Is there a positive (not anti-Bush) reason to vote for Kerry?

Yeah, yeah, you all hate Bush and will vote against him. But is there a positive reason to vote for Kerry? Surely his service in Vietnam 40 years ago is not a sufficient qualification. And he is embarrassed by his 20 years in Congress and does not want to discuss it. He has never been a leader and is best described as dead weight. He has never introduced even a single important new initiative. No Kerry bill to save Social Security, nor health care, nor medicare, nothing. When votes come up he is usually Missing-In-Action. He has served on the Senate intelligence committee for many years, but even since the first attack on the WTC he has missed most meetings, and voted to drastically cut intelligence spending. But what other qualification could Kerry have?

Well, I don't hate Bush. But I would decide to vote for Kerry in a second if he would unequivocally support gay and lesbian marriage. But like so many other things, he seems to want this issue to cut both ways for him, so he hedges. From a website called Lesbian Life, this quote on his position:

"Same-Sex Marriage: Kerry initially said he does not support same-sex marriage, but supports civil unions. Kerry admitted to the Boston Globe that he is against a US Constitutional ban on gay marriage, but would support a Massachusetts ban, if it allows for civil unions."

Source: http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/workschool/p/JohnKerry.htm

I know Kerry's position is better than Bush's, and I am happy that Cheney has put some daylight between himself and W. As far as I know, nothing has been heard from Edwards on the subject. In the real world of political calculation I will probably go for Kerry, but, really, I don't like having my human rights bargained over for political gain by Kerry any more than by Bush. Negotiable human rights are a contradiction in terms. Dukakis was pilloried for his stand on capital punishment, and it lost him votes, but he is a better man to my mind for having stood for his convictions.

If you care about gay rights, you have no choice but to vote for Kerry, since Bush will install radical far-right-wing Supreme Court justices who will not respect civil rights at all.

>If you care about gay rights, you have no choice but to vote

>for Kerry, since Bush will install radical far-right-wing

>Supreme Court justices who will not respect civil rights at

>all.

The job of Supreme Court justices isn't to "respect civil rights." The job of Supreme Court justices is to strike down laws which the U.S. Constitution prohibits.

If the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to strike down a bad law that is NOT prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, then the Supreme Court has acted properly - EVEN IF the law that they upheld abridges "civil rights."

Conversely, if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down a bad law that is NOT prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, then the Supreme Court has acted improperly and anti-democratically - EVEN IF the law that they struck down abridges "civil rights."

To say that someone who cares about gay rights has no choice but to vote for Kerry because of the Supreme Court issue really reveals a warped - and dangerous - perspective.

In case you haven't heard, we live in a democracy, not a judicial dicatorship. That means that it is the people and their elected representatives, not judges, who enact laws. If gay people convince their fellow citizens that "gay rights" should be legally protected - as they SHOULD have to do in a democracy and as they have made great strides in doing - then it doesn't really fucking matter who is on the Supreme Court in terms of "gay rights."

The belief - shared by you and so many people of your ideological stripe - that the U.S. Supreme Court exists to enact laws which you like but which you can't convince a majority of citizens to enact is one of the most anti-democratic and odious attributes of liberalism - and that's saying something.

>The belief - shared by you and so many people of your

>ideological stripe -

LOL!!! My ideological "stripe"? That's too adorable. :+

since the democrats in the senate demand a 60 vote requirement for judges, bush will have to temper and far right judges and go more to the middle to get them through. many republician appointed judges have turned out to be exactly that: middle of the road (or even to the left). think sandra day o'connor or judge souter of the current justices or even earl warren from the recent past.

Still no reason to vote for Kerry?

>Still no reason to vote for Kerry?

Healthcare, national security, the economy, jobs, the environment, education, energy independence, stem-cell research...it's all at http://www.johnkerry.com. Go read his positions; all the reasons are there.

But you can't read his positions without joining. No way Jose.

>But is there a positive reason to vote for Kerry?

For those involved in personality-cult politics, probably not. You're just in the middle of a dry spell between a couple of actors (Reagan and Schwarzenegger). Politics used to be about platforms and policies, but now it has been dumbed-down so the reality-show viewers can relate to it.

Was there a positive reason to vote for Jefferson? Ask Sally Hemings. Was there a positive reason to vote for Lincoln? Most white male Americans voted against him, and entire states seceded rather than recognize his leadership. Theodore Roosevelt? Talked conservation out of one side of his mouth, but killed endangered wildlife for the sport of it, whenever he could. Franklin Roosevelt? He was about as clueless on Pearl Harbor, as Blood-on-his-hands Bush was about September 11. He had a great time with his mistress on the White House payroll, though.

Discussion of ideas and issues doesn't sell soap or Viagra, so you won't expect to find it on Shout Radio or 700 Club Television. It's just a matter of time before we start choosing our President the old fashioned way -- arm wrestling.

>But you can't read his positions without joining. No way

>Jose.

Huh? You're confusing Kerry with Bush, who won't let anyone attend one of his campaign rallies unless they sign a pledge to support him first. On Kerry's website, there is a menu at the left with all of the topics to click on. There is nothing to "join" to read the information.

Justice Santorum

merlin knwos that, Rick. He's just a Swift Boat Vet following the script.

Still no positive reason reason to vote for Kerry? [Justice Santorum is an anti-Bush reason; a negative reason].

Rick baby,

The more I read, the more I love you. Will you marry me? :+

You are indeed my kind of guy. I know if we lived in the same city we would have been good friends.

RE: A positive reason to vote for Kerry

Merlin, here is a positive reason: He is not George W. Bush.

There are many areas in which the Bush presidency has offended, gay rights not the least of them. But for the moment, I am more concerned with Bush's record internatioal issues. Kerry strikes me as a rather useless political doctor, who at least stands by the Hippocratic Oath. If he cannot help, at least he'll try to do no harm. Which, for the next four years, may be the best that America the Paranoid

is capable of.

Trix

Don't even THINK that

Now I won't be able to sleep for weeks...

>Rick baby,

>

>The more I read, the more I love you. Will you marry me? :+

Derek said that you can have me but that you should know I am high maintenance. I'm not sure what he means by that; I would ask him, but he's busy peeling grapes for my bedtime snack.

>You are indeed my kind of guy. I know if we lived in the same

>city we would have been good friends.

If you can peel grapes, we'd definitely be good friends. :9 Seriously, what a sweet thing to say. I ought to let you know when we're down in Florida again.

So if I read the political platitudes disseminated on johnkerry.com, the clouds will part, the angels will sing, and the scales will fall from my eyes? I'm expected to swallow -- hook, line, and sinker -- such feeble propaganda and see Senator Kerry for the towering political giant that desperate Dems proclaim him to be? You gotta be kiddin' me.

Kerry's record tells me all I need to know. In his political career, I just don't see a track record of courage, leadership, or perseverance. If the senator's record were a point of pride, he would be talking a whole lot more about his decades in the senate and a lot less, if at all, about his four months in Vietnam.

I think that Dems were so blinded by their rancor for Bush that they nominated not the best candidate, but the candidate who got the most check marks: Ivy League graduate? check! military veteran? check! war hero? check! pro-abortion? check! nice hair? check! Unfortunately for the Dems, check marks do not a strong candidate make.

Yes, I am a Republican, but I keep an open mind. I voted for Bill Clinton twice, and do not regret either vote a bit. If Kerry showed me more, hell, if Kerry showed me ANYTHING, I would give him a chance. But the senator has showed me nothing, not one single compelling reason to vote for him. And sorry, but his "against the gay marriage amendment but favor civil unions but not on a federal level but states should be make their own laws but OK with the Mass. Supreme Court's 4 to 3 verdict but didn't support gay marriage in Massachusets" stand doesn't give Kerry any edge whatsoever over Bush.

>So if I read the political platitudes disseminated on

>johnkerry.com, the clouds will part, the angels will sing, and

>the scales will fall from my eyes?

No, you will become educated as to what Kerry stands for and what he has planned for a Kerry administration.

>Yes, I am a Republican, but I keep an open mind.

Obviously not, or you would take the time to go to his site and read his stances on important issues. You refuse to even read what he has to say, and you call that an open mind?

There is a way to skip putting personal information just click the link at the bottom of the screen. You can also download the Kerry plan at the site.

Having just read the information on the site I haven't seen anything yet that I would post as an answer to the origanal poster. But I'm still reading the download.

Raise the minimum wage? shrug

Jeff

>Justice Santorum

Or for that matter, Justice Ashcroft!

>Yeah, yeah, you all hate Bush and will vote against him. But

>is there a positive reason to vote for Kerry? Surely his

>service in Vietnam 40 years ago is not a sufficient

>qualification. And he is embarrassed by his 20 years in

>Congress and does not want to discuss it. He has never been a

>leader and is best described as dead weight. He has never

>introduced even a single important new initiative. No Kerry

>bill to save Social Security, nor health care, nor medicare,

>nothing. When votes come up he is usually Missing-In-Action.

>He has served on the Senate intelligence committee for many

>years, but even since the first attack on the WTC he has

>missed most meetings, and voted to drastically cut

>intelligence spending. But what other qualification could

>Kerry have?

There are over 1000 American Military and Civilians plus around 30,000 innocent Iraqis now DEAD, and the reason...Please tell me. And dont give me the Bush Spin : Saddam was evil, the head of another country has absolutly nothing to do with you or any American unless there is 100% proof that he is a threat to our nation. Iraq had been under sanctions for over 10 years barely had an air force that could fly more than 1000 miles, we have seen no sign of the alledged highly skilled Republican Guard and the Weapons of Mass Distruction were pure PR fantasy. No Country has any right to invade another premtively STOP.

Not positive reasons for Kerry.

>Surely his

>service in Vietnam 40 years ago is not a sufficient

>qualification.

In these very scary times, Kerry's record in Vietnam is very important. He has shown courage, patriotism and honor in how he handled himself at a very young age.

As a man who has been on the front line, he is far more likely to handle the middle east situation much better than Bush.

Kerry would also have no trouble identifying and capturing the real threat to national Security, Bin Laddin.

And one more thing, Kerry would not have sent a single soldier in harm's way until he had concrete evidence of real and serious danger.