Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Good read on what a disaster Frankenkerry would be

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,979
    Post Thanks / Like
    John Kerry Cannot Win

    July 9, 2004
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    by Frank Salvato
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I have always been upfront and honest in my opinions. Lord knows I don’t shy away from controversy or confrontation. That being said, I don’t believe that anyone who harbors a “Bush-hater’s” attitude will either enjoy or agree with my words today. This is due to the effects tunnel vision has when one has been mesmerized by the bias of the media. In days passed the uni-vision of a “Bush-hater” would have classified them as a “one trick pony,” someone who was so focused on one issue that the bigger picture was lost to them. Today the terminology is different…”Bush-hater” I believe is the politically correct term.

    For the good of the country John Kerry’s quest for the White House should remain just that, a quest, a candidacy. Those words may sound harsh but if one simply looks at the facts of the matter; his voting record, his campaign stances, his proposals for the future and his past actions, it is clear to see that a Kerry presidency would be a complete disaster for this country.

    For the record, I am not a hater of anyone, well maybe the miscreants at MoveOn.org but I digress. I admit, I am a life-long Republican with conviction toward the traditional. But, contrary to those on the Radical-Right there are some Democrats I enjoy very much. Evan Bayh of Indiana and Zell Miller of Georgia; we are truly going to miss his voice of reason in the US Senate, are the first two that come to mind. I enjoy them because they are moderates. They understand that in politics you enter the arena with an idea and work to find the middle ground with those who have ideas contrary to your own. In the end a piece of legislation that addresses the initial issue most often is produced because flexibility, compromise and the arts of negotiation and debate were used to achieve what is usually to the benefit of the American people.

    John Kerry’s ability to work with others in the political arena has led to him being instrumental in a whopping eight pieces of legislation. Of those eight, five were ceremonial in nature, two related to the fishing industry and one had to do with federal grants for female owned small businesses. For someone who has been in the Senate as long as Kerry this record proves one of two things, he is either completely ineffective as a legislator or his agenda is so far from the mainstream that even his Democratic colleagues can’t in all honesty vote for the bills he proposes. Either way, his past political productivity is such that it would be hard to imagine him getting any “tight vote” legislation passed on Capitol Hill. In contrast we have seen President Bush do this on several occasions…successfully.

    Throughout the 2004 presidential campaign the country has seen John Kerry take both sides on a plethora of issues. While this may have been an effective campaign tactic when local media coverage was the only media coverage, we now live in the world of 24-hour news and embedded media correspondents. Two of the most glaring examples of John Kerry’s need to say everything to all people are: a) his contention that he owned SUV’s while talking to a crowd dominated by auto union people in the Detroit area and his rejection of that contention when talking to a conservation group, and B) his recent declaration that life begins at conception in the face of his “no vote” on the partial-birth abortion ban.

    The list of issues his two faces address is shockingly in-depth: trade with China, the Iraq war, eliminating the marriage penalty for the middle class, the Patriot Act, the gay marriage issue, the death penalty for terrorists, the No Child Left Behind Act, affirmative action, ethanol, sanctions on Cuba, NAFTA, double taxation on dividends and two of the biggest and most important, raising taxes on small business and individuals during a time of needed economic growth. Simply put, it would be extremely difficult to take John Kerry at his word no matter what he says he supports because he is playing the political pandering game. He is saying everything to all people simply to get elected. He would be, to use a rough analogy, a potluck president. By contrast President Bush has shown true conviction even in the face of the attack-dog mentality displayed by the media and the Liberal-Left, to his detriment many times.

    Then we have Kerry’s proposals for the future. Almost every economist worth the title has looked at Kerry’s economic proposals with a raised eyebrow. Two of the more worrisome elements of Kerry’s economic prescription for disaster include his unrealistic depiction of how an upper-class tax hike would affect our deficit and what the total sum of his social programs would cost.

    First, Kerry has repeatedly said he favors the Bush tax cuts for “working class” Americans but has insisted that if elected he would eliminate any relief for the upper-most tax bracket or the "very wealthy." The reality of the matter is the tax rate cuts for the "very wealthy" have only accounted for a miniscule portion of the deficit and, if rescinded, will reduce future deficits by a scant three-tenths of one percent of gross domestic product. In other words, it sounds good on paper but doesn’t really do much.

    Second, a report by the National Taxpayers Union exposes how Kerry’s newly proposed federal government spending would add more than $265 billion to the federal budget each year. Now, where do you think the funding for these programs is going to come from? You have a choice, it is either higher deficits or what Hillary Clinton proposed doing in a recent speech in California, raising taxes.

    But perhaps the single most important issue in the 2004 election, national security and the War on Terror, has Kerry at his weakest.

    In the shadow of the United Nations Oil-for-Food scandal and their dismal reaction to the genocide currently taking place in Sudan, Kerry is still calling for the United States to court the “international community – what he really means is France, Germany and Russia – to help in rebuilding and securing Iraq. This statement of intent to include these three governments meets with two obvious flaws: 1) They don’t want to send any of their own troops and they are standing in the way of NATO doing the same and 2) including these governments after they have been exposed as colluding with Saddam Hussein to embezzle from the Iraqi people would be tantamount to inviting the fox into the hen house. It is a recipe for disaster.

    With regard to the War on Terror, Kerry is guilty of playing politics with an issue that sees an enemy who has literally declared war on the United State. He would rather do the dance at the corrupt alter of the United Nations, acquiescing to countries that voted against removing a man from power who commits genocide while perpetrating narcissistic financial misdeeds. He and his surrogates have misled the American people on the issues that brought us to remove Hussein from power by focusing on one issue out of many. His intentions are disingenuous and should there be another attack on American soil the magnitude of September 11th, he and his surrogates will have to shoulder their share of the guilt due to their short-sighted, ideological agenda, an agenda that forces the sovereignty of the United States, her very right to defend herself, to bend to the will of the international community no matter how manipulated and slanted against the United States.

    The people that served with Kerry in Vietnam – you did know that he served in Vietnam, right? – perhaps said it best. Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann, USN (retired), Commander of Coastal Surveillance Force Vietnam said, “… I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust…” This statement comes from those Kerry calls his “band of brothers.”

    A Kerry presidency would be a disaster for the United States of America. Allowing this man to attain the highest office in the land, the ability to command our troops, the stewardship of our economy and the ability to appoint individuals to the Supreme Court would be the biggest mistake the voters of this country has ever made. John Kerry cannot win. Our well-being as a nation depends on it.

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,844
    Post Thanks / Like
    Kerry's not bailing on his Mass. Senator position.

    What does that tell us Kerry himself thinks about his own chance of winning?

  3. #3
    Tom The Nader Fan™
    Guest
    [quote][i]Originally posted by pope[/i]@Jul 9 2004, 04:32 PM
    [b] John Kerry’s ability to work with others in the political arena has led to him being instrumental in a whopping eight pieces of legislation. Of those eight, five were ceremonial in nature, two related to the fishing industry and one had to do with federal grants for female owned small businesses. For someone who has been in the Senate as long as Kerry this record proves one of two things, he is either completely ineffective as a legislator or his agenda is so far from the mainstream that even his Democratic colleagues can’t in all honesty vote for the bills he proposes. [/b][/quote]
    Ha ha ha!

    What a clown! So's Johnny Slip and Fall:


    Kerry said before the war that Saddam had to accept "rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise" (he didn't), or face "enforcement" (he did). John Edwards was even more forthright. Liberal critics have accused Bush of calling Iraq an "imminent" threat -- in their minds, the ultimate in dishonest exaggeration -- but that word never passed Bush's lips. Edwards, in contrast, used it multiple times in reference to Iraq.
    John "Imminent" Edwards now has forgotten his earlier alarmism. "When John Kerry is president of the United States," he said the other day, "no young American will ever go to war needlessly because America has decided to go it alone." How does a war against an "imminent" threat suddenly become "needless"? And again, why would Edwards, together with Kerry, vote to authorize such a "needless" war?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us