

That's the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This politician wants to be leader of the free world.

Free for how long?

For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure.

As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military.

As a Senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harms way, far away.

George Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.

John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war. George Bush believes we have to fight today's war and be ready for tomorrow's challenges. George Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists.

No matter what spider hole they may hide in or what rock they crawl under.

George Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip.

From John Kerry, they get a "yes-no-maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.

I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together. I admire this man. I am moved by the respect he shows the first lady, his unabashed love for his parents and his daughters, and the fact that he is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America.

I can identify with someone who has lived that line in "Amazing Grace," "Was blind, but now I see," and I like the fact that he's the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning.

He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.

I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel.

The man I trust to protect my most precious possession: my family.

This election will change forever the course of history, and that's not any history. It's our family's history.

The only question is how. The answer lies with each of us. And, like many generations before us, we've got some hard choosing to do.

Right now the world just cannot afford an indecisive America. Fainthearted self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.

In this hour of danger our President has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.

Thank you.

God Bless this great country and God Bless George W. Bush.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
3,742
Tokens
Zell Miller is a great American. Millers speech is 100% correct, all facts. What has happened to his party? I have the answer, they've become socialist.
 
Last edited:

I'm still here Mo-fo's
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
8,359
Tokens
VOLTITAN said:
How about this speech for required reading.
Zell Miller Keynote address:

Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against.
Get the facts straight and pay attention to the bold print especially:<!--StartFragment -->


In the case of Sen. Zell Miller's keynote address, "lies" might be too strong a word. Clearly not a bright man, Miller dutifully recited the talking points that his Republican National Committee handlers had typed up for him, though perhaps in a more hysterical tone than anyone might have anticipated. (His stumbled rantings in the interviews afterward, on CNN and MSNBC, brought to mind the flat-Earthers who used to be guests on The Joe Pyne Show.) Can a puppet tell lies? Perhaps not.

Still, it is worth setting the record straight. The main falsehood, we have gone over before (click here for the details), but it keeps getting repeated, so here we go again: It is the claim that John Kerry, during his 20 years in the Senate, voted to kill the M-1 tank, the Apache helicopter; the F-14, F-16, and F-18 jet fighters; and just about every other weapon system that has kept our nation free and strong.


Here, one more time, is the truth of the matter: Kerry did not vote to kill these weapons, in part because none of these weapons ever came up for a vote, either on the Senate floor or in any of Kerry's committees.

<!--StartFragment -->This myth took hold last February in a press release put out by the RNC. Those who bothered to look up the fine-print footnotes discovered that they referred to votes on two defense appropriations bills, one in 1990, the other in 1995. Kerry voted against both bills, as did 15 other senators, including five Republicans. The RNC took those bills, cherry-picked some of the weapons systems contained therein, and implied that Kerry voted against those weapons. By the same logic, they could have claimed that Kerry voted to disband the entire U.S. armed forces; but that would have raised suspicions and thus compelled more reporters to read the document more closely.

What makes this dishonesty not merely a lie, but a damned lie, is that back when Kerry cast these votes, Dick Cheney—who was the secretary of defense for George W. Bush's father—was truly slashing the military budget. Here was Secretary Cheney, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Jan. 31, 1992:


<B>
Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. … And now we're adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend.</B>



Cheney then lit into the Democratic-controlled Congress for not cutting weapons systems enough:



<B>
Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You've directed me to buy more M1s, F14s, and F16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them.</B>







Gonna still hang on to your piss poor deceit?
These guys are hypocrites and selling out the American people. You goddam right I hate em.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

I'm still here Mo-fo's
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
8,359
Tokens
John Kerry's Defense Defense
Setting his voting record straight.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2004, at 3:41 PM PT




<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=1 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>http://<img src=/</TD></TR><TR><TD>[font=arial, helvetica]http://against defense/? Not Kerry</p><p style= [/font]
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Before George W. Bush's political operatives started pounding on John Kerry for voting against certain weapons systems during his years in the Senate, they should have taken a look at this quotation:


After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. … The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office.



The speaker was President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 1992.
 

I'm still here Mo-fo's
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
8,359
Tokens
For the Record

<!--plsfield:headline-->GOP Prism Distorts Some Kerry Positions<!--plsfield:stop-->



<!--plsfield:byline-->By Glenn Kessler and Dan Morgan
<!--plsfield:credit-->Washington Post Staff Writers
<!--plsfield:disp_date-->Friday, September 3, 2004; Page A01






<!--plsfield:description--><NITF>Speakers at this week's Republican convention have relentlessly attacked John F. Kerry for statements he has made and votes he has taken in his long political career, but a number of their specific claims -- such as his votes on military programs -- are at best selective and in many cases stripped of their context, according to a review of the documentation provided by the Bush campaign.</NITF>

<NITF>As a senator, Kerry has long been skeptical of big-ticket weapons systems, especially when measured against rising budget deficits, and to some extent he opened himself to this line of attack when he chose to largely skip over his Senate career during his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention last month. But the barrage by Republicans at their own convention has often misportrayed statements or votes that are years, if not decades, old.</NITF>
<!--StartFragment -->
<NITF>For instance:</NITF>

<NITF>• Kerry did not cast a series of votes against individual weapons systems, as Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) suggested in a slashing convention speech in New York late Wednesday, but instead Kerry voted against a Pentagon spending package in 1990 as part of deliberations over restructuring and downsizing the military in the post-Cold War era. </NITF>
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
1,730
Tokens
Are you guys trying to say Kerry is a hawk?



Kerry's Defense Vision Laid Out In 1984 Campaign Memo: Cut, Cut, Cut, Cancel, Cancel, Cancel

JOHN KERRY'S "OVERALL DEFENSE STRATEGY"

Kerry Proposed Cutting $54 Billion From FY 1985 Defense Budget As Part Of "Long-Range Proposal To Cut $200 Billion From The Defense Budget Over Four Years," And Called For Cancellation Of At Least 27 Weapons Systems And Reductions In 18 Other Systems. "[Kerry] recommended cancellation of 27 weapons systems including the B1 bomber, the cruise missile, MX missile, Trident submarine, Patriot air defense missile, F15 fighter plane, Sparrow missile, stealth bomber and Pershing II missile. He recommended reductions in 18 other systems including the joint tactical air system, the Bradley fighting vehicle, the M1 Abrams tank and the F16 fighter plane." (Chris Black, "Kerry Asks Cuts In Defense Outlay," The Boston Globe, 5/30/84)

But Kerry Was Open To Even More Cuts Than He Had Already Listed. "There is nothing cast in stone about this list … It is an effort to create a dialogue in this campaign. It may be that there could be additional cuts." ("Kerry Asks $54 Billion Cut In Reagan Defense Budget," Berkshire Eagle, 5/30/84)

In Fact, Kerry Expanded List To "Specific Cuts In Some 60 Categories" In Discussion With The Cape Codder Newspaper, Including: SSN-688 Los Angeles Class Nuclear Attack Submarine, Trident I Submarine, Trident I Missile, Trident II Submarine-Based Missile, Midgetman Missile, Pershing II Missile, DDG-51 Aegis air defense destroyer, and CG-47 Aegis air defense cruiser. ("John F. Kerry," 1984 State Primary Newspaper Supplement, The Cape Codder, 9/11/84)

According To His Foreign Policy Advisor, Kerry's Proposed Cuts Formed "Overall Defense Strategy." "Joining Kerry was Michael Nacht, chairman of Kerry's foreign policy task force and an instructor at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, who said Kerry's proposal was 'unique' because it was an overall defense strategy, not just a pro or con statement about certain Reagan administration programs." ("Kerry Asks $54 Billion Cut In Reagan Defense Budget," Berkshire Eagle, 5/30/84)
 

I'm still here Mo-fo's
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
8,359
Tokens
So I guess proposing a cut is exactly the same as voting on one to you?

They were pretty specific in their attacks..."his voting record"
So by your own logic then Cheney was soft on defense in the early 90's and is equally guilty of the same thing voting on defense cuts including the same weapons systems that you and your kind declare Kerry to have voted against.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
1,730
Tokens
cussin'it said:
So I guess proposing a cut is exactly the same as voting on one to you?

They were pretty specific in their attacks..."his voting record"
So by your own logic then Cheney was soft on defense in the early 90's and is equally guilty of the same thing voting on defense cuts including the same weapons systems that you and your kind declare Kerry to have voted against.

Cussing, I don't understand the point you are making. Are you just trying to say Bush is lying or are you saying Kerry is really a conservative when it comes to defense matters?
 

I'm still here Mo-fo's
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
8,359
Tokens
I think the reason you don't understand is because you don't want to.

Bush and Cheney and their handlers are downright misrepresenting, and lying about Kerry's defense voting record. It is a purposeful attempt to paint him soft on defending this nation. And it's disgusting, inaccurate, and deceptive.

I just gave you 3 different sources stating the same facts.....Cheney was cutting back on these weapons systems and cutting the defense budget at the same time they accuse Kerry of voting against specific systems, which you can see he never did because individual votes for or against these systems never happened. The votes were for overall defense appropriations in the early 90's, and your boys (Cheney and Shrub, Sr.) supported cutting them too.

He's a hypocrite and a liar, but by spewing it out on national tv, it serves their purpose, which is to deceive....something they are professionals at.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
1,730
Tokens
cussin'it said:
I think the reason you don't understand is because you don't want to.

Bush and Cheney and their handlers are downright misrepresenting, and lying about Kerry's defense voting record. It is a purposeful attempt to paint him soft on defending this nation. And it's disgusting, inaccurate, and deceptive.

I just gave you 3 different sources stating the same facts.....Cheney was cutting back on these weapons systems and cutting the defense budget at the same time they accuse Kerry of voting against specific systems, which you can see he never did because individual votes for or against these systems never happened. The votes were for overall defense appropriations in the early 90's, and your boys (Cheney and Shrub, Sr.) supported cutting them too.

You are acting like this was the only time he voted against defense cuts...he consistently opposed defense spending on new weapons system. As well as voting against Gulf War 1, he strongly supported the nuclear freeze movement, opposed SDI, opposed the Greneda invasion, and now wants to stop development of bunker-busting nukes.

Bush/Cheney are painting him to be soft on defense because that is what he is.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,938
Messages
13,575,422
Members
100,883
Latest member
iniesta2025
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com