The support for Kerry keeps pouring in.
Resurrection Song linked to it first.
May 19, 2004 6:53 PMbrian...when are you going to talk about the ISSUES?
why do you support Bush? what is it about Kerry's POLICIES that makes you not like him?
all i've heard you and a lot of other conservatives say about Kerry is that he's a flip-flopper or other stuff related to his CHARACTER. i haven't heard you say a darn thing about his health care plan, his plan for Iraq, his college plan, etc. nor have i heard you espouse any reasons why you like Bush's POLICIES.
brian, you're far too intelligent to turn political discussions into interactions worthy of two seventh-graders at recess. i see some of the stuff you write about faith and God and its great stuff, the product of a gifted mind. but then i see you taking potshots at kerry...look, i like very few people in the Bush Administration, but you don't see me blogging with infantile, churlish attacks based on the personality of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz (sp?), etc. when i criticize them, i criticize their POLICY DECISIONS based on the war, education, etc.
i base my vote on policies, not personalities. we're not voting for the guy we want to invite to the church picnic or invite over for beer and football on sunday afternoon. we're voting for the leader of the free world here dude, and as such, we need to make a rational, nuanced decision.
Posted by: joseph j. fell at May 20, 2004 9:33 PMGood to hear from you, Joseph. Seriously. Thank you for your very kind words about my commentary contained at Spare Change.
You are completely right, in that I do like to take potshots at Kerry. He is so eminently potshottable.
Why don't I spend more time on Kerry's issues? To answer the question with a question, how can I when he doesn't stay in the camp of one issue long enough to actually be identified with it?
There are some exceptions to this, of course. He has been faithfully committed to high taxes. He has been a staunch advocate for abortion (despite a flipflop from the early 70s). And he has been consistently critical of President Bush, regardless of what Bush has done, and in a way that is at best slanderous and at worst treacherous. And believe me, I use that latter term with deliberate specificity, in light of Kerry's anti-American conduct since returning from Vietnam.
You ask why am I not more specific about Kerry's stand on issues. Really -- honestly -- its because John Kerry's consistent stump speech is something akin to this: "I'm here to talk about my vision for America....George Bush doesn't have a record to stand on...he only has a record to run from. Back when I was in Vietnam..." He might as well say..."You want my stand? I am anti-Bush...in everything." at least that would make it easy...and really, it is that easy. American's have not had such a clear choice as they do in 2004. I think that's what is going to make the election so interesting, because we'll see by the results the true makeup of the American identity.
For me, and millions of others, character is inseperable from policy. It is impossible for me to have any faith in Kerry's policies when he has demonstrated virtually no moral core, little consistency of character...all while presenting himself as a condescending, smugly superior aristocrat. And in those rare occasions where he does throw out policy ideas, I'm simply amazed that he isn't laughed off the stage. For example...his notion that every student should have the right to a college education, funded by the people, in exchange for years of service. This idea is pollyannish in its conception would be imprudent in its expense and socialist in its execution. The "issue" for me in this regard is that I am philosophically, fundamentally opposed to the faulty logic that says everyone has this "right" and its the obligation of everyone else to pay for it.
I oppose Kerry on his appeasement strategy for the war, on his advocacy to continue the murder of the preborn, on his liberal interpretation of the consitution, on his duplicitous standard on taxation, energy, and outsourcing. These are all issues, but they are also reflective of an amazing lack of character.
You know, even though Kucinich's ideas were more left than Kerry's (at least publicly), I have to give it to you for initially supporting a candidate who actually believed in what he was saying -- for everyone. It was a twin shame that what he believed in was so radically bad for America, and that he wantonly damaged his own legitimacy by pimping himself during the presidential campaign to find a girlfriend.
Back to Kerry and on the other hand, Bush has shown moral clarity throughout this tumult. I think the biggest weakness he has allowed himself to perpetrate is to be accomodating to the liberal/pc-concerned wonks that have had his ear as the war progresses. I haven't agreed with President Bush on everything -- I don't agree with his liberal education concessions (which I believe he made in naive good faith with ChappaTeddy, only to be burned), and I certainly am in disagreement with his prescription drug plan for seniors. I also don't believe his immigration policy is in the best interest of Americans.
I am however completely in agreement with Bush's policies regarding the war, regarding taxation and economy, and his support for the traditional family model (though I'm opposed to a constitutional ammendment) and the right to life for the preborn.
With my stand on the issues clearly revealing why I support Bush and not Kerry, I will likely continue poking fun at this man whose candidacy is worthy of social ridicule, revealing homorous jabs, occasionally snarky commentary, and outright opposition. Part of who I am is someone who takes God very seriously, America very seriously, but myself not, and certainly not those who have an elevated sense of self-importance.
I really do respect your conviction, Joseph. I just don't think your candidate has it himself, which is unfortunate given the job he's seeking us to give him.
Posted by: Bryan at May 21, 2004 9:58 AM(This comment was edited to correct an error in the posting of it, not to change content -- Bryan)
well, thank you for both clarifying your stance on the issues and for the kind words regarding my support of kucinich. i don't know whatever happened to the Sophorist, but he more or less said the same thing regarding having a lot of respect for my support of kucinich (but not kucinich's policies)
regarding kerry's education plan, i happen to like it quite a bit. i think it's a great idea, and not only will it show the value of community service to thousands of youths, but it will also make it possible for more people to go to college. i'm troubled by the reasons you give for your dislike of this wonderful plan. first of all, just because something is Socialist doesn't mean that it's automatically bad. come on Brian, are you a descendent of Joseph McCarthy or something? so what if it's Socialist; if it makes it possible for more people to get a college education, i'm for it. also, why don't you think it's the "right" of everyone to have the opportunity to have a decent college education? come on brian, the level of education one receives shouldn't be determined by the amount of money one has. besides, come on dude, you're a Christian, whatever happened to the entire concept of using one's blessings to benefit the less fortunate that Jesus calls his followers to do in the Bible? so many of us in America have been blessed with money, wealth, resources, knowledge, and time--don't you think it's our moral responsibility to help others who are less fortunate? i fail to see why you have such a problem helping the poor and needy in america.
i'm not even going to get sidetracked on kerry's desire to allow women to have reproductive choice. you can say what you want about kerry in this area, and i'm going to let it go from here on out (unless you say something completely and totally scandalous) cause this entire issue leads to a road of neverending, unresolvable, counterproductive debate.
regarding the man who, after Jesus, has had the biggest impact on my life--Dennis Kucinich--why would his policies be so radically bad for america? brian, i thought i saw that you were in cleveland at one point recently? next time you're in cleveland, give me some advance notice and if you want to meet me you can. we can go out for a meal, and then i'll show you the neighborhood in which i student teach. it's one of the poorest school districts in Ohio. maybe after you go there you might not think that health care for all, education for all, and jobs for all are such a bad thing. i mean, brian, do you really think that making it possible for people to get their basic health care needs met is "radically bad"? also, regarding the pimping out for a girlfriend, i'm sure that dennis would have much preferred to give his stump speech on those shows. i saw one of those shows too (i missed the other one cause i was writing my senior thesis on Dennis Kucinich) and it made me really mad. but you know, and i know, that they're not going to let dennis get up there and spread his ideas on national television. if you're gonna blame anyone, dont blame dennis, blame the media--they're the ones who made a big deal out of his singleness, his vegan diet, his stature, and other stuff totally unrelated to whether or not someone is the best candidate for public office. i guarantee you that if he had received as much coverage as kerry, dean, clark, edwards, etc and the coverage had been focused on his ideas for universal health care, education for all, jobs for all, and his iraq plan, he would have polled in the twenties rather than in single digits.
what are bush's "liberal education concessions"?
just out of curiousity, am i one of those with the "elevated sense of self-importance"? i know i come across as arrogant at times, but honestly, i'm just trying to get people to think about what's important. whether or not kerry threw his medals or ribbons over the fence should not decide one's vote, nor should the stuff with kerry and the SUV decide one's vote. if people want to joke about that, fine. i just want those same people to sit down and have an reasoned, intellectual analysis of each candidate and their stance on the issues when they sit down to determine for whom they will vote. there are so many important issues in this election--trade, the war in Iraq, health care, education, the environment, energy, etc...i would hate for someone's vote to be decided based on middling, trifling factors.
Posted by: joseph j. fell at May 23, 2004 12:20 PMto reply...
Kerry's education plan will come at a huge expense, and forced volunteerism is oxymoronic and forces graduates to sacrifice their first prime earning years to fulfilla government obligation.
Here are the constitutional rights afforded to US citizens...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Happiness itself is not a guaranteed right. nor is college education. it is offered to those who earn it through scholarship (academic , athletic, or from a benefactor), through privelege (those who can afford it), or through perseverence (those who are willing to invest in their own future, knowing the expense will take time to repay). I bear the responsbility to invest in my own children, beyond that is a matter of conscience, not government legislation. My Christian responsibility deals in the realm of others' salvation, and then others immediate immediate needs like food, clothing and shelter. Again, Christian responsibilities are met by the church, not by a big-government porked-up ineffective program. So, I don't have any problem helping the poor and needy...I have a problem with the government's plan to accomplish it.
Kucinich's plans are "radically bad" because they almost without exception (and I confess, I haven't done exhaustive research on his policies) are comprised of a cocktail of liberal ideologies with wanton government spending. America spoke definitively -- even left-leaning America -- that his vision was not in sync with the nation's.
Unfortunately, nobody forced him to take part in the Late Night Dating game or who wants to marry a presidential candidate shenanigans...the media is culpable only in not having the discretion to say no...but they share that culpability with Kucinich himself.
Finally, I don't consider you one of the elitist leftists...I just can figure out why you argue so passionately for those who are. The issues you call trifling are indeed fodder for humor and ridicule, but only because they are microcosmic of the deeper, more troubling concerns that Kerry brings to the table, such as a willingness to say whatever is necessary to be in agreement with whoever is his audience at the time, a desire to establish policy to which he himself will not abide, and a propensity to "support" the US Troops while trying to undermine them in word and in deed.
Posted by: Bryan at May 24, 2004 12:03 PMforced volunteerism? i don't see anyone forcing anyone to go to college (although i personally believe that college should be mandatory as well as free; the growth and development which one experiences in college is essential to the development of a well-rounded, intellectual human being, but this is a debate for another time) in kerry's plan. basically, kerry's plan is just like ROTC, except instead of going to fight an unjust war and being cannon fodder for a war conceived by empire-driven, sabre-rattling neocons, you're making a positive change in america. i read an article about someone who joined ROTC cause they had no other way to pay for college and then they got shipped to iraq and then they got killed over there. people should not have to put their lives on the line to earn a college education. it is unfair and immoral that someone who's wealthy can get a college education without putting their life at risk simply cause they have the $ to afford it while someone from a poor family has to risk death to get the same kind of college education. that's why i like kerry's policy; well, that, and i've said for three years now that people should be able to do community service as a way to get a free college education.
regarding kucinich--if you're interested, i'd be happy to send you my senior thesis which states that kucinich's political career has risen and fallen due to the media's portrayal of him. if you want, email me your email address at javajoe2003@yahoo.com and i'll send it to you. it's 26 pages long, and it was good enough to earn me a B in the class. brian, i honestly believe that if the media had focused on his policies (not his diet or his marital status) and presented him as a legitimate candidate who was as legitimate as edwards, clark, kerry, etc, he would have done well. brian, i work in the inner-city year-round. i teach in the inner city, and i spend my summers doing community service in the inner city. i see the people without jobs, i teach in the schools that have 1 computer lab of 25 computers (with ill-working computers to boot) for the entire student body, i hear about the fathers and brothers in jail, and i see the lack of hope. it kills me, but it doesnt kill me enough to give up and to stop working to create a more just, equal, and fair world. kucinich's policies, i believe, are very in line with what america wants. i know so many people who want to go to college but can't get the money to pay for it nor do they have child care to watch their kids while they go (and if you say, 'let the spouse watch em', well, the spouse is long gone) i know plenty of people without health care who can't afford it, and i know plenty of people without jobs. you know what the #1 beef that my students have about the war in iraq? it's not about the fact that they think war is wrong, it's this: "why is bush spending billions of dollars on a war somewhere else when we live in neighborhoods like this?" but the thing is, very few people are going to take the time to go to kucinich.us (if they've heard about him at all) and research his policies. many people in poverty dont have access to internet, and they get their news from the television. when all you see about dennis is his single-digit poll numbers and the media setting him up with women, you're not gonna take him seriously. and if he had refused that type of coverage, he would have gotten next to nothing.
regarding my willingness to stand up for whom you call "elite leftists", well, it comes from the fact that i believe our nation and our world can't stand 4 more years of Bush. from the tax cuts to the rich, to the war, to the patriot act, to No Child Left Behind, to the gay marriage amendment, the bush administration has infuriated me on a daily basis. the only policy of bush's that i liked--giving $ to faith-based organizations--hasnt been talked about for quite some time. supporting ralph nader in this election is futile, so kerry it is. believe me, there are many things i like about kerry--i actually was planning on asking a girl from my christian fellowship at school whom i'm interested in to go with me to the $1,000 per person fundraiser that kerry held in Cleveland, but i was doing the aforementioned thesis (the fundraiser was the night before it was due) so i didn't. i think kerry's policies on education and health care are meritorious, and i admire his desire to have america rejoin the world community. the fact that he has significant military experience and had the conscience to speak out against what he believed was an unjust war also is quite admirable. i can't say i'm a fan of his votes on No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act, or the war, but the candidate who i could unabashedly throw my complete and total support behind (with the significant exception of gay marriage) isn't the one who got the nomination, and there's no sense in hoping that kucinich would run 3rd party (although i would love it if kerry selected him as VP!) so kerry is the man i will support, and will support wholeheartedly.
Posted by: joseph j. fell at May 24, 2004 2:10 PM