explain this to me

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Democrats are against the war in Iraq , they are against the Patriot Act , and against the Bush tax cuts, they are against jobs going overseas and Free Trade.

Why then would the Democrat party nominate a man, John Kerry, who voted:

FOR the Iraq War Resolution
FOR the Patriot Act
FOR the Bush Tax Cuts
FOR NAFTA
FOR GATT


?????????????????????????????????????????????

http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/looney.sml.gif

[Ed]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
Democrats are against the war in Iraq , they are against the Patriot Act , and against the Bush tax cuts, they are against jobs going overseas and Free Trade.

Why then would the Democrat party nominate a man, John Kerry, who voted:

FOR the Iraq War Resolution
FOR the Patriot Act
FOR the Bush Tax Cuts
FOR NAFTA
FOR GATT


?????????????????????????????????????????????

http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/looney.sml.gif

Because he is a lieing, thieving, sheep abusing bastard that will do anything to get and hold onto power like every other thieving politition the world over.

There. That was easy wasn't it?:D

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
Democrats are against the war in Iraq , they are against the Patriot Act , and against the Bush tax cuts, they are against jobs going overseas and Free Trade.

Why then would the Democrat party nominate a man, John Kerry, who voted:

FOR the Iraq War Resolution
FOR the Patriot Act
FOR the Bush Tax Cuts
FOR NAFTA
FOR GATT


?????????????????????????????????????????????

http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/looney.sml.gif
Because he got the most votes. Next...

edite to add: He also got the most money, which is even more important than getting the most votes.

[Evolver]

Be carefyul, you may be misunderestimating him.
:)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
Democrats are against the war in Iraq , they are against the Patriot Act , and against the Bush tax cuts, they are against jobs going overseas and Free Trade.

Why then would the Democrat party nominate a man, John Kerry, who voted:

FOR the Iraq War Resolution
FOR the Patriot Act
FOR the Bush Tax Cuts
FOR NAFTA
FOR GATT


?????????????????????????????????????????????

http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/looney.sml.gif

Because you're stupid???

[Kopji]

Maybe the answer lies in choosing between "if you liked what happened the last four years vote for me again", and "it is time for a regime change".

A 'self criticism' of American political decisions is that our attention span seems much too short. We quickly forget the lies and deceptions.

This has worked well for the Republicans with this particular president, they can hardly complain when the 'short attention span problem' now works in favor of their opponents.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
Democrats are against the war in Iraq , they are against the Patriot Act , and against the Bush tax cuts, they are against jobs going overseas and Free Trade.

Why then would the Democrat party nominate a man, John Kerry, who voted:

FOR the Iraq War Resolution
FOR the Patriot Act
FOR the Bush Tax Cuts
FOR NAFTA
FOR GATT


?????????????????????????????????????????????

http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/looney.sml.gif

Kerry was not my first choice: however he has gotten more votes and delegates than any of the other Democrats running, so I guess he will get the nomination assuming that something extraordinary does not happen until the convention.

Behold democracy!

[Blue Monk]

Because a wise man changes his mind. A fool never does.

There are lots of people who have changed their minds about the issues raised here since the individual votes.

however....

You raise a valid point that has not gone unoticed by others. His voting record is something the Kerry campaign is going to have to explain considering his current stance.

Those that agree with Kerry's stance now will not have much trouble with it but the Bush campaign will probably be able make an impact with swing voters by labeling Kerry a waffler, a strategy they have already begun to employ which has proven effective in the past.

I have a feeling that the people are already quite divided and that larger numbers than normal have already decided, not by party line, or even between candidates but rather pro-Bush and anti-Bush camps.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
Democrats are against the war in Iraq , they are against the Patriot Act , and against the Bush tax cuts, they are against jobs going overseas and Free Trade.

Why then would the Democrat party nominate a man, John Kerry, who voted:

FOR the Iraq War Resolution
FOR the Patriot Act
FOR the Bush Tax Cuts
FOR NAFTA
FOR GATT


Some possibilities:
(1) Maybe they don't really care about policy. Maybe they just don't want the President to be a Republican. Thus, any Republican policy could be seen as an opportunity to complain, even if a Democratic President would have the same policy.

(2) Maybe they think that Kerry is a bit of a "yes" man, but that he would behave differently if he were President.

(3) Maybe they figure that, because Kerry supported Republican policies, the Republicans owe Kerry a favor, so Republicans will feel obligated to support Kerry's policies if and when Kerry becomes President.

(4) Maybe they were concerned that Howard Dean's voice might damage the White House windows.

[Dancing David]

Perhaps because democrats are not a bunch of monoliths, I sure wasn't going to vote him in the primaary.

[TillEulenspiegel]

"Democrats are against the war in Iraq , they are against the Patriot Act , and against the Bush tax cuts, they are against jobs going overseas and Free Trade. "

%51 of registered Democrats now oppose the war. Less then when the war started

An actual majority of both party's have problems with the patriot act as an intrusive instrument of government. The measure was passed with a majority of both party's but thinking men and women in both party's now see how serious this erosion of personal liberties actually is. The most vociferous advocates of free speech ( regardless of your assumption ) are Conservatives. That is one of the , if not the , core issues of any real Conservative..

The tax issue I will grant you. Let's look however at the proclaimed effect VS the actualized . Let's see the policy as building a bridge not only would the thing not meet in the middle but the skew would be off by meters. Give me numbers where the white-house's claims of economic stimulus ( among other claims ) were realized. Taxing sucks , overtaxing sucks even worse but the management of the economy is not managed by enacting policy regardless of other considerations.

"Against jobs going overseas", with the exception of 1 idiot spokesman, I want You to find a Republican plank, position, treatise , that states that American jobs going overseas is a good thing. If you do , I'm sure he will be looking for employment in another sector of society.the next day.

"Dem's are against free trade".--- Prove it . Site examples, fiscal data, statements, official policy and analise your interpretation in regards to each statement or fact.

[peptoabysmal]

Nice post Nie.

Personally, I think it's because Dean totally blew it and exposed himself as an amateur politician, and considering the sad bunch of remaining candidates, Kerry was the most viable choice to give GW a run. Kerry is a polished politician and knows how to schmooze with the campaign financiers "Kennedy style".

I think it will be a very politically interesting election year, no matter who wins.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
Democrats are against the war in Iraq , they are against the Patriot Act , and against the Bush tax cuts, they are against jobs going overseas and Free Trade.

Why then would the Democrat party nominate a man, John Kerry, who voted:

FOR the Iraq War Resolution
FOR the Patriot Act
FOR the Bush Tax Cuts
FOR NAFTA
FOR GATT


?????????????????????????????????????????????

http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/looney.sml.gif

NTW, thank you for explaining why I vote Green. :)

[clk]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
Democrats are against the war in Iraq , they are against the Patriot Act , and against the Bush tax cuts, they are against jobs going overseas and Free Trade.

Why then would the Democrat party nominate a man, John Kerry, who voted:

FOR the Iraq War Resolution
FOR the Patriot Act
FOR the Bush Tax Cuts
FOR NAFTA
FOR GATT


?????????????????????????????????????????????

http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/looney.sml.gif

For the same reason the Republicans chose Bush over an intelligent and respected man like McCain.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Cleon


NTW, thank you for explaining why I vote Green. :)

And thank you for explaining why I don't vote!!!

[Regnad Kcin]

"Explain this to me?"

Well, sometimes people modify their positions (or simply change their minds) as time goes on. Y'know, like the person who attested to such a process in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870115132&highlight=used+to+be+liberal#post1870115132):Origi nally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
I was very politically active as a liberal throughout school and a year after graduating. (Emphasis mine.)

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Ed:
Because he is a lieing, thieving, sheep abusing bastard that will do anything to get and hold onto power like every other thieving politition the world over.

Sheep abusing? I thought he wasn't Irish anymore?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Kopji
Maybe the answer lies in choosing between "if you liked what happened the last four years vote for me again", and "it is time for a regime change".

A 'self criticism' of American political decisions is that our attention span seems much too short. We quickly forget the lies and deceptions.

This has worked well for the Republicans with this particular president, they can hardly complain when the 'short attention span problem' now works in favor of their opponents.

Nice spin. You make it sound as if GW himself orchestrated the WTC attack.

How about a choice between "If you like how events were handled in the last four years vote for me" vs. "It is time for a change of leadership"?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Nice post Nie.

Personally, I think it's because Dean totally blew it and exposed himself as an amateur politician, and considering the sad bunch of remaining candidates, Kerry was the most viable choice to give GW a run.

By jove, I think you might be right.

The problem now is, when you lift up a candidate whose best quality is "he's not bush", you aren't giving people a good reason to go to the polls. Turnout is the key to winning. I am not sure a protest candidate will create enough turnout in the swing states.

[TillEulenspiegel]

I agree, that's not necessarily a good reason , but I'm afraid that the electorate is so divided in their perceptions that both sides seem to chant the mantra "Anyone but .....". Politics is like a classroom you must aim your effort at the lowest common denominator