Allison makes a point here about how most people who are "for" Kerry seem to be mostly about being against Bush. Which, I suppose, is as legitimate a stance as anything, but I wish someone could make a list of what Kerry has done with the opportunities he's had in Congress that would make me believe in him or think he had introduced legislature of a significant value to -- if not us all -- at least his constituents. And so far, I haven't really seen that. (I have seen campaign promises... I'm really talking more about actual actions, stances the man has taken.)
Posted by toni at April 17, 2004 07:01 PMSince he appears to have not changed since his Dick Cavett debate with John O'Neill or his perjured (sp?) "testimony" in the 70's, I would be very afraid if he were in the position of president.
Of course, the last time that a Bush was trusted was the one that spoke to Moses in the dessert and that turned out well.
Amanda, that's it - it scares me that there are no other choices (real choices), that it's already decided for Kerry. I think we'll be exchanging one problem for another.
Sabba -- that cracked me up! Thanks for the chuckle this morning.
Posted by: toni at April 18, 2004 10:43 AMI'm from one of those states that had early primaries and I initially supported a different candidate...so Kerry winning the nomination wasn't my first choice, but now that he will be the nominee, I've taken a closer look and I'm perfectly satisfied with him as a candidate. I used to say "Anybody But Bush" but that isn't true...I wouldn't vote for Ralph Nader...I wouldn't vote for Al Sharpton and I'd have an extremely hard time voting for Kucinich.
I'm afraid that what I'm seeing here and in in the comments is the effect of 50 million dollars of negative ads. It's too bad that the person defining John Kerry for most of us is Karl Rove and the rest of the Bush machinery.
Posted by: Rachel at April 18, 2004 01:53 PMYou're probably right, about the negative ads...though I have avoided them where possible. I think my problem is more that the Dems really need to get out a message as to what Kerry is about, what he is for, rather than focus on "not-Bush" so much. Meaning -- I think a huge section of the vote is very unhappy with Bush, but they're afraid to make the leap just to be "not-Bush" -- they'd rather feel that their knew what their vote was for. I'm sure Kerry is for specific things, but I don't think that part of his message is getting out.
Posted by: toni at April 18, 2004 02:01 PMI am not an "anybody but Bush" voter. I don't like him or the people around him, but I wouldn't just vote for "anybody" but him.
But I'm voting for John Kerry.
The main complaint I hear about him is that actually he's too much like Bush. I don't think it's reasonable to say "what has he done; I can't vote for him if I don't see a laundry list of his accomplishments," if you voted for Bush, since he certainly didn't have any laundry list of accomplishments.
Because as of today? I have seen what Bush has done as president, and I've seen what Cheney has done as Vice President, and I've seen what Ashcroft has done as Attorney General, and I only have one word.
"Next!"
Posted by: pooks at April 18, 2004 09:31 PMIf you can see the absolute numbers of Democrats voting in the state primaries before Kerry won the nomination, you will see very low numbers, not this united ground swell of democratic support to get out the vote as reported. Not only couldn’t Kerry get out the vote, but neither could Kerry, Dean, and Edwards together. At this point, it’s over for Kerry before it began. But, this is politics afterall.
Posted by: corey at April 18, 2004 09:39 PM