John Kerry for President 2004

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-29-2003
John Kerry for President 2004
11
Tue, 07-29-2003 - 12:22pm
I am an intern on Senator John Kerry's presidential campaign staff. Bush needs to be removed from power, he is driving the country over a cliff and there is no way we can afford another four years of the Bush regime. John Kerry IS the man to take on Bush in the 2004 election. He will keep our nation strong and safe, as a decorated veteran of the Vietnam and later an anti-Vietnam activist he knows the value of the life of a soldier and he will not keep on letting our boys die needlessly in the Middle East. He has real plans to stimulate our stangnant economy, to provide for the education and well-being of our nation's children, as well as the elderly. He got a 100% rating from the NAACP, a 91% from the children's defense fund, and very high approval ratings from other leftist groups. Kerry is a good man who will bring some sorely needed honesty and morality to the White House and who can take on our fearless leader Bush.

More info: www.johnkerry.com

http://kerry2004.meetup.com/

ANYONE WHO WANTS TO HELP THE JOHN KERRY CAMPAIGN IN ANY WAY: EMAIL ME AT CLOUDSPLITTER84@hotmail.com

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-29-2003
Tue, 07-29-2003 - 3:36pm
I agree that we have to get GW out of there, I think Howard Dean is a better choice and a plus is that Ralph Nader said he won't run if Dean gets the nomination. He is one of the reasons Bush got in there. He could have thrown his support to Gore.

Sara

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Tue, 07-29-2003 - 4:15pm
He may well be a good man, and while I'm looking at all the candidates I don't like his stand on a number of issues. His unqualified support of affirmative action, his desire to unnecessarily expand hate crime legislation, his blanket condemnation for profiling (which does have a place as a legitimate law enforcement tool in many instances and when executed properly) and some of his sentiments on firearms legislation all have me looking at candidates other than him.


~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-29-2003
Thu, 07-31-2003 - 3:44pm
You think that racial profiling has a place in law enforcement? You don't favor anti-hate crime legislation? Then I fully agree, John Kerry is not the candidate for you, and perhaps the Democratic Party is not the political party for you either.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Thu, 07-31-2003 - 4:00pm
Yes, I do believe that profiling has a legitimate place in law enforcement when done on an objective basis. And no, I'm not talking about Police Officer Bubba P. Redneck pulling over every african american he comes across.

And no, I don't favor hate crimes legislation expansion to encompass violent crimes. Violent crimes (especially murder and such) are already sufficiently covered by existing law. In my opinion, requiring juries to decide whether a crime was based on hate in addition to determining "simple" guilt or innocence is just complicating an already difficult task. For non-violent crimes, that's another story, as I do feel there can be some tweaking of the law for the better. But violent crime is already well addressed if the judicial system will get itself in gear and apply appropriate, proportional punishment for violent crimes.

I recognize that the Democratic Party in and of itself isn't for me, but I know of many moderate democrats whom I could vote for though they aren't running. In philosophical terms I'm more a libertarian than either republican or democrat, as my personal views encompass positions traditionally taken by both the republican and democrat platforms. That's why I'm willing to objectively consider all the candidates rather than simply voting one party or the other.


~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 08-01-2003 - 1:07pm
You forgot to mention that his extreme waffling on the war issue makes him look as strong on homeland security as tissue paper. He is for it....he is against it....he is for it.....he is against it.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-08-2003
Tue, 08-05-2003 - 8:51am
--

You forgot to mention that his extreme waffling on the war issue makes him look as strong on homeland security as tissue paper. He is for it....he is against it....he is for it.....he is against it.

--

Of course, look to the evidence presented by the Administration that coaxed many into voting for it, 16 words, 45 minutes etc...

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 08-11-2003 - 8:15pm
You sound like Dean, or Kerry, or Gephardt, or .......etc. etc.

Believe what you want to believe.

Your statement basically says that the Democrats cannot think for themselves......proves a point that I have been thinking for several years (just kidding, as I dont think any politician can think for themselves, without opinion polls....God forbid they make a decision because of conviction, and not because of what is going to get them re-elected)....LOL

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Tue, 09-23-2003 - 9:25pm
Waffling? What waffling?

Kerry has always said that if (IF) Iraq had WMD, then the US would be right to use military force, but that military force should only come after an exhaustion of the diplomatic process and with the support of a truly international, UN-based coalition. He was saying it back in January, before the war, at a speech he gave at Georgetown University:

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

He's still saying the same thing now -- the Iraq situation needs an internationally based solution, not unilateral US action.

Only now, it is clear that Bush had no proof that Iraq had WMD, and wasn't interested in letting the inspections continue to see if they could find it. Bush wanted to play cowboy and have his little shoot-out with Saddam, and had no time to really build an international consensus, and now that it is clear that the US can't "go it alone" in Iraq, is it any wonder that the UN and our NATO allies aren't falling all over themselves to bail us out?

You couldn't be more wrong.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 09-24-2003 - 9:56am
Actually it is you who could not be more wrong.

Kerry voted to support the use of military force in Iraq without conditions. If he felt differently, he should have voted differently in the first place, but he knew to do so would be political suicide.

When he first started speaking publicly about his support, it was again without condition.

As soon as he saw he was trailing badly in the polls to Howard Dean, he began to sing a different tune, and now cannot diferentiate between how he voted, and and how he feels now. When asked in interviews about this, he tried to use the line that he was "mislead" by the administration.... If that is the case, then he does not have a mind of his own, and should not be a Senator, as he has access to MUCH more information than any citizen.

He is trying to play both sides of the fence in the hopes of garnering more votes, which will not work as the American people are too smart for that, and he is most likely going to loose the New Hampshire primary (trailing both Dean and Clark badly in all the polls), ending whatever chance he has at the nomination.

He is a politician and is well versed in the art of double-speak which almost all of them are experts in. Clinton was (depending on the issue)....Bush is (to a degree), Gore was (to a degree), etc...etc... There are only two people that I can think of that have not changed their positions on the war since the vote to use force, and they are Howard Dean, who has always been against it, and Joe Lieberman who has always, and continues to support it.

To borrow a line from "The Matrix"....."welcome to the real world!".

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Thu, 09-25-2003 - 8:08am
Did you read the speech, which is from January 2003? (i.e. BEFORE the war, and BEFORE Howard Dean got so much media attention)

Here's an excerpt:

"In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war.

As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war."


Nice try at revisionist history, but your spin isn't fooling anyone.....perhaps you could use a little "reality"?

Pages