It's like, "Hey, everyone HAS to support Kerry, even though he stands for nothing and voted for the war, because he has the broadest appeal, and you're traitorous swine if you don't stop the Bush fascists by voting for Kerry! Because he's gonna win the nomination, and it's anybody but Bush!"

Is John Kerry really the Democrats' best choice to take this on? We should choose Kerry not because we like him but because we think other people like him, which we think because other people are choosing him because they think other people like him. How solid will that support be when it is tested?

[ 09 February 2004: Message edited by: rasmus raven ]

Kerry might have voted for the war but at least he didn't start it and is against it now. Kerry was also on the Exec. of VVAW. So he's a bit of a johnny come lately but at least he seems credible. Today I read about his wife who is the heinz ketchup heiress with a half billion dollars and says words like shit. They might still get something on him but it doesn't look like it.

As for sanctimony, the left should be careful. Is there a difference between not showing up for a war because you're against it or not showing up because you were partying too much? The left should steer clear of taking issue with Bush's military record if it wants to be a credible voice in support of those resisters/awols/etc will need a lot of help. If Bush wins, that will be exacerbated greatly with ripples here in Canada.

I do agree Michelle that the stakes are extremely high. Just look at how much has changed since 2000. I don't want to believe that the Democrats would pursue the same policies as Bush. I would take that risk. Unfortunately the Democrats are the only other game in town for this election. We saw how close and controversial the last election was.

[ 08 February 2004: Message edited by: Non-partisan partisan ]

I feel like shaking some of the people I've read who are saying that. Damn it, grow a spine, vote for who you really like, even if he's going to lose, if that's who represents your views the best. Hell, vote for Dean, despite the rebel yell if that's who you like best. It's the primaries! People aren't voting for the left-wing guys because they think they can't win? Well Jesus yes they can't win if you don't VOTE for them.

What is the point of the primaries if you're not going to vote for the person who best represents your views? Why vote strategically when they're all Democrats, and when you know that you're going to have the real election in which to support whichever person becomes the nominee even if they're not your choice? Am I missing something?

Here's what Tom Delay had to say about Kerry's military record two years ago: CNN interview Is Kerry a hawk?

These environmental voting records and pro choice voting records don't look too bad.

On the hawkish side, he does seem to support the the national missile defense program. Here's more of his defense voting record.

[ 09 February 2004: Message edited by: Non-partisan partisan ]

quote:

---

If we had had the leadership of a George W. Bush back in the Vietnam War days, we probably would not have lost that war. We would have gone in and won it.

---

quote:

---

The preceding post was brought to you by Overexplained Jokes International, a public service dedicated to the elucidation of sarcasm and irony for the humour impaired.

---

Good one. babble should incorporate this statement into the place where we click on smileys and instant formatting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
The preceding post was brought to you by Overexplained Jokes International, a public service dedicated to the elucidation of sarcasm and irony for the humour impaired.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
Oh, OK, now I'm guessing who a certain Kossack is. Once I came back to this thread, it became really obvious.

---

Personally, I think Kerry reflect my views much more closely than Bush. Those views are mostly right-wing by Canadian standards, though.

...which may actually be a pretty good one for Canadian Kossacks.