Why Should I Vote For Kerry? Who Should Be His Running Mate?

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
786
Tokens
I'm really undecided here. It's hard for me to figure out his message besides "I'm not as bad as Bush." He flip-flops on issues, and it's not clear to me exactly how he would do things better than Bush. I guess I'll have a better understanding after the debates.

My question is to those who have already decided to vote for Kerry is why? Are you really pro-Kerry or anti-Bush? Who do you think is the best choice for a running mate and why?


Thanks
Gary
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
8,781
Tokens
All elections with an incumbent come down to people being for or against the incumbent. I agree that Kerry hasn't done much to "steal" votes as much as he is just there to pick them up. I can't figure out what the hell he is doing with his VP competition, the only choice that really makes sense of the people mentioned is Edwards with maybe Richardson being a distant second. I think Gephardt is a fossil, he won't be of any value in the South and he isn't half the debater or campaigner that Edwards is. Vilsack doesn't add much value either to this ticket. If they can't get McCain on board then I think they have no choice but to take Edwards.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
475
Tokens
It is my opinion that if Kerry would be elected he would have a better chance of getting this country out of this mess in Iraq. I believe he would have more success with the U.N. in getting support from other countries. I am tired of seeing innocent people getting killed on both sides everyday for something that wasn't well thought out.

Nobody is going to help Bush cleanup the mess he started without the approval of the U.N. People from his own team have jumped shipped and started writing books. I wonder if they feel their careers in politics is over?

We should have taken out Saddam the first time we were over there so lil' Bush would only have to worry about which tie he is going to wear today.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
585
Tokens
Edwards at 1/1, looks tempting for vice president. Why should you vote for Kerry? If you figure it out, tell me.
toast.gif
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
The reason to vote for Kerry is the appointed President Bush lied to the American public and his lies led to hundreds (soon thousands) of my neighbors, friends and family being sent over to Iraq to murder and to be murdered.

Meanwhile, those responsible for 9/11 - The Saudis - trade financial back scratches with the Bush and Cheney families.

Kerry comes fraught with problems, like most major party candidates. But he did not issue the order of execution to thousands of American GIs.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,497
Tokens
If you are looking at betting vice presidential nominees, I wouldn't be so quick to lay money on Edwards.

Yes, he's young and chraming. But he only sort of resonates in the carolinas, and they are pretty solid Bush states. An Edwards nomination is by no means a guarentees to pick up electoral votes in either of those states.
Furthermore, hes a senator, and the last thing the Democrats need it to weaken thier position in Senate by taking a popular man out of office and making a vulnerable seat.

Bill Richardson has said on numerous occasions that he wouldn't do it if asked, even going so far as to promise the citizens of New Mexico that he wouldnt. I dont think he will be, so its a non-issue.

Vilsack...well, we saw how well Kerry did amongst Iowa democrats and he doesn't resonate much beyond there. I think if we start losing states like Iowa we're pretty ****ed anyhow.

Gephardt, while deserving of the chance, isn't even that popular in Missouri. Also Missouri is a large and complicated political state that can't be swayed with regional setiments. He's a bit past his prime.

The real silver bullet for the Democrats, and I think they will realize it, is General Wesley Clark. First off, he's from Arkansas, one of the few Southern States crackable by the Dems. Its a relatively small state who is likely to get behind a local hero. He adds War credibility, doesn't lose us any congressional spots or governorships, and is just plain a good idea.

McCain is a Republican. He has no intrest in being on the Democratic ticket, and the Democratic base doesn't want him. Look for Nader to get Perot-like numbers if he jumps on board.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
786
Tokens
I think it's still gonna boil down to a small number of battleground states like Ohio, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Arkansas. The situation in Iraq is totally out of control and Bush will pay a price. But I'd rather be voting for someone not against another.

The running mate question is very interesting. I think Edwards would fire up the Democratic base, and connect with the under 40 crowd. But I'm not sure what states he could guarantee, if any. I think Gen. Clark is a longshot, but I think it has to be a prominent figure from the swing states.

I think Kerry is just not bringing enough to the table right now. We all know Bush screwed up in Iraq, that's obvious. I know it's early, but right now I would not know John Kerry from Ted Kennedy. But it's still early, right?


GP
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
14,280
Tokens
FSB, Clark also wasn't pictured with Jane Fonda and didn't throw away his ribbons or medals or whatever. It does simply provide further contrast between a pair of war heroes (who then went down different paths) and a collection of chickenhwaks. I think it's pretty clear now that Dems would have been better served with Clark on the top of the ticket. But alas, sadly the time has passed to make that argument. Lord knows I tried. Clark would better be able to articulate than Kerry what needs to be done to extricate ourselves from the Iraq mess and would have oodles of credibility in so doing.

I still wish Richardson would reconsider s I think tactically he's the best choice, but if he doesn't I think Clark would make a fine choice, though he'd also be a good choice for Sec of State under Kerry.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
FUNKSOULBRO, did you seriously mean to suggest that Nader could pull up to 19% of the popular vote if he actively ran?


As to the Topic question, don't count out Florida's retiring U.S. Senator Bob Graham.

Graham originally toyed with running for President, but early polling persuaded him otherwise.

But he's a former 2term governor of Florida, a 12 year member of the Senate. He's a Dem who actually favors the death penalty. He also has a lot of inside knowledge on foreign policy.

Plus he's just viewed by most as a pretty regular Joe that seems quite unlikely to have any bull$hit dragged out about him.

Finally, of course, his role as VP candidate helps bring even more scrutiny to Florida, where you gotta imagine that the Democratic party is already in high gear to make sure we don't see a repeat of the 2000 scam.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
8,781
Tokens
I like Graham and he would have been a good match for Clark. Problem is the staid perception of Kerry. He needs Edwards or someone dynamic who is a great campaigner to fire up the troops. Edwards had no business going as far as he didn, but he did it because of his personal touch and campaign skills. If he just moderates his views somewhat I think he is a dynamite candidate for the Presidency within the next 12 years and being the VP couldn't be a better spot for him. But agreed Graham has some very good touches on his resume that could help out and would be a far better choice than Vilsack or Gephardt.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,530
Tokens
Same ole sh!t 6 months later......Why vote for Kerry? Liberal answer: He's not as bad as Bush.
icon_rolleyes.gif
Nobody can tell you why you should vote for Kerry, but they sure can tell you why you shouldn't vote for Bush.

It's funny hows Libs are so concerned about innocent people dying now, yet they couldn't care less if a mother kills her unborn child, and they couldn't care less about Saddam murdering and torturing thousands of people.

Typical hypocrits......I think that's why conservatives dislike the left so much.... Liberals would like for the US to be a third world country, where conservatives want the US to grow stronger and stronger. LIbs want to let the UN run things like they did so well with Saddam for 12 years!
icon_rolleyes.gif
I swear that you could kill some of the Libs family members and they would not care....Instead of doing something about it, they would just sit on there ass and blame it on the Republican party.

Isn't it also funny how the economy issue that the left was criticizing Bush for has mysteriously disappeared......especially after the fastest growing quarter in 20 years.

The liberal arguments are failing miserably.......All they have left to stand on is the war in Iraq.....and unfortunately for us conservatives the liberal media doesn't want you to see the real story. My Dad is in Iraq right now and he says that the majority of people are very thankful that we are there and thankful that we got Saddam out of power, yet you will never see those people on the news.
icon_mad.gif


Once Iraq stabilizes the Liberals are going to be in real trouble and they know it. All of their complaints are dissolving before their eyes.


Now they want Rumsfeld to be fired for something he had no control over. That's like asking the president of Wal-Mart to re-sign because he had a couple of dumbass employees steal from the store. Or asking Fred Smith to resign because there was a FedEx pilot flying while high.

Do you undecided voters out there see how ridiculous this is? All I ask it that you undecided people out there, think about the future, and think about who is going to protect you and your family, and who is going to try and give you money back, instead of raising taxes and taking your hard earned money away.

The reason your salary increases every year is because the Republican party believes in people striving to be successful and make a good living.....The Democratic party wants everyone to make the same amount money. They want every American to be in the same class....They hate the rich, successful people. They don't want you to get a 10% raise this year unless the unemployed, lazy, non-taxed, welfare people get a cut also. They want to take your money away and give it to the poor....Personally I'm sick of giving my money to lazy, welfare people. The economy is growing!!!! Get a job and take care of yourself instead of relying on handouts from the government!!!!!!!

Just think about it.......Please. our country depends on it......

Are you going to vote for a guy who stands up for what he believes in, a guy that believes in America getting stronger and stronger....or a guy who wants to tax you more, pull the troops out of Iraq and leave all of the Iraqi people to fend for themselves......but then again, we are talking about John Kerry.....He may change his mind between November and January.
icon_eek.gif
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
818
Tokens
D2,

In retrospect, I wish Clark could have captivated Democratic Party because it would've been damn difficult to run against him as far as the so-called War on Terror.

Right now, they're hammering Kerry's anti-war activism from 1971 when their own leader, the self-proclaimed "War President" dodged the draft and skipped Guard duty. Clarke could not be criticized for this.

Oh well, let's see what happens.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
8,781
Tokens
Kman, sorry to tell you this but if a voter is undecided now he is likely to vote for Kerry. That is just how it is and always will be, if in 3.5 years the President hasn't given you reason enough to get excited about him it is unlikely the last few months are going to do the trick. People don't vote for a challenger, they vote for or against an incumbent. People don't vote because of policies or decisions, they vote based on how they feel about the direction the day they cast their ballot. Yeah it may not be fair sometimes, but that is how it is. And to keep saying this is liberals only against Bush isn't going to cut it either. I certainly don't fit into a liberal perspective, but like millions of other disaffected people we don't like what Bush stands for either.

And the same with Rummy. No I don't think he encouraged that, but that is what leadership is. Any CEO will tell you that, if their company gets seriously embarassed like that the grim reaper will probably come calling if they don't leave on their own. And don't even think you can equate this to just some run of the mill employee stealing, that is nonsense. This is a matter of a policy that is deeply disturbing to the whole world, including Bush. No matter who set that policy you have to take responsibility for everything done under you. Otherwise you aren't fit for the role of being a leader.

As for your comments about Democrats, I think you are kidding yourself. Democrats and Republicans have proven over the last 20 years that their only difference is in where their spending priorities are. Republicans had their chance to prove their are the fiscally responsible small government people they always pride themselves on and they have flat out blown it. There is no other way to put it, they control the purse strings right now and they can't control themselves. They are so far from walking their talk right now it is laughable. Why should I trust them if they tell me they want me to keep more of my money? If I save a dollar now but owe two dollars later because of the deficits they are running, am I really better off. And who are they protecting me from? I am sorry but I don't get the warm fuzzy feeling of protection because of what happens on the other side of the world. I don't get good feelings seeing people killed and getting into uprisings where there previously weren't any. I don't like people confusing good deeds for a foreign land with overstretched claims of protection when there really isn't anything there. And by the way, I am sure if we spent $100 billion dollars in aid to the Middle East and just scrapped the whole war we would be far more protected and liked now than we ever stand a chance to be. Not saying taking out Saddam was a terrible decision, but just don't think one should lie and claim the world is safer now because of it.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
KMAN, thanks for ably citing some of our differences.

Unlike you, I am not looking to the President to 'protect me'.

Unlike you, I don't view my share of federal taxes to be money that is 'taken from me'. In fact, it is given voluntarily by virtue of my participating in the American economic system.

It's true that it could be taken in different percentages if the Republicans and yeah, many Democrats, were to quit giving mega tax breaks to people who make 10-100 times more money than I do. But until that happens, I have no complaint.

I don't want everyone to make 'the same amount of money'. Actually, I'd like to see you make lots and lots of money and for the tax burden to be spread more proportionately. Then as you made more money, you would be giving a bigger share to the collective pool.

And of course, the largest percentage of 'welfare money' is not that given to 'lazy' (read - people without work right now) people, but rather to huge corporate entities.

For some reason, the Republican sees a corporation with millions in profits and then they see your average Joe with $50,000 take home pay and they sock Joe with the larger percentage of taxes.

What I've consistently noticed in my 28 years of voting is that both Republicans and Democrats work to use parts of my hard earned money. But in most cases, the Dems tell me in advance what they're doing with it. The Repubs on the other hand, lie and act like they're going to reduce government and then they take a federal surplus and turn it into the biggest federal deficit in the history of the planet.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,530
Tokens
You guys are brainwashed....Stops dealing in a fairyland world and deal with the facts.

Could you imagine what the US would be like had Gore been in office.....We'll I'll tell you.....Bin Laden would still be flying planes into our buildings because Gore would be waiting for 12 years to get approval from the UN just like Saddam pissed on the UN for 12 years. 50% of everyone's income would be going to fix the recession, instead of people getting money back.

Deal with this fact!!!!!!! That's right I said fact!!!!! Start dealing in reality people....COME ON!

Payrolls Surge, Unemployment Dips to 5.6 Percent

Friday, May 07, 2004

WASHINGTON — Employers added 288,000 jobs to their payrolls in April as the nation's unemployment rate slipped to 5.6 percent, reinforcing hopes for a sustained turnaround in the jobs market that had lagged for so long.



Payrolls have risen now for eight straight months, with 867,000 new jobs created so far this year, the Labor Department (search) reported Friday. The strengthening jobs market comes just in time to aid President Bush's re-election efforts, which were in question a few months ago based on his economic record.

"I'm officially declaring the jobless recovery dead," said Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics. "I think we are now on a path of what will be substantial job gains."

The Bush administration was widely criticized for an overly optimistic forecast that 2.6 million new jobs would be created this year. Economists now say the chugging economy could get close to that mark.

"I don't think these two months of big increases are a flash in pan," Mayland said of April's job growth and the revised 337,000 new jobs in March.

In the report, hiring was widespread last month, with the service sector leading the way. Professional and business services employment rose substantially, by 123,000. In that category, gains were in employment services, including temporary help firms, services to buildings and dwellings, management and technical consulting services and architectural and engineering services.

The nation's struggling factories also appear to be turning around. Based on Labor Department revisions, the manufacturing sector added jobs for three straight months, including 21,000 in April. For the year, manufacturing payrolls are up by 27,000 overall.

The U.S. unemployment rate (search) fell 0.1 percentage point to 5.6 percent last month, after reaching a high of 6.3 percent in June 2003 during the economic slowdown.

Revisions to payrolls also showed a stronger jobs market than previously reported. Last month's 308,000 payroll gains were revised up to 337,000. April's showing surprised analysts, who had expected payrolls of about 180,000 to 200,000.

The economy has rebounded strongly, but companies, under intense pressure to compete globally, have been holding down their costs by working employees harder instead of hiring new ones. That appears to be changing, though critics note that job gains are occurring in the lower-paying service sector at retailers and restaurants, and in temporary employment firms.

The Federal Reserve (search) decided Tuesday to hold a key interest rate at a 46-year low of 1 percent, saying said such low rates along with productivity gains are helping to support economic activity.

But the strengthening jobs market leads economists to anticipate the first rate increases in more than four years will start this summer, probably in August, and will come in the form of one-quarter of a percentage point rises in the federal funds rate.

Other gains in April occurred in retail at building and garden supply stores, general merchandise stores and motor vehicle and parts dealers. The leisure and hospitality sector also added jobs, especially in the category of food services. Hiring also continued to be strong in health care and social assistance for the month.




Here's another FACT!!!!

Jobless Claims Fall Sharply

Thursday, May 06, 2004

WASHINGTON — The number of Americans filing initial claims for jobless pay dropped last week to the lowest level since October 2000, the government said on Thursday, in a better-than-expected report offering more good jobs news on the eve of the April employment report.



First-time claims for state unemployment benefits shrank 25,000 to 315,000 in the week ended May 1, the Labor Department (search) said. It was the third straight week of declines and highlights the picture of an improving labor market.

Wall Street analysts had forecast a slight fall in claims to 335,000 from a revised 340,000 the previous week. This had been initially reported at 338,000.

April non-farm payrolls (search) are set for release at 8:30 a.m. EDT and are forecast to show 173,000 new jobs created. That would be a marked moderation from March, when 308,000 were added, but still evidence that labor conditions are tightening.

Last week's jobless claims data will make no difference to the April report, which was drawn from a survey in the middle of last month.

In addition to lower initial claims, the four-week moving average of filings, which smooths weekly fluctuations to provide a better picture of underlying trends, retreated by 3,750 to 343,250.

Also, the number of unemployed on the benefit rolls after claiming an initial week of aid dropped 69,000 to 2.935 million in the week ended April 24, the latest for which figures are available. This was the lowest since June 2001, in the middle of the recession, when 2.933 million people were drawing unemployment insurance.

The drop was a potentially positive development since the number had been indicating that while the pace of layoffs had slowed, firms were still not rushing to hire new workers and instead had been utilizing greater productivity to meet higher demand.

I'm sure you will come back with "facts" from some other web sites nobody has ever heard of.

It's sad that you guys forget what happened to our country on September 11th, 2001.
icon_frown.gif
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
It's all good. Your reply just reiterates what my last post said.

That is you look to the President to be your protector and I do not. It doesn't matter whether it is Bush, or if it was Gore. I don't look to them for protection.

And you seem to feel that your taxes are being used in a wasteful fashion on 'lazy people'. While I don't see it that way, it's called feeding and housing others....something that Christ taught me was a good thing to do.

So it's understandable if Bush tells you that he has helped protect you and that he will do more to lower your tax share that you will be drawn to his message.

But understand for those of us who don't look to the President as protector, that message doesn't mean squat.

And as far as taxes go, I'm not mad at the guy who tells me he will raise them. I don't have a problem sharing of my wealth with others. I can't take it with me when I die.

My reasons for voting Democrat in this election have very little to do with economics, since my business has shown a solid profit for the past 22 years under 4 different Presidents.

My reasons for voting Democrat in this election have very little to do with 9/11/01, since I don't believe Bush could have stopped it, even if he was at work instead of on vacation for 40% of the days prior to 9/11. I don't believe Gore could have stopped it either. And I don't believe either one of them could protect me against another such attack if someone had the resources and wanted to do it badly enough.

My reason FOR voting Democrat have to do with fundamental disrespect of the current President.
What he can do, he doesn't do well. And he and his administration have sent close to 1000 of my friends, neighbors and family to an unneeded death thanks to their mishandling of foreign policy over the past 18 months.

Call it a 'revenge' vote, if you prefer. I'm pissed about the current President sending my family, friends and fellow Americans to their death.

And I don't mind jumping ship again in four years if I need to. The hell with blind partisanship. If President Kerry lies to the American people in a way that causes Americans to die, I'll vote to boot his ass out of office too.

I got a lot of years left. Plenty of time to get this shit right.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
8,781
Tokens
Kman,

If you really want to see fantastic employment numbers, why don't you convince the population to think like you do. When they lose their job, don't ask for shit. That would really make Bush look good if people took your theory seriously. I mean new claims of unemployment at over 300,000 in recent months are an improvement, but what if they were just 50,000? Your man would be a lock to win this. Alas, obviously a pretty steady stream of Americans don't buy into it. Their reality must be a little different than yours I guess.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
786
Tokens
Interesting points on both sides. It's like either take the Devil you kinda know or the Satan you haven't met. What a choice?

Thanks
GP
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
341
Tokens
As a new member of the rx I felt that I would like to add my two cents if I may. Certainly my leanings are more to the right than the left. Therefore I had to interject when I saw barmans feelings on the taxing of corporations verses regular joe. That is the one single argument that dems. have been making for many years and I can't understand how many educated and well meaning Americans fall for the total misrepentation of taxes. Corporations DON'T, I repeat DON"T pay taxes. What do you think a corporation is? It's fellow Americans that are united in running a buisness that sells or manufactures a product to be sold on the open market. Any corporation that wishes to remain in buisness factors in expenses, And one of those expenses happens to be Taxes. So who do you think truely pays corporate taxes? You are correct, is the same joe that is making 50k a year for whatever purchases he makes. Therefore raise your corpoation taxes and then your consumer goods will be higher or worse yet, instead of 50k a year he is sitting home not having to pay taxes at all.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,946
Messages
13,575,480
Members
100,886
Latest member
ranajeet
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