A blog about a girl who speaks her mind and talks about whatever she wants. So its a blog about everything, and absolutely nothing, all at the same time. . .
Profile
Name: Kami
Alias: Risawn
Location: Washington State, United States
An avid Snowboarder, rabid NRA supporter, Starving Artist, Military Junkie, anti-fru-fru Glorified Private that basically posts incoherant ramblings and things better left unsaid.
This is shaping up to be an interesting political season, I'm rooting for Hillary now. As long as chaos is reigning amongst the Democrats, it keeps things interesting.
Ok, I need to go out and do a lot of research, because I have discovered I'm completely clueless about this year's nominations for President. We got McCain who has pretty much clenched the Republican Nomination for President, and we've got the ongoing battle between Clinton and Obama.
For the longest time, I was on the 'anybody but Clinton' fence, but that is showing to be a bad choice of words.
So you've got the Lefties who are all going nuts over Obama, McCain appears to be getting the moderate vote, and Conservatives are actually stumping for Clinton? What is this world coming to when you have Ann Coulter actively campaigning for Hillary?
But what do I know, honestly? I just found out I don't know jack! I need to look at what is important to me in this election and see who is running on what platforms and figure out who is about what and who is most compatible with me.
Ironically, I admit to stumping for Obama on the democratic ticket, but now I'm wishing that Hillary was in the lead again.
What the hell? I think I'm going to focus on stocking up on necessities and wait for the end of the world, because hell is certainly about to freeze over.
Anybody know any good links to get through the jargon of exactly what the candidates stance is? Or should I even bother asking?
Everyone knows I'm not a big fan of politicians, or politics, but during election years I tend to get into them, and this year is a big year for a whole lot of nothing, as it seems that no matter what, we're screwed.
So Hillary Clinton is making her way into winning the democratic nomination for President. At first I was in the ABC (anybody but Clinton) camp, until I learned that Barack Obama ain't much better and might as well be running as a communist.
We were talking during drill about one campaign promise both are touting that they can't keep. That would be the withdrawing from Iraq within 60 days in office, or at least that's Obama's promise.
What are people going to say when he doesn't back up that promise? Because if he pulls out, it's going to be slaughter over there and then they'll have a huge mess on their hands (of course, he'll blame it on Bush) and that four years will be all about trying to contain whatever happens as it escalates out of control. Pulling out of Iraq is the wrong answer. But if they find themselves unable to pull out of Iraq and talked into staying there, it will be a campaign promise they are unable to keep, and perhaps they'll get disenfranchised voters on that front when they don't pull out right away.
Pulling out of Iraq is a horrible campaign promise where you simply can't win. At least McCain has it right.
Yeah, I'm voting for McCain. And I'll be spending the time until the Presidential Election looking for reasons to vote for him, because as we all know, when you ride on a campaign of 'anybody but (enter name here, whether it be Bush or Clinton)', it doesn't win elections. I'm going to vote for somebody, not against somebody. And if I find that I can't find a good enough reason to vote for McCain, maybe I'll look at a suitable third party candidate.
But the thought of Hillary Clinton becoming my Commander in Chief makes my blood run cold.
Why do I feel that no matter what happens, in November we're screwed?
For a while I was on the anybody but Hillary stump, but right now I'm feeling a bit of a chill from the whole Barack Obama camp, as though I still believe that Hillary is the worst thing that possibly could happen to this country, Obama ain't much better.
We'll be in a Socialist haven by January 2009. And Iraq will be in ruins by the middle of next year.
McCain won't be a whole lot better, but if he does get the Republican Nomination for President, I'll probably end up voting for him.
I'm worried where this country will be in four years.
I'm thinking this might be the year for a valid third party candidate to emerge from the wreckage of this primary season and become a viable candidate for President. I know a lot of people who are adamently opposed to Hillary, the GOP is on it's deathbed as a political party, they've burned too many bridges with the voters.
McCain is like 82 years old. If he wins the presidency to serve for two terms, he will be 91 or something. And he's too liberal in some of his politics, though I do like his stance on Pork Spending, but when you have conservatives like Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck saying they'll vote for Hillary over McCain, well, that's not promising. And I'd rather vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning the election rather then Hillary.
So, can a viable third party come out of the wood work to run for President? I hope so, if we want to get rid of this ridiculous two party system, this is the year to do it.
Otherwise, well, I was going to vote for Romney, but I guess I'll vote for Obama during the Primary, to get votes away from Hillary. I'd rather have Obama as President then Hillary, she's trying to come off as a moderate but anybody who does their research knows she's a socialist to her core, and a bit power hungry. And a closet lesbian.
No Hillary for me, thanks. I hate to think of what she'll do to my military if she gets in office. I shiver at the thought.
Well, apparently tomorrow is a big day in the political scheme of things. Across the country, people get to vote on who they want to run in the big race in November.
I'm backing Barack Obama for the Democrats and Mitt Romney for the Republicans.
I just realized I don't have any idea when the Washington State Primary is being held. Hmm. . .
How can I convince people to NOT vote for Hillary Clinton? Do we honestly want this woman as our next president?
Granted, I'm not a big fan of any of the democrats, but this woman is the last person I want to see as President. She is a conniving politician and I don't know what she's saying to get people to vote for her, but I will never trust Hillary.
I do admit that Barack Obama likely doesn't have enough experience for the Presidency, and is a bit on the socialist side for my likings (Hey, he's a liberal, I'm a conservative) but I would much rather see him win the Presidency then Hillary.
So I'm going to campaign for Obama with my Liberal Friends, because I don't think I can convince them to vote for a Republican. Team Obama all the way!
So with the primaries in full swing, election year is coming upon us *shivers*
I got sent a link to an interesting questionare that will help you discover who your ideal candidate is. Here's my results.
82% John McCain 74% Mitt Romney 73% Mike Huckabee 72% Tom Tancredo 70% Fred Thompson 62% Rudy Giuliani 53% Hillary Clinton 52% Bill Richardson 49% John Edwards 49% Chris Dodd 48% Barack Obama 46% Ron Paul 43% Joe Biden 29% Mike Gravel 22% Dennis Kucinich
Hmm, McCain looks to be my ideal candidate for the most part, though I find it interesting that Hilary of all people is coming up as my top Democrat *gag!*. I don't trust her and think many of her policies that has her playing as a moderate is a ruse to get her elected.
I'd rather have Barack Obama get elected over her, though honestly I don't agree with his policies as he's a bit on the socialist side. He's predicted to be our next president, I guess I like him as a person, he's got excellent charisma, but he's quite young. I think there are a lot of people who are excited about the thought of finally electing a viable minority which is one of the reasons why it seems like Obama and Clinton are the heavy hitters on the democratic side, but that's about as a good a reason to vote for somebody like the fact that Mitt Romney happens to be a Mormon is the soul reason NOT to vote for him.
I guess for me religion might play a piece in things, but I'm not going to vote for Romney because he shares my faith, I want to vote for him because I agree with his policies and think he will make a good president, but it looks like I'll be voting for the Republican anyway, whoever that may be, rather then the Democrat. Of course, Blue State Washington, it probably won't make much of a difference. We aren't exactly a swing state.
Ok, I don't know a whole lot about Ron Paul to tell you the honest truth. He seemed to be a minor candidate in the overpowering field of Republicans (and Democrats for that matter)
I think I need to do a little more research on him and see exactly where he stands, but based on this video, I really like him. He seems to be a true conservative and I agree with most of his view points. Before seeing this video, to tell you the truth, I wasn't really impressed with much of anyone running for President.
I did a rundown on my personal knowledge of the Democratic Candidates about a month or so ago. I need to do one on the Republicans.
I mean, we're only in April of 2007 and we're already talking about who's going to be POTUS! Why do we do this to ourselves? Do we purposely like to drive ourselves bat wild? I don't know, but I guess because 2008 is completely wide open, we just got to suck it up and get on with our lives.
So, I decided I would look at each candidate for a moment and see what they have to offer and if they even have a shot. Or basically, my own rambling on them.
John Kerry John Kerry, the Democratic nominee of 2004, has suffered a series of set backs to include making bad jokes at our trooops expense (and how was that supposed to be a jab toward a Yale Graduate now???) that he's, well, he's not a contender for 2008. However, I'd keep him on the radar for 2012 or 2016. This guy really wants to claim that oval office, he's just wisely decided to back out of the race for now.
Hillary Clinton Wait, wasn't she President for 8 years already? Isn't there a law against this?
Furthermore, do we really want to start a trend here with Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton every four to eight years? Jeb for President in 2016! Chelsea in 2024! Barbara and Jenna can run on a joint ticket in 2032! It's madness I tell you! Madness! This will lead to a path of chaos that will end in our country blowing itself up in the anarchy!
Besides, do we really want another polarizing President in the office? You can't get more polarized then Bushes and Clintons in the office. A third of the country can't stand them, another third loves them, and the remaining third don't give a damn/don't follow politics enough to know the difference. I'm telling you, we really don't want another 8 years of Clinton.
Besides, I don't trust her. Everyone knew she was eyeballing the presidency for the future in 2004, she wouldn't admit it.
Barack Obama This young charismatic candidate from Illinois has exactly two years of Senatorial experience and he's got the entire country buzzing. The question is, well, is he ready for the Presidency? What has he done and what does his experience say about him? Truthfully, I think he'd be a stronger candidate if he waited for 2012 or 2016, because I don't exactly know where he stands on things except to know that he's an eloquant speaker and therefore he knows how to play politics.
Still, I'm thinking I'll take eight years of Obama over eight years of Clinton. I'd say look at this guy on the ticket as a vice presidential candidate, which if the democrats win, sets him up for the presidency in 2016.
John Edwards Yep, he's back, fresh off the Vice Presidential ticket in 2004 and ready to try for the oval office again for 2008. And he doesn't have the negative stigma of bad jokes that Kerry somehow managed to find. He's got experience in the senate as well. And his wife will help win the sympathy vote.
Except he's a trial lawyer, and he's got a record as a trial lawyer of big massive lawsuits against evil doctors and malpractice. I do have a problem with some of these malpractice suits, some of them are deserved, yes, but people win the lottery on them and it puts Doctors out of business as they can't afford their practice.
Still, as a guy, Edwards seems likeable and poses a chance. If he can find a way out from under Clinton's and Obama's shadow.
Dennis Kucinich Is this guy for real? Seriously.
I mean, does this guy even have a sporting chance? Not likely. He was trailing the pack in 2004. What does he have to offer in 2008 that makes him a viable candidate?
Al Gore Gore hasn't declared his candicay, yet, but hot off an Oscar win and with a passion for Environmental Protection that has Hollywood worshipping him, this guy has to think about the possibility of a run for president. Every major website listing contendors for 2008 has him on it as undeclared. And right now, in the liberal circles, he's very popular despite his fallout in lack of personal hygiene after he lost the electoral vote in 2000 to a bunch of Floridians who didn't know how to read a butterfly ballot. He's a contender, its just a matter of if he wants to give it another go or not.
Joe Biden Ok, I'll admit, I don't know much about this guy, though 30 years of senatorial experience does give him an edge over some of the leading candidates. And to tell you the truth, that might actually help him with the moderate voters who are looking for a fresh face in the mix. But still, under the shadow of heavy weights like Clinton and Obama, he's got to find a way to make his name known to get the nomination.
Chris Dodd Like Biden, I don't know really a whole lot about this guy. He's got a lot of years in public service, plus he's got a military record to help with the military vote and some of the moderates (but look what that did for Kerry!), so he's got a history to back him up.
Mike Gravel I have absolutely no idea who this guy is, but he's taking a shot at the presidency and declared his candidacy nearly a year ago. He's got a diverse background in the Military, Business, and Public Service and has even written a couple of books and appears to be a worthy candidate by all appearances if he could find a way to get his name out there.
Bill Richardson The Governor of New Mexico is making a bid for the Presidency.
Other then serving in Clinton's cabinet, I don't know anything about this guy. Hmm. . .
Summary - In my humble and far from expert rambling opinion, I would say for the Democrats, Hillary is the person to beat. But after a far from successful second term for Bush, do the Democrats really want to nominate a person that is just going to polarize the nation that much more? There are people that just don't like Hillary, and no matter what she does to try to improve her image, they are still not going to like her. It looks like Barack Obama may give her a run for her money however.
If the Democrats are smart, I think they should find a decent candidate who can appeal to the moderate vote. Avoid the double speak of 2004 because seriously, if Kerry had run with a plan and a purpose instead of just fumbling with the issues and not having any clear agenda, he would have won easily. This is a wide open election, its anybody's game really.
I'm just hoping the Democrats nominate somebody OTHER then Hillary.
So, Democrats gained the house and may have the senate, depending on one race in Virginia.
I was hoping Maria Cantwell would get kicked out of office but who am I kidding? I live in Washington and apparently it's very progressive to have two female senators and a female governor, look at us!
Well, my congressman is a woman too, but I actually voted for her.
I'm interested in seeing where exactly the country goes over the course of the next two years, if the Democrats can actually make it any better (I doubt it) or if the Republicans can take a look at this and think 'well, gosh, maybe we should actually listen to our base if we want to stay in office'.
To tell you the honest truth, I think both parties are pretty screwed up and I've coem to think that I probably can't trust a word that comes out of either party's mouth. In a perfect world, I would probably vote libertarian more then anything else, because I'm not a fan of big government, and it used to be that the Republicans were the ones who fought against big government.
So now I expect that these next two years nothing will get accomplished except for a lot of bickering and name calling in the upper government. Bush probably won't be able to accomplish much because the Senate and Congress will likely fillibuster and block anything that he tries to pass, in effect, largely making him a 'lame duck'.
I just hope my stocks hold up.
Here's looking to 2008. I just hope that Gore, Kerry, or Clinton Female is not in the running for the Dems. I wouldn't mind Lieberman, but he's probably to conservative and pro warm for the Democrats to stomach, that and they already wrote him off (still glad to see him make a comeback as an independent) I'm not sure who I would like to see as the Republican candidate.
Well, another election year, and now hopefully we'll see a disappearance of those annoying political signs.
I voted yesterday (mail in) which is how everyone in our county is voting this year. There were some issues that I chose not to vote on due to the fact that I didn't know as much about the issues as I felt I needed to know to give a good strong opinion on how my vote should go, so I refrained.
Meanwhile, Republicans lost control of the house but still have the Senate. In some ways, this is actually probably a good thing, and in the same way a bad thing. A good thing because it adds a little more to the checks and balances of the government, but bad because Nancy Pelosi is now Speaker of the House and I don't think anything will ever get done as the most that will likely happen is a bunch of bickering and backstabbing.
One reason why I have decided to refrain from entering politics myself. No thanks.
I still consider myself conservative, and I generally vote along party lines unless I am stirred enough by the opposing candidate that I feel like I agree with them more then the republican. Republicans haven't been doing to hot these days in my opinion. So maybe losing the house will help them pull their heads out of their asses.
Question: Am I now sorry for voting for Bush? Hell no, and I won't regret it even if I decide after his presidency that he is the worst president in history. Mostly because at the time I went by the knowledge I had and I have no proof supporting whether Kerry would have made a better president or not. And you know what? We'll never know, will we? So Nope! Still not sorry!
But in closing, I do have this to say. Lieberman got reelected as an Independent, after the Democrats turned on him. And that to me is fantastic news.
Ah yes, every once in a while I have a concession to make.
My concession this time around? The Washington Goobernatural Election (Butchered on purpose). Rossi should concede.
The facts, I voted for Rossi, Rossi won the election and two recounts (or maybe just one, I may be a little off on those numbers and I've heard several accounts). Gregoire challenged and drug it on, demanded a hand recount, and won the final recount and with it the title of governor of Washington state.
I'm pissed at Gregoire, and if the tables were turned I would be pissed at Rossi (though not as much because I am obviously biased) However, as close as this election is, I believe that Rossi should concede (though at first I wanted him to fight) the election just to one up Gregoire and show people that Republicans aren't the whiney bastards that Democrats are. I hope that Gregoire can fix the problems of Washington State but I doubt it, and her record as Lietuenant Governor was far from steller. Unfortunately, this was in her hands from the start and I said it before. For the good of Washington, she should have conceded after the first recount instead of forking the bill on us. I don't think she'll have an easy term, especially at first considering the election was so close in a highly Blue state and a lot of people will feel like she stole it, kind of like I still do, as I don't believe that you should be allowed to hold recounts until you get your votes.
And I wouldn't be surprised if there was some dirty tricks played during this election, on both sides of the table. (my personal policy on politicians is you don't trust them)
Besides, now the Democratic Party gets refunded their money and your's truly, as a Washingtonian Tax Payer, get's to foot the bill of this last bloody recount that was insisted upon by Chris Gregoire to insure her victory.
I didn't really mind her before, she pissed the hell out of me during the recount, but I hope she really can help Washington because if she screws it up any more, it only screws me and the rest of Washington State.
And if she doesn't help things, maybe Washington can remember the mess she made of this last election that caused them to foot the bill and maybe they will vote her out of office.
Well, there's 'good' news for washingtonians this christmas eve. Chris Gregoire is finally putting an end to the governor fiasco. See, she 'won' the last recount so now she's governor.
Governor my ass. You don't hold recounts until you get your votes, that's bullcrap.
The lady pisses me off to no end. I would have been fine with her as governor if she had won fair and square, but she didn't. Unfortunately, this entire thing was in her hands to begin with. She should have conceded before and not many people will take her seriously as governor if she gets it.
Look at it this way. This was a solid blue state that went to Kerry pretty easily. Yet it was that close for governor, meaning that several people crossed party lines wanting to get Gregoire out of there. Doesn't that say something about her?
Yeah, I think it does. She strung it out this long, now Rossi is fighting. I hope he does.
It might have to be held in another election, which I sincerely hope it doesn't but at this point that might make more sense. If it does, I say hold another election, whoever wins, wins, and no more of this bullcrap. If luck holds out, enough people who voted for Gregoire might be so pissed at her for dragging it out that they will either sway at the polls or stay at home.
Unfortunately, either I'll have to sit it out or vote absentee.
Can someone please tell me how somebody can pay for a recount in two democratic counties and ignore the rest of the state?
This looks like the Democrats are buying the election or something eerily close to it.
The Washington Governor's race is down to 42 votes between them (in other words, it's CLOSE). Rossi, the republican, is ahead.
Gregoire, the democrat, is demanding a recount. But only in King and Pierce county. Because they are paying for the recount, they apparently get to choose where they are going to recount the votes.
If they are going to have a recount (again), shouldn't it be in EVERY COUNTY???
Isn't that the point of the phrase 'every vote counts'? Or is it being twisted to 'every vote for my party counts, so we need to simply count in predominantly liberal counties'?
This thing is awfully fishy, Gregoire is just going to finagle it until she gets a win isn't she?
Um, I'm going to check back up on this and see how accurate this story is, so nobody quote me on it. My source is my parents who heard it on the news. According to the latest recount, Rossi is governor. By 42 votes.
How great it would be for another Blue State to have a republican governor. (cross fingers and hope Rossi still keeps the lead)
Update - So, it does appear that the democrats can ask for a recount in specific counties, which they have to pay for, but if their recount produces a possible win, then the entire state must be recounted.
The status of the Washington Gubernatorial race? Two Counts, both won by Dino Rossi. Yes they were close, but I must contest. Doesn't this appear that Christine Gregoire is digging for votes? **yes, yes it does!**
She isn't going to stop until she wins. I hope she gets her hand recount, she loses, and the democrats get to pay for our trouble.
Referenced from King 5 News (yes, unfortunately you do need to register)
I've come across an amazing phenomenon that I had heard partly in passing but am suddenly seeing in full force.
The anger of the left. By people I know personally.
I have a lot of liberal friends. Usually I avoid talking politics (sometimes it doesn't work) and just kind of try to keep calm and rational around these friends of mine. Obviously we disagree. But most of the time, when you know somebody, you understand where they are coming from and leave it at that.
Well, today, I saw their spewing hatred. This is the people who preach diversity and understanding. Ok, I understand them and where they are coming from. The right usually understands the left and usually let's them go on their little temper tantrums and excercise their right to free speech.
The fact is, the left is the minority. The right now leads in the house, senate and executive branch. They were elected to those positions. Michael Moore didn't find any disenfranchisement at the polls. This was a clean election with an exceptional turnout and Bush won.
The left is now in denial, thinking that it wasn't close enough. In fact, there are people who I know personally that are thinking "half of america doesn't want Bush."
It looks like half of america didn't want Kerry either.
They are threatening to leave the country.
Leave then. Leave America to us and good luck finding another country that is better.
There are a few liberals that are being dignified and accepting the defeat of Kerry with grace and understanding, knowing that we have to do something to once again unify this country. But there are a lot that are saying that there is no way Bush would be their president.
The Division is happening on the left. And they are not going to give up what they consider to be their fight. They preach hatred about the right, and I heavily doubt that they truely understand the right. The left are proving to be some of the most intolerant, hate filled group of people I have seen. If you disagree with them, they will call you names.
It sounds like I may have been guilty of this if it had gone the other way. Actually, for the most part, I was just nervous. Greatly troubled at the possibility of a Kerry Election.
Well, I guess now that its over, my Falling Sky Insurance Premiums will go down. But I don't think I would have resorted to seething hatred if Kerry had won and Bush had lost. In fact, I was almost expecting it and coming to grips with the possibility. I think I would have been quiet and thoughtful for a few days, and then I would have looked at my life and tried to figure out which direction I would go. Truth is, this election had a lot of impact on me personally and whether I would continue with the military. Under Kerry, I would have given it the rest of my year and see how well he would command the troops before bailing. With Bush, well, I'll continue to proudly serve.
I hope the nation can quickly get over this.
Note - Part of this was written on the 3rd and left in draft form; the change of tone toward the end was written and everything posted on the 4th.
I've been following the Polls for some time now, and I can honestly say that I can breath easier then I have in a long time. My gut feeling was wrong. Bush will carry on for four more years.
We just have to wait for New Jersey, Iowa and Ohio to be firmly placed in his column, at least, according to C-SPAN, the no spin political network.
All the major networds are refusing to call Nevada to Bush, thus giving Bush the undecided victory.
I think Kerry should pull his head out of his ass and concede. And this is my reasoning.
Bush has the popular vote by a substantial margin. In 2000, Gore contested Florida, and he had the right to contest Florida as he had the popular vote and Florida was to close to call.
In 2000, Gore only carried the popular vote by a fraction of a percent. We're talking in the Five Hundred Thousands nationwide. Bush has the popular vote in 2004 by over 3 million, 3 points. He also has the clear majority of 51% of the total vote. This is not a replay of 2000, this is a substantial margin of victory.
The results of the 2000 election clearly polarized this nation, and it would have been polarized had it gone to Gore or Bush. If Kerry wants to stop being selfish and help the nation heal the partison political wounds, he would graciously concede. However, I feel that it is against Kerry's nature to do that.
If Kerry drags this out, it will only make things worse.
Ohio is ahead in Bush's column by 136,000. This is not the 500 or so electorial votes of Florida Race 2000. This is 2 percentage points with '100%' of prencincts reporting by C-SPAN (the no spin network). The chances of Kerry pulling a victory here are substantially minute. Every one of the provincial ballots would have to be counted and they would ALL have to go to him 100%. Not going to happen. Sorry.
New Jersey and Iowa, apparently to close to call, but I would say that these are going Bush as well. That gives him 286 Electoral Votes. He's got the Popular Vote by a wide percent. Let's face it, Bush won.
Maybe the democrats would have done better if they had managed to pull out a better candidate. Or at least one that stood by what they believed, I could have respect for the man in that case. Instead, I feel that most people who were voting for Kerry were voting the 'Anybody But Bush' route, they were voting against George Bush, they weren't voting for John Kerry. And that is why they lost. All of my liberal friends are lamenting as if this is the end of the world and I actually kind of want to slap them. If Kerry would have won (as I was actually expecting him to), I would have conceded gracefully and actually was offering to give him the benefit of the doubt and support him as president.
If he continues this little fiasco, however, I'm sorry, I have no support to give. Because what very little respect I had for the man before (which really was next to none) is now lost by this strike at blatant skewering of the voice of the american people.
I think the democrats want it so bad, especially in the electoral college to smite the republicans for 'stealing' the election in 2000 when Gore had the popular vote (though not by much), that they want to ram it in your face that if they are some how able to steal the electoral vote despite the lack of the popular vote, that the tables would be turned and now they can show the conservatives how it really feels.
This is blatantly shelfish and quite possibly having a huge potential to backfire BADLY. And this talk of trying to bring the nation together? Well, if Kerry really cared about the nation, he would admit that this is an obvious defeat and concede, in turn offering President Bush his support.
Kind of like Nethercutt did to Senator Murray here in Washington. He was gracious, he conceded and he offered Murray his full support. I voted for Nethercutt, I'm sorry to see that he did not win, but you know what? Life goes on. You win some, you lose some. Patty Murray will represent the State of Washington for another 6 years. I think I'll still live.
Sometimes, for the good of the nation, it is best to admit defeat and carry on. There are more battles to be won.
Update - Looks like Kerry is going to concede. Good for you, man, and thank you for seeing the light of day. Now you can help heal our nation by telling your supporters to support the president.
The Liberal Blogs are actually rather hilarious, the Here's a snibbet of a comment left on the Kerry/Edwards blog.
"I cannot believe that this country would elect a war criminal."
The irony is astounding. Liberals view Bush as a War Criminal. Funny, Conservatives look at Kerry and think the same thing. And what's more, John Kerry is a self admitted War Criminal.
I'll be watching the news here at 10AM PST to watch Kerry's concession speech and Bush's victory speech. This is the chance for Kerry to redeem himself. Let's see how it goes?
Finally got my copy of Stolen Honor in the mail. I ordered it after I heard that Sinclair wasn't going to broadcast it, only to discover that I could have viewed it online for free. And then, of course, PAX began to air it.
That's ok, I don't think my money could have gone to a more worthy cause.
This election is horribly close. With so many people caught up in the lies of the left and Michael Moore (of which much of his movies are either refutted or one man's opinion, and to many people are viewing it as the truth), how can anyone ignore the words of the Swift Vets?
I've read Unfit for Command and now seen Stolen Honor. Anybody trying to refute these are easily dismissable. The SwiftVets have already brought out the truth of the No Man Left Behind story spun at the DNC as a symbol of Kerry's bravery, as well as the Christmas in Cambodia lie (which is a pretty big lie) Most people who don't understand the signifigance of these acts brush them off. Many people have looked at the SwiftVets and see that they've been rebutted by military records.
The only thing that will truly rebutt their words is a complete release of John Kerry's military records. He is hiding something, or he would have quieted this mess a long time ago by releasing his records to the public.
How can people look at this man and wish to elect him as President of the United States? I can think of no man who is less qualified to serve in that capacity. This man is a traitor. He is an enemy to the military, and I cannot see myself serving with him as commander in Chief.
I know that I will be one of many who will not be reenlisting in the military if this man is elected. History speaks for itself, Kerry can spew whatever lies he wishes to and it will not change the fact that actions speak louder then words. I will begrudgingly serve my remaining year in the military.
Bush has his faults, and he is not perfect. There are things he has done that I don't approve of. But I can respect him as a man.
I cannot say the same about John Kerry. And it makes me sick to my stomach to think that this man, this traitor to the military, this treasonous, selfish, egotistical politician, could be my commander in chief.
I see dark days ahead if he is elected to the highest position in the country.
I can only pray that if he is elected, I am wrong. Or Bush will win another term and I can breath easy once again.
Halloween comes but once a year, and it has been the one holiday that I have consistantly done something with on my webcomic Creature, mostly because Halloween is all about dressing up and pretending to be something your not and Creature is kind of about that (though not so much yet, despite the fact of being nearly 3 years old).
Well, Presidential Elections come once every four years, and I had to take advantage of that. I knew there was a reason why the election is held on the first Tuesday AFTER HALLOWEEN! Let's combine the two!
However, a good deal of my readership is liberal, and I'm definitely conservative. So to appease both of sides of the political spectrum (and the mantra that Politics and entertainment don't mix), I ripped on both major political candidates.
I don't know if I did it harshly enough or not, however. I cut out one scene of a bunch of trick or treaters dressing up as Kerry, Bush and Nader (with a punchline for Nader that I conveniantly forgot how I was going to do), but ended up cutting it because I didn't know how to get it into the flow of the comic. Balderdash.
Still, something about the timing is off, it needs something more and I don't know what. Ah well, I still think its funny. And maybe even an irregular reader of Creature will get it?
I've been feeling nervous for the last few weeks. Actually, I've been feeling nervous for the last few years. Not that I felt as nervous then as I do now, but this upcoming week has really gotten me down.
See, being swamped in usually liberal environments (mainly work and school, I'm an art major), I often am in full contact with the other political spectrum, being those people that lean to the left. Now, usually I don't have a problem with these people, I'm fairly open minded and I try to avoid talking politics with them. They know where I stand and i know where they stand, we agree to disagree and get on with our lives. Being in those environments, I get plenty of feeling on how these people feel about the current state of affairs and their true feeling about our President.
But I've been having a gut feeling for the last two years that Bush isn't going to be reelected. That didn't bother me so much before because I didn't know who was going to be the one to replace him. Well, I know now that if Bush loses, John Kerry's president.
Kerry as president terrifies me. I disagree with his foreign policy and his love affair with the UN. I also don't trust him in regards to the military. I trust Bush. One of the reasons I prefer Bush to Kerry is obviously my politics line up more with the former then the latter, that's one of the main reasons. But there are more reasons why I just don't trust Kerry. He's a proven liar, he'll literally say ANYTHING, and his record speaks against him. I can't see how anybody can vote for this guy unless they have a putrid disdain for our current president.
This strikes me more then a lot of people becuase I'm in the military, and this man will have a direct impact on how the military runs. I'm in for another three years, at least. I wish I had the option of getting out in November, but I don't. I will be forced to serve under this guy. And it really scares me.
My only hope is that Bush wins the presidency for another four years, or Kerry proves that he isn't as bad as I think he'll be. I doubt it. I think the military will be going through a big shake-up here shortly, and I think if Kerry finds himself president he's in for a surprise.
My first hypocritical response, he's not John Kerry. I can't stand John Kerry, I have stated why many times, and I do not want to see John Kerry holding the highest office of the country, that of POTUS. But that is a hypocritical response and I will not state it in my reasons to vote for George Bush.
Reason 1, You know where he stands
Say what you want about Bush, but the fact remains, whether you agree with him or not, you know where he stands. I can't say the same for John Kerry, I have no idea where this man is coming from and where he is going.
With Bush, what you see is what you get. He said he'd go after the terrorists and damn it he made good on his promise.
Reason 2, He served in the military
And he understands what the military is about. True, so did John Kerry, but John Kerry made his service null and void by protesting against it.
Bush seems to understand what the military is about and respects it. So his service record wasn't perfect. Guess what? Mine isn't either.
And I'm in the Reserves, an entity of the military that is very similar to the National Guard. I've seen other people cut their military contracts short and still get out with an honorable discharge.
The national guard/reserves is an imperfect institution that is made up of civilians who play military one weekend a month. They screw up.
I guess I better not run for public office, it might come out that I failed my PT test once or twice.
George Bush served, and that's all that he says. He doesn't make it a central issue of his campaign. And you know what? He made some mistakes, he admitted them, and I can respect him for that. Now the media needs to get off this dead horse. Nobody cares about Bush's imperfect National Guard record, you should judge him on his actions as serving as president for the last four years, not his service to the National Guard 30 years ago.
Reason 3, he respects the Troops and whole heartedly supports them
Maybe its a photo op, maybe not, but the fact remains that Bush goes out of his way to say thank you for your service to the troops. As mentioned above, he is respectful to the troop and I believe it pains him greatly when another troop dies.
Reason 4, He's optomistic
Bush tries to show the world the good that is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, trying to highlight the points for us being there as opposed to the other presidential candidate who is often times sprouting off negative rhetoric, which is damaging to the morale of the troops.
I don't believe the Iraq war is going smoothly, there are some rough spots, but guess what? This is war. And that is not uncommon in war. People will die in combat, it is part of the nature of the military. All give some, some give all.
And Bush honors those that give all by not continually speaking negatively about our efforts in Iraq and demeaning their service. Kerry continually does so.
In a time of war, our country needs an optimist to be in charge, not a pessimist who's first thought is to run at the first sign of trouble.
Reason 5, he's not as stupid as you think
The number one mistake enemies of Bush make of him is that they "Misunderestimate" him. Hate to break it to you, Bush isn't an idiot. His less then eloquant speaking habits might make him come across as being below average in intellect, but you know what? Most people have strengths in some areas and weaknesses in others. Bush might come across as stupid, but he's not.
Reason 6, He laughs it off
Bush has proven to be an exceptional leader in that he is good about not taking things personally. There are a lot of people that do not like Bush. They constantly quote his "bushisms" to highlight what an idiot he is. Bush's first response is Tongue in Cheek. He's got imperfect speaking abilities, he often screws things up when speaking. He has accepted it and he moves on.
In fact, he often laughs about it and pokes fun at himself because of it.
Reason 7, He's personable
Say what you want, when most people meet Bush in an informal setting, as a person, not as the president, they like him. He is an easy person to like, as a person. And he shows a genuine interest in people. Bush has his downfalls, his personality is not one of them.
Pictures like the ones below also speak greatly about this man.
The second was not a photo op, it was a touching moment that Bush had between a girl who lost her mother in the world trade center bombing. He merely held and comforted her long after the press departed. The picture was taken by the girl's father I believe.
Reason 8, He's not afraid of making tough decisions and then follows through
Bush has been given a difficult task of handling the nation at a time of unexpected war. War is never an easy thing, and it is easy to make mistakes in handling one. But one thing about war is you have to see it to its end.
Reason 9, Proven Steady Leadership
When Bush makes a decision, he doesn't waver from it. This goes back to what you see is what you get. This is Bush, this is where he stands. You might not agree with him, but you know what he believes.
Reason 10, he's more moderate then Kerry is
Ok, so he is most undeniably a Republican. If you hate republicans, you probably don't like Bush. But Kerry is way out in left field where Bush has gone in some directions that is usually the direction that liberals go (education comes to mind).
Its unfortunate that his education reform is failing, but I think there is more to that then meets the eye.
Besides, I am a moderate conservative, Bush's agenda stands for more of what I believe then Kerry's does.
Reason 11, Partial Birth Abortion.
This is a heinous, violent procedure that in my opinion needs to be axed completely out of the system. There are other ways to protect a woman's life then to proceed with this act. It makes me sick and is one of the few abortion procedures that I am whole heartedly 100% against.
And Bush is too. I don't know if he'll succeed in completely banning this procedure, but I hope he some day does.
I am actually against abortion in general, I could never see myself having an abortion even if I were raped. But that is my personal opinion.
Reason 12, Bush's actions on September 11th
John Kerry has made fun of Bush's delay for not reacting right away to the tragedy that was September 11th (though Kerry and the rest of the senate sat in their seats for 40 stunned minutes and admitted that they 'could not think'), but Bush's actions on that day speak a lot for him and his control of himself in a time of crisis.
Bush's actions were perfect that day. He did exactly what he had to do and proved to America that he has what it takes to be a leader in a time of emergency.
Reason 13, he's not afriad to express his religious beliefs
Ok, so not every american is christian. In fact, there are a lot of people who think that religion has no place in government. So maybe there isn't, but his religious beliefs tell a lot about a person and what kind of person they are. It tells you a lot about where they stand on issues and their moral beliefs.
So yeah, maybe he shouldn't express his belief in god so much, but I don't hold it against him. It's something that he believes. This might be a down point to some people who don't like Bush, it isn't with me.
Reason 14, he's made mistakes and admitted them
Bush has made some mistakes. These are mistakes of his past. He admitted to those mistakes and now he drives on. He wants you to judge him on him now, not before.
There are a lot of people out to do character assassinations on Bush, the most recent one is Kitty Kelly in her Book, The Family (which has already been debunked and proven untrue), and everyone is out to kill Bush over something he's done in the past.
Well, its the past. And one thing that ties into the above statement is he's a christian, and Christians are about forgiveness. Bush has moved on. People still try to dig it up. And the fact that he takes it all in stride without holding press conferances to make a statement that his "patriotism is under attack" like another presidential candidate I can think of.
Reason 15, the Iraq war and the war on Terror
This topic lands on the pro and con issue of Bush. But it was a difficult decision and he made it. The war on Terror has not been a traditional war in the slightest sense. But it takes a strong minded person to make a decision like this and look at the bigger picture. Iraq requires somebody to look at the bigger picture to see the rationale behind us being there.
Say what you will about Iraq, Saddam was a tyrant and he had to go. There are many countries that have corrupt leaders that need to be taken out. The thing is, with Iraq, (which I don't think we were misled by the WMD issue, everyone believed that he had them, even Nuance boy Kerry) was in a position where we could take it down. And so we did.
It is rough handling, but if we stay the course and drive the terrorists away, and show the rest of the world the good that is done in creating a democracy in Iraq, we'll show that we have created a powerful Ally for future problems that occur in the middle east. As long as we keep those relations positive, we should have an ally for years to come.
Reason 16, The U.N.
I hate the U.N. It is a socialistic idea that is corrupt and frankly doesn't really work. Bush seems to not pay much attention to the U.N. because he realizes that they are largely a joke that can't get anything done. The U.N. has done nothing about the situation in Iraq for over a decade. So Bush came along and made a decision for them.
So maybe some people actually think the U.N. is a noble and just system that works for the betterment of the world. HAH! Don't make me laugh. The U.N. has no business deciding what a country does for itself, as long as it doesn't violate human rights issues. The US doesn't violate Human Rights issues, no matter what any liberal hippy might say. Saddam did. He murdered his own people. We saw Iraq as a potential threat. We took Saddam out.
And I'm glad we did.
Reason 17, Laura Bush
Say what you want about Laura, somebody compared her to the Stepford Wives. But this lady has class. She's dignified, respectful, and stands by her man. She is opinionated, and something about her strong love for reading really hits home for me. She seems to be very opposite of Bush, sometimes I wonder how they hooked up. But their marriage is strong and they respect one another. Unlike a certain former president.
There is no doubt in my mind that George Bush is completely loyal to Laura. He has a strong moral standing, something that this country has unfortunately been missing for some time.
Why I would not Vote for George Bush
To be fair, there are a lot of reasons why I wouldn't vote for John Kerry, and there are some reasons why I would not vote for George Bush. The reasons to vote for Bush outweigh the reasons to vote for John Kerry, however.
Reason 1, Iraq war
I am not totally against the Iraq war, but I'm not totally for it either. However, if I am sent there, I will go and serve my country becuase this is what I signed up to do. It is my duty and if called I will serve.
Bush's handling of the Iraq war has not been perfect, maybe we should have gone about it differently. Maybe we should have waited before we went. Maybe we should have acted differently. But the fact is, we're there now and things haven't gone smoothly.
The Iraq war hasn't been an easy thing to do, and it has seperated our country greatly as the anti war protesters continue to gain momentum and voice their disent of the handling of the war.
I do believe we need to see it through before we pull out though. To leave Iraq at this point would only create a disaster in our wake.
However, in this issue, I feel that Bush's solution to the Iraq war makes more sense then Kerry's, and if another person was running against Bush, I might vote for them due to this issue here. But unfortunately, Bush has the best agenda. We started the mess, and we need to see it through.
Reason 2, iffy tax cuts
I'm not against the Tax cuts, and I feel that they should actually go across the board equally. The tax cuts themselves I'm not against, and in fact I feel that they needed to be made in light of the economy. However, the tax cuts coupled with the war on terror and its ever emerging price are not a pretty combination.
Reason 2.5, the deficit
We had a surplus, we now have a deficit. The economy was on its way down when Bush took office, and therefore I do not fault him on the economy. But the deficit is his doing (and directly related to the tax cuts). I'm not, however, totally against the deficit. I believe we needed to do something to spur the economy, Bush chose to give Tax Cuts to help people retain more of their money so that they could spend it and create more
Reason 3, No Child Left Behind
A liberal idea with good intentions, but ultimately failed due to a little thing called the War on Terror and lack of cooperation from the Teacher's union. I blame the Teacher's union more then Bush on this act though. This was a non-partison issue, it was actually put together by both George Bush and Ted Kennedy (now THAT is an unlikely duo). OF course, Ted Kennedy takes equal responsibility in the mess too.
Unfortunatley, it was just doomed, shoveling more of the governments' money into the beurocracy of education without it actually getting to the students who need it.
HOwever, fyi, Bush put a similiar proposition during his term as Governor of Texas to No Child Left Behind, and it was very successful.
Again, not a position I entirely blame Bush for.
Reason 4, the International Community
So Bush has kind of alienated us from our 'Allies', Germany and France, along with a few other nations. We are not the most popular government in the world, and a lot of individuals in other countries look down on us as well. We have gained a nickname of 'Bullies'. This is unfortunate.
I don't think Kerry would do as good a job at it either though, which cancels this downside to Bush out. He and his campaign been insulting the allies we have left and right, and according to him, apparently the allies we have don't matter. All that Matters is Germany, Russia and France.
Besides, I think the U.N. is a joke.
Reason 5, a "Uniter", not a "Divider"
This was one of the platforms Bush ran on in 2000. He actually had a lot of luck in the non-partison issue in his native state of Texas, as he had the support of both Republicans and Democrats while in office. Of course, Texas is a pretty conservative State to begin with.
Unfortunately, this didn't carry over as well when he became leader of America. He ran on it, and it didn't really happen. But then again, Bush faced some tough issues as president that he took a partison approach to. That probably alienated a few people.
Of course, I think a few people were pretty sour that he lost the Popular vote and still gained the presidency. Which leads me to the next topic.
Reason 6, 2000 Election
I don't blame this on Bush, it was a mess to start with. But there was some 'iffy' procedures that happened. Whatever, he lost the popular vote but still got the presidency. A lot of people are still contending that Al Gore should have been president. This divided a lot of people.
But guess what? we would have still been divided if Gore had won. 2000 was a lose-lose situation, reguardless. But the thing is, Gore didn't take it to well and in fact takes it a little to personally. He can't drop it and brings it up every chance he gets. And he's let himself go.
Tells you a lot about Gore doesn't it? I wonder how he would have dealt with 9-11? So maybe this issue should actually be a plus for Bush. I personally don't hold it against him (as I wouldn't hold it against Gore if Gore were running for Reelection)
So Scratch that one, it's a neutral point.
Reason 6, Micheal Moore
Micheal Moore is a force to be reckoned with. And he is adamently against George Bush. This is obvious from a little film he made called Fahrenheit 911. Perhaps you heard of it? The information in it is damaging and his rhetoric can easily sway you to question the tactics behind Bush and his war on Terror, as well as his influence with the Saudi Family.
I guess this is a reason for everyone else Not to vote for George Bush. Why does it not apply to me?
Becuase I think Micheal Moore is a big fat idiot. A smart idiot, but still an idiot. And he is a hypocrit. His movie is based on theories and one man's thoughts about what is going on in Iraq. It is his opinion. And he does an excellent of using his rhetoric to sway your opinion to match his. Hey, what can I say? The man is an excellent film maker, he won an oscar for Bowling for Columbine (another film I don't agree with, I am a member of the NRA after all), and the Palm d'or (I know I mispelled that) for F911, which is an impressive resume, and he is probably one of the main reasons why people are so anti-Bush now.
But his movie is still propoganda based on opinion and theories (which are unproven). Many points of it have been debunked. But it is still powerful and will definitely make you think.
I think people should still see it, and then read the counterpoints on it and make their own opinion.
Hey, soldiers are talkin' and they ain't happy. Tying into the Iraq war fiasco, some soldiers are genuinely pissed that they are stuck in Iraq bored to tears and when they are due to come home, they get their hopes axed by being extended for another month/year.
These soldiers tell you a lot about the situation in Iraq. HOwever, it also tells you a lot about the discipline of todays soldiers.
Reason 8, Osama Bin Laden
We still don't have him. IT's been three years. This is the failing of the intelligence agency. We need to get this bastard and we need to get him as soon as we can.
Reason 9, Halliburton
This is a point that is CONSTANTLY being brought up by the liberal left. The War on Iraq is all about Oil and Money. Who cares if a few people die in the process. Apparently the President does not.
Well, yeah, the War is partially about Oil and Money. That's politics for you. And unfortunately, that's how the world works. Politics. Did I mention I hate Politics? They are rather corrupt.
The thing is, Halliburton got the contract because Halliburton is the only company that can do what it does. Did you know they got a no bid contract under the Clinton Presidency as well? The Liberals didn't seem to mind that.
Yes, so there are some questions to be asked about Dick Cheney and his connection with Halliburton. There are ethical questions that need to be addressed. But before you use this against Bush and Cheney, you might want to look into it a little closer. This was an issue that bothered me for a while, but doesn't so much now.
Reason 10, Fund Raising in Spokane for George Nethercutt
Ok, at first, this really did piss me off. Bush came to town and Spokane forked the security bill.
I later learned that this is actually not to unusual for presidents. I don't really know what to think about the matter now.
But I'm still voting for Nethercutt, though I think his chances of winning against Murray are pretty slim. He's got a few things running against him.
Other factors that are often faulted for Bush but are not his fault.
Outsourcing of Jobs - Did you know that this was started under Clinton? Why yes, it really was!
Economy - Again, not Bush's fault. The economy was on the downturn when he took office.
Sepember 11th - Why didn't Clinton do anything about Osama bin Laden the first time he bombed the world trade center? And a couple US embassies and a Naval Ship? Osama has been attacking America for some time under Clinton, and all Clinton did was raise a fist in defiance and then continued banging his intern.
I fault September 11th to Clinton, and his lack of action. Bush was the first one man enough to actually do something about it.
Again, like the Kerry Post below, this post is going to be added to and refined as I continue to post, and then it is going into the archives. If you have anything to say to me in regards to what reasons I should or should not look at either Presidential Candidate that I did not already address, please address them in the comment boxes for the respected candidate.
Though I doubt you'll make an impact. My mind's pretty much already been made.
As the election draws nearer (39 days to go), I have been following the issues pretty closely. I admit, I've been following John Kerry closely, watching his actions, and seeing where he's going and what his platform is all about.
I have not been impressed.
This actually started with the swiftboat controversy. Before that, I was still planning on voting for Bush but I had decided that I would probably do fine under Kerry and wouldn't have minded if he gotten elected.
What started it all was reading Unfit for Command and following the Swift Vets and their reason why they were bashing John Kerry. In fact, I had been reading their sight just before they got national exposure.
My thoughts on the Swift Vets is that most every thing they say is true. They are well documented on their sources and why they are attacking John Kerry. Its because their war with him is completely personal. I can't believe this is a front for the Bush Camp. These men are sincere in what they say and have nothing to gain (well, other then Kerry not getting the coveted slot of Commander in Chief) and everything to lose. These are 254 highly decorated Vietnam War Vets. Of course, according to the DNC, they're words were dispicable and hate-filled, and everything they say is lies. Of course, who would dare question the service of a highly decorated vietnam vet?
Well, apparently the DNC is questioning 254 highly decorated Vietnam vets. But nobody could dare say question John Kerry's service. And the fact that there are more then one link to the DNC and other 527 groups (move-on.org quickly comes to mind)
Reason 1, the Kerry camp's hypocritical response to the Swift Vet controversy.
That reason alone wouldn't stop me from voting for somebody, mind you. But looking into the Swift Vet controversy, I found about a few more reasons to despise John Kerry, mainly because I am in the service myself.
Reason 2, the lies that were debunked by the swift vets about Kerry's service, mainly Christmas in Cambodia, the first purple heart, the Silver Star, and the Jim Rassman's story.
Considering the Swift Vets have yet to wave from their story, they have mainly clarified their position, Kerry's story has changed a couple dozen times, from his own mouth to his own biography. This is kind of proving to me that he's a chronological liar. But then again, he's a politician. Next point.
Reason 3, the abbreviated tour.
Again, another thing that by itself, wouldn't stop me from voting for somebody. But this says a lot about a person, especially a person claiming to be a war hero. John Kerry's own testimony conflicts greatly with what really happened, and the fact that he didn't fulfil his duty. This is a minor pet peeve with me.
Reason 4, John Kerry's tesitmony in 1971.
This is well documented, and you can find everything you want here at Winter Soldier. If I hadn't been swayed by the above reasons (which, as mentioned before, by themselves will not cause me to not vote for somebody) but Kerry burned all his bridges with me on this one. His blatant lies and slandering of fellow soldiers makes me cringe in anger at this arrogant self serving bastard. And the fact that the Winter Soldier hearings have later proved to be lies, the people testifying were proven to have not even served in Vietnam. The whole thing was based on lies, and John Kerry has yet to apologize for what he did here and still stands by what he said.
The testimonies have hurt many Vietnam Vets, especially POW's and those that gave their life and do not have the choice of denouncing what Kerry said to save their good name.
Reason 5, Meeting with Vietcong in Paris
John Kerry met with the enemy while We were at war on his own accord to negotiate the end of the war. He did not do this with the cooperation of the US government, he did this by himself. I feel that Kerry was working more for the VietCong then the US.
I call this Treason.
Reason 6, Kerry did the above two points while still in the Navy.
Which makes his actions that much worse.
Reason 7, Kerry's picture is hanging in the war memorial building in Ho Chi Minh City for his actions that helped the Viet Cong win the Vietnam War.
Deplorable in the highest regard, a lot of people put a lot of blame on us losing the Vietnam War on Kerry and the role he played. His actions actually caused the Viet Cong to hold on a little longer as defeat was near.
That the Viet Cong have a picture hanging to Honor Kerry's service to them in a time of war speaks treason.
Reason 8, Kerry refuses to clarify the charges made against him by the Swift Vets.
Nuancy boy just keeps beating around the bush and if anybody asks him any questions about his service, his response, literally is "are you questioning my patriotism?" Apparently, your service record and anything you have ever done in your life is out of bounds for questioning. Of course, we can question George Bush's service all we want.
Just sign the 180, John, I really want to know what you are hiding from the american people.
Reason 9, John Kerry's hypocritical response to George Bush's service.
I call his actions hypocritical because he demands Bush to come clean about his National Guard record when Bush wasn't even running on it, yet Kerry refuses too and his Presidential Platform is based on actions that happened 35 years ago. To do so is idiotic to begin with.
I do not care what Bush did in the National Guard 35 years ago. He's not running on that as a basis of his campaign. To keep bringing it up is incredibly stupid on Kerry's part. But that brings me to point 9.
Reason 9, John Kerry's slandering of anyone that served in National Guard/Reserves.
I'm a reservist, I have yet to serve in Iraq. Man, I must be trying to avoid service or something.
But I agree, the situation between now and then are a bit different (Draft vs All Volunteer Army) but he did slander most everybody serving in the National Guard back during Vietnam, as well as anyone who Legally obtained Draft Deferments.
Apparently, serving in the Military doesn't matter when your name is Bill Clinton, in fact, being a well-known Draft Dodger will get the DNC's blessing.
Truth is, 90% of young men eligible to serve during Vietnam didn't serve in Vietnam. They got out for a number of reasons in a number of ways. Some of them avoided service legally (Dick Cheney) some didn't (Bill Clinton).
And did you know that John Kerry actually had Four Draft Deferments for school (for the same reasons that Dick Cheney obtained them) before being threatened to be drafted? Guess what he did? He joined the NAVAL RESERVES!
Another point about John Kerry's hypocracy.
Reason 10, SeeBS and RatherGate.
There is no real proof that John Kerry was collaborating with CBS with the forged memos, but there is genuine proof that poeple in his campaign were. I refuse to watch CBS now as it has no credibility with me anymore. Not that I watch TV in the first place but still, this is kind of an interesting situation that happened. And it causes some questions about John Kerry's campaign.
Still, in the meantime, until there is rock solid proof against Kerry in this matter, I'll take his word for it that he personally was not involved.
Reason 11, John Kerry's service in the senate.
If Kerry was to run on any platform for president, he should have run on this. Unfortunately for him, he has not done a single thing to warrent his election to President of the US. His entire senate record is a joke. Oh, and the fact that he has missed something like 80% of his Senate votes this year? That is pretty pathetic. I can understand missing a couple to focus on a campaign, but this is overkill.
And the fact that in 20 years in the senate, Kerry has not put forth any major piece of legislation with his name on it tells me a lot about the man. And it obviously tells me that he doesn't understand how the government runs.
I guess he'd rather be windsurfing then attending Senate Meetings. The man is all Play and no Work.
Reason 12, John Kerry's position on Iraq.
"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians, We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest"
That is a direct quote from John Kerry. Yes, John Kerry said that. In 1997, when Clinton was president. I guess it matters who is in office, doesn't it?
This man has no position on Iraq, and to me, being in the military, that is an important point. This man will be my Commander in Chief, and if he takes that position, I will bite my tongue and cease to say anything negative about him. But his position with Iraq has told me that this man is a politician in the truest of senses.
Reason 13, Gun Issue Nuancy
Iraq isn't the only thing he's been nuanced about, Kerry is riding the post on every single issue.
I'm an advocate of the 2nd ammendment, Kerry is trying to get the gun owner's vote. His voting record speaks against him. Kerry is in the hands of those that seek gun control and if he had his way, he would have practically every gun banned.
But lately he's been incistant that he is an avid sportsman. Yeah, whatever win's you a few votes, right? Talk about doing whatever you can to get elected.
Yes, this is a joke, but it tells you something about Kerry. Kerry is striving to be something he's not, and showing about a billion different faces to appease anyone and everyone. I have no respect for somebody who continues to play at being something he's not. Be honest dude, and admit you don't know much about sports. I'd have a bit more respect for you if you did so.
Reason 15, Will not take responsibility for anything
Last winter, John Kerry fell when he was snowboarding, and blamed it on his secret service agent.
He blamed his campaign for the reaction to the Swift Vets.
I can actually go on if I do a little research (I'm typing this all out of my head), but basically John Kerry refused to take responsibility for anything that goes wrong. He is the first to blame somebody else.
And he is the one that is blaming Bush for not taking responsibility on some things that happened.
Hypocracy.
Reason 16, More respected with Foreign Leaders my ass
John Kerry insists that he can get more respect by the world community then Bush has.
So far I have heard him insult the coalition in Iraq, calling them the "coalition of the bribed." However, he insists he can help get more countries involved in Iraq and the war on terror through "inducements." Well, I guess it's bribery with Republicans and Inducements with Democrats.
His sister is insulting our Australian allies and basically alienating them from us. Thanks Kerry's Sister. You're a bigger jackass then I expected.
Then of course, Kerry just this week insulted the Iraqi Prime Minister by basically calling him a liar for 'white washing' what was really happening on Iraq. I guess because its war, nothing good can be coming from Iraq right now, can there? I mean, it must be all doom and gloom.
But I guess he is more respected (term used loosely) by dictators and terrorists in the world who would rather see him in office over George Bush because they can see that Kerry is already a pushover and a pansy to the corrupted UN.
Of course there is some good coming out of Iraq, but Kerry isn't helping our troops by basically claiming their effort is a lost cause and they are wasting their time and dying for no reason trying to create democracy in a hostile zone. I do not like listening to Kerry talk about the war on Iraq, and I think I would like it even less if I were over there trying to serve my country and help the people of Iraq.
Which brings me to Reason 17, Kerry's constant banter demoralizing our troops
Did I mention I do not like John Kerry? His words on the situation in Iraq is only demoralizing our troops and giving heart to the terrorists. I guess it isn't unusual, Kerry did the same thing in 1971.
Reason 18, Kerry's four point plan for getting out of Iraq.
Its rather vague and basically lets the terrorists know that Help is On the Way. I'll look for an article detailing it in length.
The gist of it is, "I'm getting the troops out as soon as possible, and getting the UN and other nations to fork up the rest of the bill." Yeah, right Nuancy boy.
Of course, I wouldn't expect Kerry to stay the course on a fight like this, he bugs out of everything.
John Kerry 
Hillary Clinton 
Barack Obama
John Edwards
Dennis Kucinich
Al Gore
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd
Mike Gravel
Bill Richardson 
My first hypocritical response, he's not John Kerry. I can't stand John Kerry, I have stated why many times, and I do not want to see John Kerry holding the highest office of the country, that of POTUS. But that is a hypocritical response and I will not state it in my reasons to vote for George Bush. 
As the election draws nearer (39 days to go), I have been following the issues pretty closely. I admit, I've been following John Kerry closely, watching his actions, and seeing where he's going and what his platform is all about.
My thoughts on the Swift Vets is that most every thing they say is true. They are well documented on their sources and why they are attacking John Kerry. Its because their war with him is completely personal. I can't believe this is a front for the Bush Camp. These men are sincere in what they say and have nothing to gain (well, other then Kerry not getting the coveted slot of Commander in Chief) and everything to lose. These are 254 highly decorated Vietnam War Vets. Of course, according to the DNC, they're words were dispicable and hate-filled, and everything they say is lies. Of course, who would dare question the service of a highly decorated vietnam vet?