thebackpacker.com - backpacking, hiking and camping Welcome to thebackpacker.com
create account   login  
     home : trailtalk
    articles  beginners  gear  links  pictures            

John Kerry for President!!!!!

View Messages

Viewing posts 701 to 750 of 2015 messages posted.
Jump to Page   << prev   |  1   |  2   |  3   |  4   |  5   |  6   |  7   |  8   |  9   |  10   |  11   |  12   |  13   |  14   |  15  |  16   |  17   |  18   |  19   |  20   |  21   |  22   |  23   |  24   |  25   |  26   |  27   |  28   |  29   |  30   |  31   |  32   |  33   |  34   |  35   |  36   |  37   |  38   |  39   |  40   |  41   |  next >>

To add this thread as a favorites, you need to first login.
 

Kerry lies on "meet the depressed"
Mrs. Kerry's secrecy
Robert Novak
April 22, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Sen. John Kerry, having escaped intact a one-hour grilling by NBC's Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" Sunday, slipped in the closing minutes. When asked why his multi-millionaire wife was not making public her tax returns, he misinterpreted the law and the facts. He can only hope voters regard this as arcane trivia.

Three days before her husband's first full-length televised interview since he clinched the Democratic presidential nomination, Teresa Heinz Kerry became the first would-be first lady to refuse disclosure since the practice became common. Kerry told Russert the law required him but not his wife to reveal tax returns, when in fact there is no such law. He is voluntarily disclosing the information, and Mrs. Kerry is not.

This becomes politically critical, because no previous presidential candidate relied so much on his spouse's wealth. Without backing from Heinz ketchup money, it is fair to say John Kerry would not be his party's presidential standard-bearer and probably would not even be a U.S. senator today. Thus, refusal to release his wife's tax returns inevitably raises suspicions, however ill-founded, that the Kerrys have something to hide.

John Kerry, after more than 10 years in the Senate, was nearly broke in May 1995, facing a daunting 1996 election test against popular Republican Gov. William Weld when he married the widow of the richest U.S. senator. The late Republican Sen. John Heinz of Pennsylvania left his wife, Teresa, $600 million. Kerry's net worth, according to his official disclosure submitted in 1995, ranged from a plus-$34,995 down to a minus-$130,000.

In January 1995, Mrs. Heinz paid $1.7 million cash for the shell of a town house on Boston's tony Beacon Hill, and restoration brought its value to nearly $3 million (though that figure is much higher today). She then transferred ownership of half the house to her new husband, and the mansion became the engine financing Kerry's campaigns.

Running behind Weld in 1996, Kerry loaned his campaign $900,000 by mortgaging the house. By Election Day, he had loaned it $1.7 million and was $2.1 million personally in debt. That began a laborious process of paying off his debt, including the 1996 mortgage, which was completed in 1999. Kerry was then positioned to dip into the Beacon Hill mansion for a future attempt to be president.

In December of last year, Kerry's campaign treasury was empty and his candidacy going nowhere. He then loaned his campaign $6.4 million by mortgaging his one-half share of the Boston home. Without that, Kerry's presidential bid probably could not have been revived.

At the end of the "Meet the Press" interview, Russert noted that 1984 Democratic vice-presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro's husband first refused to release his tax returns -- adding to the furor over his alleged ethical problems -- before he succumbed to pressure and made public the information. Russert asked: Would Teresa Heinz Kerry finally release her tax returns?

"Well," said Kerry, "my wife is doing exactly what the law requires, I mean, we have laws in America, and the law requires that the candidate release their tax returns." He then launched into Senate-speak about "intrusive ethics forums." In fact, while the Federal Election Commission requires candidates to disclose their financial data, there is no mandate for tax returns.

Kerry had been thoroughly briefed by his staff for the Russert interview, but he went off on his own in addressing his wife's reluctance. Just why she is so reticent is a mystery, though it hardly could be concern about privacy considering the flood of personal publicity welcomed by the Kerrys. That excites curiosity about her charitable contributions (which are not reflected in official U.S. Senate financial disclosures). Release of Vice President Al Gore's tax returns in 1998 revealed an embarrassingly small charitable contribution of $353 on an income of $197,699.

Kerry aides shrug off as unimportant his incorrect statement that he was required to disclose tax returns but his wife was not. However, making up things in response to an unpleasant question can signal trouble ahead. Kerry's interview may have been smoother and more articulate than George W. Bush's press conference, but it planted seeds for the same credibility problems that trouble the president.
stratdewd
10:51:11 PM
4/22/04

It was more important for you, and they, to 'get Clinton' than to defend the country or anything else. That was obvious to everyone with half a brain. Do you think bin Laden considered those diversions a hindrance to his activities? Or not?


Maybe Ann Coulter and her fans were the Traitors, after all?
Tilt
11:07:25 PM
4/22/04

do you think bin laden wants Kerry or Bush to win?

please tell us all your honest anawer, no riddles, no insults...

bush or kerry?
stratdewd
11:10:17 PM
4/22/04

Hmmm.... Bush did exactly what bin Laden wanted him to when he invaded Iraq.... what bin Laden predicted he would do.

Or didn't you know that?

Just as a thought experiment, who do you think he would give more creedence to? A decorated war veteran or a guy who knew about baseball?

Sorry -- I gotta go with the NON-chickenhawk on this one.
Tilt
11:19:28 PM
4/22/04

so you honesstly think binladen would rather have kerry than bush?

or was that who YOU want to win?

he may have predicted bush would would invade(although i'd like to know how you cameup with that data) but you aCtually think he wanted bush to go into iraq?

tell us how oyu came to this conclusion....
stratdewd
11:25:42 PM
4/22/04

No --- He'd want Bush: somebody who'd do something else dumb. He waltzed right into the trap. Have you seen the news lately?

I heard that was what Bin Laden said on one of his famous tapes.... that the next thing the US would do is invade some oil-rich Islamic country. And that's just what the dufus did.
Tilt
11:56:03 PM
4/22/04

"``I don't own an SUV,'' said Kerry... ``The family has it. I don't have it...''

this is Kerry's biggest problem, not a right vs. left, or Dem vs. Repub. thing ---- this is "Senate" speak. Bush flubbing his lines is par for the course and everyone expects it, so it doesn't hurt him politically. I think people look at who Kerry is and will hold him to a higher standard, so things like this make him sound disingenous. I don't agree with Kerry politically, but Presidential elections really aren't decided on policy points. It's about straight forwardness, vision etc... Legislators get institutionalized to the body that they're in for a long time, and part of being a legislator is seeing the nuances in different policies, that kind of thinking (for better or worse) doesn't translate well to executive positions - Hence Governors get elected President more often then Senators and Congressmen Look at the last several Presidents - Bush (Governor), Clinton (Governor), Bush (VP... was a congressman, but many many years before becomning Pres.), Reagan (Governor), Carter(Governor), Ford (legislator but was never elected), Nixon(VP... but was Senator many many years before), Kennedy(Senator), Ike (General). You get the idea, one Senator. Kerry's handlers need to get on him to speak in more straightforward manner like an executive if he want to compete for the long haul.
bison
7:59:47 AM
4/23/04

Bush flubbing his lines is par for the course and everyone expects it, so it doesn't hurt him politically

bison
07:59:47 AM

But, he has held the top job in gov't for nearly the past four years. Just when can we start holding HIM to a higher standard?
Treebeard
8:08:36 AM
4/23/04

The thing is Tree that most voters understand what he means even though he doesn't say it well, they're used to his verbal gaffes and they can say "Oh, that's just George, but I know what he meant."

Kerry's problem is his style of speech, he doesn't make verbal gaffes, he speaks very well so what he says it taken literally.
bison
8:11:40 AM
4/23/04

bison - your last two posts are my two favs from you. I completely agree with you.

Good show!
laqtis
8:19:01 AM
4/23/04

I don't see that as a comfortable barometer of judging candidates, Bison. Pamper one, but not the other on public speaking? He's not articulate, but it's not his fault? The poor man can't help himself? Stop me if I am wrong, but this is what your reasoning tells me...
Treebeard
8:21:15 AM
4/23/04

Thank you Laqtis. As a political junkie you have to step back and take an objective look - not at policies etc... - but at the pure politics of it. And like it or not "politics" is a part of our system and some policy decisions, campaign decisions, speeches are just political... and we can argue forever over which are and aren't etc... but the point here is that I have no doubt that in a swing state Kerry would whoop Bush... In a Senate race. But he's gonna have this nuance problem in a Presidential race.
bison
8:25:22 AM
4/23/04

"Pamper one, but not the other on public speaking? He's not articulate, but it's not his fault? "

The point is that you have to get your message across. Bush manages to get his message through despite his verbal gaffes, the vg's are something people expect and are accustomed to so the message gets through.

Both the gaffes and the "Senate speak" are communication problems... but most voters are going to be more comfortable with the gaffes because they're made by a candidate speaking in an executive style. With the "Senate speak" the message gets lost.

I'm not making a judgement here of right or wrong, better or worse as far as the candidates ability to do the job (of course you know my views on that, and I know yours) I'm just trying out some political analysis.
bison
8:33:11 AM
4/23/04

Granted, Bison. But, I still don't buy the fact that Kerry (or anyone, for that matter) has to guard every single word he says (and a different level of scrutiny) than Bush does because he's held to a different standard. If he can get HIS message across, then why shouldn't he be granted the same latitude as the Hooked On Phonics dude gets?
Treebeard
8:37:52 AM
4/23/04

There is a real reason why Kerry has failed to get this far before in the past. The sad thing for me, is that Kerry gets my vote by default, not because I believe in his message fully. I don't want to vote Nader because that is just plain silly.

The way I'm looking at it, I really liked what I saw in Wes Clark's message. The only way that I see some of that message getting through, is to see a Dem elected. The reason for my feelings is simple. I don't think Dick and Rummy know what to do. I really believe they are "past there prime" and haven't a clue of what to do. My vote against Bush, in fact is a vote against Rummy and Dick. Bush is just collateral damage in this. He does get blame for putting the wrong people in place, so he gets -2 points on that, but I digress.....

The above is only one of a couple of reasons why I cannot and will not vote Bush. I'm not trying to turn this into a why we need Clark thingy, I've already got a thread on that. I just want to take an opp to go on the record as to my stance on my vote and why I don't want Bush in there.

Thanks to bison for bringing this up a notch or three.
laqtis
8:39:47 AM
4/23/04

Because the problem is that his message does not come across as well. It's a question of which problem causes the most trouble for them in the position they're running for and, frankly, most voters are gonna be more comfortable with "Food on your family." An obvious gaffe that doesn't take away from the meaning. Than they are with "I voted for it before I voted against it." Now having worked on the Hill I know what Kerry meant when he said that, but it doesn't fit into the style of speech that's needed, politically, to get elected President. In the voter's mind Bush makes a gaffe and he said something wrong, so what. When Kerry does "Senate speak" the voter thinks, wow think that guy's splitting hairs a little too thin?
bison
8:45:34 AM
4/23/04

Hey Tree - Think about it like this: Kerry being in the Senate, he has by default, a lot of issues he has to talk about, ie. voting record, expenses, etc. The record in Kerry's case is very long and I'm sure that even I could dig something outta there to burn him on. With that volume of past, there's bound to be something in there.

Also, going along with what bison was saying. Kerry has been a part of a "team" of people in Government. The advantage that a Governor has over a Senator in a race like this, is that a Governor has that "leader" type experiance. States in many ways, are like mini countries, therefore, Governors can apply there thinking, policy wise to the Presidency (easier than a Sentor that doesn't have that kind of experiance) it's just on the bigger scale, with other issues thrown in.
laqtis
8:46:39 AM
4/23/04

I see what you guys are saying and we are probably not exactly on the same page here. My fault, perhaps, for taking it there. Yeah, stands to reason because a governor doesn't deal (generally) in issues of national importance as the main thrust of his job. So, yeah, it makes it hard for a voter in Podunk, Iowa to determine whether the governor of New York did a good job for his state, for instance. That's understood. And, yes, Kerry has his work cut out for him. Frankly, the fact that he's even doing this well amazes me considering how badly the democratic party crippled itself in the past several years. The 2002 elections was one of the worst displays I have ever been embarassed enough to witness. It actully (holding down the bile rising to my throat) made me almost want to vote republican! l0l, j/k there. I actually have voted republican twice in recent years, believe it or not. Point is, 9/11 threw such a monkey wrench into the democratic agenda because it pushed domestic issues to the back burner and on such a low flame that they almost became irrelevant. At least for the time being. Richard Gephardt was a perfect example of a democrat that I would never vote for. He showed himself to be the spineless opportunist that he is, caring more about photo ops with Bush and jumping on the bi-partisanship bandwagon that was so friggin' PC for a few short months. Not that there is anything wrong with bi-partisanship, but it has to be because of a united front, not opportunism. BTW, are you at all curious as to the repubs i voted for? :)
Treebeard
8:59:59 AM
4/23/04

What I remember most about the 2002 election -

James Carville wearing a trashcan on his head.
bison
9:07:08 AM
4/23/04

James Carville is one wild dude!
Treebeard
9:08:25 AM
4/23/04

"James Carville"



those two words almost make me pull the Rep ticket lever.........but .....I....must....keep......focused......! :)
laqtis
9:09:41 AM
4/23/04

Ever see 'Primary Colors' with John Travolta. Billy Bob Thornton plays a character that is supposed to Carville and does it really well. Great film and great performance by Travolta as a fictional depiction of Clinton...
Treebeard
9:09:45 AM
4/23/04

Hey, the guy's a bit nuts, Q!
Treebeard
9:10:21 AM
4/23/04

They're kids (Matlin and Carville's) are gonna be schizoid.
bison
9:16:43 AM
4/23/04

It's a distinct possibility
Treebeard
9:17:30 AM
4/23/04

I loved Primary Colors. Great film, I laughed a bunch! Billy Bob should've won an award for roll.

Really, I can stomach him a little more than I could before. I looooveeee watching him on "Meet the Press", when they pair him up with his wife. You can tell she's the only one that can control his ass and put him in his place. Damn fine women, that Matlin is. Have you ever seen there kids? I swear one looks just like her and the other looks just like him. I'd love to hear the chatter in that household come Nov!!
laqtis
9:17:40 AM
4/23/04

I entered Laqtis' head and found this thought-

"now if only Mrs. Carville could control her boss (Cheney) like she control's her husband."
bison
9:19:45 AM
4/23/04

Is she still on "da Hill"?

FLMAO, BTW ! That a goot one!
laqtis
9:21:43 AM
4/23/04

"Yeah, like when they attacked Klinton for lying under oath and it turned out to be true? LOL!"
-- Nigal
03:04:21 PM
04/22/04


Sorry Mr. Selective Memory - the Senate acquitted Clinton on both counts, including the perjury charges. Nine Republican Senators broke ranks and voted against the pergury charge.

When right-wing attack dogs choke on their own medicine, they just make #&%!$ up.
ViOLiN
11:03:29 AM
4/23/04

Thats right, and both OJ and Robert Durst are innocent.

Both were acquitted
manuka
11:11:17 AM
4/23/04

Hey! O.J. said he is going to find Nicole's killer is hehas to search every golf course in the U.S.!
Treebeard
11:15:34 AM
4/23/04

Seriously, Manuka. It's hard to equate these situations with linton's when the standards of conviction are so different, such as the difference between a criminal and civil case. In a criminal case, you must be convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt". In a civil case, it is the 'preponderence of evidence' that determines guilt. Two different animals. In the case of an impeachment proceeding, I am not sure what the criteria is, but I am guessing that it is different...
Treebeard
11:25:19 AM
4/23/04

The Constitution does not specify any standard for impeachment, it's up to individual Senators to decide what their standard is.
Bison
11:31:23 AM
4/23/04

That's what I thought. And it's ludicrous to compare a murder trial to that. There is such a multitude of reasons that a person can be acquitted of murder. O.J. probably got off more because Gil Garcetti's office bungled that case worse than just about any you could think of...
Treebeard
11:33:55 AM
4/23/04

Seriously Treebeard, there is a difference between adultery and murder ... maybe not in Nigeria but certainly in the USA.
manuka
11:36:08 AM
4/23/04

This thread is way too civil. Let's see some fightin!

;)
Phaedrus
11:51:02 AM
4/23/04

Hey, we have to remind ourselves that civil discord in which the views of others are respected can exist on TT. But I guess you're right, we've been reminded so... Flame on.
Bison
11:54:28 AM
4/23/04

The Senators found Clinton innocent because they were afraid the country would riot, I suppose.
Tilt
11:55:58 AM
4/23/04

Dejavue
Phaedrus enters, civility leaves.
Miss Anne Thrope
11:56:50 AM
4/23/04

I notice you turned up at the same time bacpac.
Bison
11:57:27 AM
4/23/04

Pick your color, Phaedrus!
Treebeard
11:59:02 AM
4/23/04

Perhaps Bacpac/Miss Anne Thrope is the dark side of Phaedrus's split or multiple personalities ala Sybil Dorset

e pluribus unum
manuka
12:07:02 PM
4/23/04

anyways.....tilt...

binladen would vote for kerry.....here's why;


"If I were president, we would not be in Iraq today, we would
not be at war." --John F. Kerry on the campaign trail.
stratdewd
12:21:41 PM
4/23/04

E unum plura, perhaps?


No, Dewd. To have some chance of suceeding one must understand the enemy, his strategies and tactics. A less knowledgeable, less experienced enemy is almost always preferred.

For example: in desert warfare, would you rather go up against Saddam Hussein or Erwin Rommel?

What we have at the moment seems to be a great group of soldiers (though we could use more)... Metaphorically speaking, they are the body. But the head has gone missing.
Tilt
12:44:27 PM
4/23/04

Manuka, you're stepping over the line with that last comment. Any of my multiple personalities has more class than that loser
:)
Phaedrus
1:14:19 PM
4/23/04

Can I wish you a great weekend outdoors as a small gesture of atonement :^)
manuka
1:37:46 PM
4/23/04

ok tilt, so bin laden agrees with you on who our next president should be. i suppose that's a good reason to vote for kerry.....

a vote for kerry is a vote for osama....

BRILLIANT!!!!!
stratdewd
1:41:40 PM
4/23/04

I think you need to buy a dictionary.
Tilt
1:42:58 PM
4/23/04

can't.....the liberals have overtaxed me, therefore i can't afford one....
stratdewd
1:51:39 PM
4/23/04

OP-ED: Al Qaeda will want Bush back —Muqtedar Khan Daily Times

As we approach November, Bin Laden and his associates will increase the frequency and intensity of their attacks to ensure that George W Bush Wins. Al Qaeda will be determined to make security a bigger issue than economy.

Most recently we have seen two examples of Al Qaeda’s political acumen. Their attack in Spain was so well timed that it swung the elections in favour of the anti-war socialist party.

The second instance of Al Qaeda’s political smarts is the recent incessant attacks against soft targets in Iraq and on American troops to underscore the absence of security and stability in Iraq. It probably prevented President George W Bush from having another ‘top gun’ electoral campaign moment on the anniversary of the Iraq invasion.

These attacks have sent the message to the world that America’s invasion of Iraq has increased terrorism not decreased it. Instead of making the world a safer place, America has now endangered its allies as the attacks on Spain and Turkey suggest.

Al Qaeda not only seems to understand the nature of politics and media in democratic societies but also knows how to work the system to gain strategic advantages.

It would be naïve to assume that Al Qaeda will not vote in the coming American elections in November 2004. The issue that we must ponder is how it’s going to cast its ballot? To understand how Al Qaeda will vote, we must try to figure out whom it will prefer in the White House, Bush or Kerry?

If John Kerry wins in November he will probably make the following changes in American foreign policy:

1. He will roll back American unilateralism and seek more international cooperation from Europe, South Asia, Middle East and the UN. Instead of a coalition of the coerced, Kerry will seek a truly international coalition. Coalitions built through a multilateral process will present fewer fissures in the anti-terror campaign for Al Qaeda to exploit.

2. Most probably John Kerry will be interested in reducing rather than expanding the scope and objectives of counter-terrorism. Neocon goals such as reshaping the Middle East, reforming Islam, reconstituting the United States defence doctrines and redefining old Europe, will be abandoned and under Kerry the US will concentrate more on eliminating Al Qaeda and associates than anything else.

3. Much of soft anti-Americanism worldwide is a result of anti-Bushism. Regardless of what Americans think, most of the world finds President Bush uncouth, obnoxious, arrogant, crude and a bully. His defeat itself will reduce anti-Americanism globally and will increase American prospects for victory in this war on terror.

Will Al Qaeda be happy with these developments? I doubt it. Anti-Bushism has helped them divide the world and the growing anger in the Muslim world as a result of George Bush’s policies has helped them gain recruits, clones and support. If Bush loses in November they will lose an important asset. Al Qaeda will become the sole target of US energies and surely that must be a disturbing thought to even those who relish the idea of dying while fighting America.

If George W Bush wins in spite of a terrible economy and millions of job losses:

1. He might interpret the victory as an endorsement of his anti-terror strategy and probably continue to expand the scope and objectives of his war on terror. Perhaps regime changes in Iran, Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia may be back on the ‘to do’ list. It is possible that Spain may also figure on the list of regime changes.

2. It is also possible that many European and Middle Eastern states may stop cooperating with the US. Already many nations resent President Bush’s policies and style, they may begin to actively oppose his global agenda. The easiest way to do so is to withdraw from the coalition and call for more UN participation. We might see more and more nations following Spain’s example and disengaging from the American bandwagon.

All of the above will help Al Qaeda pursue its strategic goals: undermine the West, hurt Americans and American interests, destabilise politics and economies in South Asia and the Middle East and cement the growing cleavages between the US and Europe and the US and the Muslim World.

It is in Al Qaeda’s interest that President Bush stays in the White House. Thus at the moment they are anti-American but Pro-Bush. Come November they will vote for Bush. How you may ask?

Fear is the key. If the American voters feel reasonably secure on the terrorism issue then they will focus on economy, unemployment and on cultural issues such as the gay marriage controversy.

If at the time of the elections the priorities of American voters are:

(1) Economy, (2) Culture, and then (3) Security, or

(1)Economy, (2) Security and (3) Culture, John Kerry will probably win.



However if by November the voter is either thinking:

(1) Security, (2) Culture and then (3) Economy, Bush will win with a landslide and if the voter is thinking:

(1) Security, (2) Economy and (3) Culture, Bush may win narrowly.



Al Qaeda can make security a more pressing issue than economy by increasing their activities and even by targeting America again. Karl Rove, the president’s political guru will probably work to ensure that culture continues to figure in the American voter’s mind.

But if Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri are both arrested/killed soon, then security will be out of the reckoning and Kerry will win unless new jobs are created in hurry.

As we approach November, Bin Laden and his associates will increase the frequency and intensity of their attacks to ensure that George W Bush Wins. Al Qaeda will be determined to make security a bigger issue than economy so the worse the economy gets the worse terrorism we are likely to see.

Dr. Muqtedar Khan is a Non-resident fellow at Brookings Institution. He is also the Chair, Political Science, at Adrian College in Michigan. He is the author of American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom (Amana, 2002)
viOLin
1:52:40 PM
4/23/04

Jump to Page   << prev   |  1   |  2   |  3   |  4   |  5   |  6   |  7   |  8   |  9   |  10   |  11   |  12   |  13   |  14   |  15  |  16   |  17   |  18   |  19   |  20   |  21   |  22   |  23   |  24   |  25   |  26   |  27   |  28   |  29   |  30   |  31   |  32   |  33   |  34   |  35   |  36   |  37   |  38   |  39   |  40   |  41   |  next >>
<< back to Trail Talk main page

 

Post a Message

In order to post a response to this thread you must first be logged in. If you do not already have an account, you must first create a new account.

 

Login Form

Username:
Password:

 

 

Post a New Thread
Search Threads
Browse Archive

Create a New Account

Trail Talk Main Page