The Very Best Of John Kerry (Vol. 1)

[DrFunkenstein]

John Kerry can radically change the course of the 21st century. Think about that. Here is a man with a real sense of vision - not dreams or hopes (we all have them), but an ability to see with great scope and depth AND the ability to create real action. Kerry knows that you have to keep your eyes on the prize in the face of powerful opposition and invariable setbacks, and keep a sense of short and long-term goals.

If one thing can be said of Kerry, he is a driven man. He has a qualities befitting his career as a prosecutor - hard-nosed and tireless. Time and again, he has proven himself willing to take on the thankless jobs that make real change actually occur. And his voluntary refusal to take PAC money his entire career as Senator has left him with the rare clean nose in Washington. He is not beholden to any special interests, and you can't be if you are actually going to do something as President.

Kerry has the talent and character to be one of those once-in-a-generation Presidents like Roosevelt and Kennedy. Kerry is one of the only people in recent history that could actually stand his ground with the Founding Fathers. His standards are Jefferson and Hamilton, not CNN and FoxNews.

He has some wonderful positions to speak of, but I really want to get to his Big Ideas and why they separate him from the pack. There are 6 major ideas that I want to focus on. Here are the first three major visions for America, any one of which would radically change the landscape of our democracy:

1. Energy Independence - From baby-steps to moon steps. Many candidates have "moonshot" energy plans, but most range from pie-in-the-sky to empty campaign slogans. With a LIFETIME (18 years!) rating of 96.5% from the League of Conservation Voters, and a presence at EVERY major environmental conference, Kerry's experiences at the forefront have led him to create a DETAILED plan to actually transform the fundamental nature of U.S. energy, leaving fossil fuels the way of whale oil lamps.

It starts off small, and he is clear that we must be honest about how slowly things will start and the upfront costs of investment (always a crowd pleaser), but that we will work our way through car, home, and business efficiencies while reversing the $1.8 BILLION lavished on Big Oil pork vs. the $24 MILLION ($0.024 billion) on alternatives.

Kerry would make a push for clean, domestic renewables a hallmark - not an afterthought - of his Presidency. This would open up a vast, untapped motherlode of jobs in design, engineering, production, maintenence, etc. Kerry would reconcile business and environment at long last, paving the way for what Time called "The Green Century."

Learn more from this speech:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_0122.html

2. PASSABLE, Damn-Near-Universal Health Coverage. Kerry's plan is incredible on many levels, but it has two things going for it that make it much more likely to pass Congress. 1. It is simple and catchy - Let all Americans opt into Congressional coverage. Period -end of story. 2. It makes cost control its primary focus - Congress will have its feet to the fire when Americans realize how cost-effective the plan is. And I'll throw in reason #3 - it will cover all children (aw, shucks).

Perhaps the most impressive idea is taking catastrophic cases out of the insurance pool, lowering premiums up to 10% in one shot. Kerry will also emphasize upfront preventative care (Teresa is big on this!) before expensive procedures become necessary. He'll cut out prescription price-skimming by corporate middlemen, and cut bureaucratic waste by up to 50% through upfront technology purchases and digital record-keeping (reducing medical errors up to 88%!). He'll also provide targeted tax credits so small businesses can afford Congressional coverage.

Learn more here:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0516.html

3. The "Porkchop" Commission. Kerry has an amazing plan for eliminating tremendous amounts of government pork projects by creating a rigorous bi-partisan commission (ostensibly tied to the GAO) to recognize wasteful and redundant programs. That commission will then bring their findings to Congress for a straight up-and-down, yes-or-no vote. No amendments, no shenanigans from special interests.

Every member of Congress will be put into a high-profile spotlight and forced to vote for or against a wasteful, pork-laden government. Beyond the bi-partisan commission, he will also create a Presidential line-item veto to eliminate wasteful spending in another up-and-down vote.

In addition, Kerry will refuse government contracts to corporations that use off-shore tax shelters, accounting fraud, and other corporate "excesses." And he will finally give the SEC and the Accounting Oversight Board some real teeth to take on corporate crooks.

He'll cut the Federal government’s administrative costs by five percent; cut the number of political appointees and ban providing bonuses for political appointees; cut fraud and abuse in government programs – fraud and abuse is estimated to cost $12 billion in Medicare alone and end rules that prevent the Federal government from having the same purchasing authority as the private sector.

Finally, he'll balance 1/2 of the national debt in 4 years while maintaining tax breaks for the middle class.

Learn more here:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0828.html

<>

The Babe Ruth pose just about sums up his idea of America is.

[La_Serpiente]

1. I'll save what I wrote for another thread

Kerry has been a fighter all of his life. If he is the nominee, he would be going up against the same enemies of before - Abrams, North (well, he is just a propaganda machine) Wolfowitz, and every other corrupt official in the Bush White House. I would trust him with the ropes to the Constitution. I would trust him to work with our neighbors effectively. I would trust him with many things, and that is why I choose John Kerry.

[dreissig]

2. Kerry Voted for the War

Kerry's vote for the war can't be extracted out of context. We desperately needed leadership to oppose the war. Kerry disappointed us in a huge way.

There has to be some accountability. A guy with Kerry's sense of values isn't somebody I want in the White House.

[molly]

3. Is this a logical decision?

[DrFunkenstein]

4. Are You For Howard "Biden-Lugar" or Wes "Probably Would've" Clark?

I just posted this in general discussion, and since you want to take a positive thread in this direction, here is the text.

Dean has implied in a number of cases that he opposed giving the president authority to take action in Iraq. Yet on most of those occasions, Dean has not explained that, at the time, he supported an alternate Congressional resolution that would also have granted the president authority to take unilateral action if he made additional certifications to Congress before doing so. Dean contends having to make these certifications would have prevented Bush from taking action, but this subtle distinction is often lost in his rhetoric.

The Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq passed in October 2002 with the support of Dean rivals. Dean did not support this resolution. However, as Kerry and Gephardt have pointed out and as Ron Fournier reported last week in the Associated Press, Dean supported an alternate resolution known as Biden-Lugar.

Yet Dean frequently obscures this nuanced difference in his attacks on his rivals for granting authority to Bush to wage unilateral war. For example, in a July 22, 2003 statement, Dean said, "Today, I ask some important questions of those in Congress who had the power to seek the truth nine months ago, who had the power to involve the American people in the debate prior to the Congressional vote, who had the power to ask the tough questions of the Administration, and yet voted to give the President blank check authority to go to war with Iraq anyway."

Of course, "blank check authority" is vague and Dean does not explain why the resolution he supported was not a "blank check." This phrase could be reasonably interpreted to mean authority to wage war without needing further approval from Congress (which would have been granted under both resolutions) rather than failing to require additional certifications to Congress, which is the implicit distinction Dean is drawing.

The "blank check" phrase and similar attacks have been used by Dean frequently throughout his campaign without any explanation of the difference between the resolution he supported and the one that passed the Congress:

---"Senator Kerry, Senator Lieberman, Representative Gephardt, Senator Edwards, all gave the president a blank check to go to war in Iraq, putting people today in the position of having to decide whether we're going to spend $87 billion on health care or spend it in Iraq." (Democratic debate, 10/9/03)

---"I think it was a mistake for Congress to give the authority to the president to go into Iraq." (Democratic debate, 11/4/03)

---"Senator Kerry is talking about experience in foreign affairs. His experience led him to give the president of the United States a blank check to invade Iraq... The right thing to do would have been not to give George Bush that unilateral authority, as Senator Kerry, Senator Edwards, Representative Gephardt, General Clark recommended... I think we need somebody who's going to make independent judgments and not cede the role of Congress in making foreign policy and declaring war." (Democratic debate, 11/24/03)

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031217.html

Dean later conceded that he backed an alternative to last fall's resolution that would have allowed President Bush to wage war against Iraq without congressional approval.

Bush would have been required to send Congress a letter -- not seek a vote of approval -- before waging war, Kerry said. He argued there was no significant difference between the Lugar-Biden resolution and the one passed by Congress.

Dean acknowledged that the alternative resolution was not binding against the president, but argued that Bush would have somehow been more likely to use restraint.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/primaries/massachusetts/
articles/2003/12/10/kerry_argues_that_gore_backed_wrong_howard_dean/

[Meshuga]

7. That's what draws me away from Dean

I do not trust Dean at all because of all I see about him during this campaign. Totally lost respect for him.

Dean supported Biden-Lugar which would also have granted authority to Bush and yet he smears Kerry and Edwards as pro-war.

I would have no problems supporting Dean if he spent his energy on showing a vision rather than showing what he is against.

Bringing ideas to the table and having a great vision doesn't seem to be a criteria in the primaries process. Otherwise, Dean would not be the front runner today.

Getting pissed off at someone the base hates is more effective and seems to enough to win the nomination. I just hope it will be enough to beat Bush but I have my doubts.

It just sucks that such great ideas are not heard because a person with no vision keeps playing with people's emotions by smearing other Democrats as republican-lite, Bush-light, pro-war, etc.

I will really resent Dean if he wins the nomination and loses against Bush.

[zulchzulu]

5. Kerry voted for the UN, not the War

Distortion distortion, distortion...

This says it best about Kerry's IWR vote for getting the UN to do its job, not allow Bush to be a AWOL warmonger chickenhawk cowboy.

It was a CNN interview with Paula Zahn and John Kerry last September 25th:

ZAHN: Let's come back to your position on Iraq. And...

KERRY: Sure.

ZAHN: Is there a contradiction with your support of allowing the troops to go over to Iraq and now being so highly critical of this post-war...

KERRY: No, none whatsoever. There's no contradiction at all.

I am absolutely convinced I voted for the security of the United States of the America with the assurance of the president that he was going to go to the United Nations and build a international coalition, that he was going to make a plan to win the peace, that he would do the preparations, he would respect the U.N. process and that he would go to war as a last resort.

The president set the date for the start of this war. Not us. And he did not go as a last resort. He broke his word to the American people. He broke his word to the Congress and through us, the American people themselves. And he rushed to war. He doesn't have a plan. We need to go to the United Nations, Paula. We need to get the sense of American occupation off the table. We need to strengthen America by taking the target off our troops and bring the world to the table to help us.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0309/25/pzn.00.html

[sandnsea]

6. As opposed to those who wouldn't take a stand

Or those who have no chance to be elected.

Leadership is making the tough decisions. Think whatever you want about Kerry and the damn war vote, I'm sick of arguing about it. He's still the best candidate we have and would make the best President we've had in decades. But never mind all of that, let's kill him on the war vote. Nobody else, mind you, just Kerry.

[Meshuga]

8. They have to bring it up...

because if we forget the IWR vote and compare Dean with Kerry we all know that Dean would have no chances againt Kerry.

[ludwigb]

9. Dr. Funk, do you work for Kerry?

This doesn't have anything to do with the substance of your topic, but I'm genuinely curious. Among the Kerry partisans here, you're the only one that consistently shows genuine intelligence. But I don't understand how someone as smart as you actually belives Kerry can beat Bush, so I wonder.... Do you work for Kerry?

Bush would destroy Kerry because Kerry can easily be smeared as a waffling, Clintonesque opportunist, totally out of touch with ordinary Americans. Kerry's haplessness on the war issue, especially in regard to his attacks on Dean, can easily be used by Rove to drive home this impression. See this link for example
http://slate.msn.com/id/2092540/

Accusations of elitism and wealth will stick to Kerry because unlike Bush, Kerry looks and acts like an elitist. He lacks the likability and easy common sense that gave Clinton teflon--in fact the media loves to pile onto him. Kerry would have no prayer in the South and will probably lose much of the Midwest as well.

I like Kerry's issue stands, generally like his character (though not his arrogance/ambition) and would wholeheartedly support him if he was the nominee. And I thought he was the likely nominee as recently as last August so I tried my best to like him. But I am glad we will be saved from his candidacy.

(Edited because on 2nd thoughtI would still vote for Kerry before voting Lieberman. At least Kerry would be able to beat back a Nader candidacy. But I would vote for any of the other 4 "major" candidates before Kerry)

[mattgabe]

11. Typical

that someone who supports another candidate would think that anyone with genuine passion for Kerry MUST be paid by the campaign. There's a heck of a lot of us volunteers out here who believe in what Sen. Kerry stands for and what he wants this country to become.

Also interesting that none of the criticisms of Kerry have ANYTHING to do with his policy proposals, and duck and cover when (to quote from above) Howard "Biden-Lugar" Dean, and Wesley "Mary, help!" Clark's "anti-war" credentials are called into question.

[oasis]

10. Kerry's credentials are a mile long. His qualifications for president are

clearly far above that of anyone else in the running. At this crucial time in our nation's history it is so important for voters to examine each candidate fully.

Sadly, many let there fervor for a certain candidate overtake their ability to reason.