A Reality-Check for Kerry Supporters (why he is not the best candidate)

[anti-NAFTA]

Kerry seems to be running on image alone. His proposed policy is vague and wishy-washy. Sure, he's currently beating Bush by far in the polls, but Rove has hardly begun fighting back with the exception of one or two advertisements. Meanwhile, the media is focused on Kerry and his service. But this media attention will fade, and by the time November comes around... well, let's just say that it only gets worse once Rove really starts digging dirt up on our candidate and Bush unleashes good news for himself like Iraqi "elections" and maybe even Bin Laden's capture. This is why it's important that we have a candidate with a strong stand on the issues (particularly domestic policy) because, while an image can be shattered by smear tactics and a jaded public (because by the time November comes around, let's face it: Kerry's talking about his Vietnam days will come across as old hat), policy cannot.

This has to be an election centered on economic issues, especially trade policy since it's taken its biggest toll on battleground states. If we opt to have an election that's basically a choice between two images, we won't have a chance. Though Kerry is a war hero, Bush's image as the simple Texan who rallied the country together on 9/11 will come back up with a vengeance since he controls exactly when the good news will happen. And more Americans can identify with a simple guy who can't speak his own language than an educated war hero who knows what he's talking about. On the other hand, Bush is vulnerable on the issue of trade. Just look at how out of touch he is when his administration doesn't even suggest toughening up on trade.

Please rethink your support of Kerry.

[NV1962]

1. Thanks for calling me "unrealistic"

I'll dispense due consideration to your opinion. ;)

Now, what is the substance of your message? It's so much all over the place that it's hard to grasp the essence...

Feel free to try again.

[anti-NAFTA]

2. The electability argument.

I am against the argument that we need to fight George Bush by competing against his cultish image. We need to fight him on the issues. Kerry is not the best guy for this. Pointe a la ligne.

[bigwillq]

6. I want to know who you think is "the best guy"...

If I were a Kerry supporter, your post doesn't convince me to switch my vote, imo.

I know in my heart the Dean is the right man for the job but things happen, things get said, $41 million gets spent...But I still have my faith in the doctor.

P.S.-I will support Kerry if he gets the NOM.

[NV1962]

18. What!?

Which candidate is campaigning on "the argument that we need to fight George Bush by competing against his cultish image"

You jest, surely!

[anti-NAFTA]

20. Kerry isn't strong on any particular issue.

Except maybe the environment, although I don't know much about it. The primary reason Kerry supporters give for their support is "He's a war veteran and Bush was AWOL."

[NV1962]

23. Wonderful; now please answer my question

Especially since I asked you to clarify your own assertion, that you presented earlier.

[anti-NAFTA]

26. OK.

Democrats support Kerry primarily because of his image. They want to make this election centered around image over policy since Kerry is weak on the issues. Bush has a strong cult of supporters and his image will only be boosted with the news media before the election. This is a recipe for disaster.

[NV1962]

30. Thanks, but I strongly disagree on your premise

"Democrats support Kerry primarily because of his image."

That is just so wrong in so many ways I don't even bother to count them.

No, Democrats want Bush out so bad, that this year the common rally of ABB is coagulating support for "the frontrunner" - whatever he/she/it may be. By far most Democrats with whom I spoke during the attendance record breaking caucus last Saturday here in Reno, firmly in GOP country, have plainly stated that they prefer their candidate, but that they will gladly embrace whichever of the other current contenders, and that they will be happy to endorse Kerry, if it's going to be him smacking Bush down in November.

That is not prompted by "image" - it's prompted by a centripetal hatred towards Bush, and an unusually deeply felt determination to kick the sucker out of the White House.

I'm sorry, but you're flat out wrong about "image" running the Democratic roost.

[lancdem]

3. You do realize, of course

that your arguments won't convince anyone who currently supports Kerry to switch.

[corporatewhore]

4. we know the one issue we can get liberals and conservatives to rally

against

[anti-NAFTA]

7. Yes we do.

And it's sad that everyone here seems to put cotton in his or her ears.

Listen people: Stop listening to the Wall St. media. A "protectionist" candidate would secure the Carolinas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and numerous other battleground states. This is THE issue. Kerry's position on it, quite frankly, is garbage.

[patricia92243]

14. I agree with what you are saying - who do you suggest for Prez?

[revcarol]

5. You're right. The issues are going to be 1) JOBS,JOBS, JOBS,

and 2) ALL THAT MONEY FLOWING INTO THE IRAQ OCCUPATION.

Kerry is on the wrong side of both issues. But I know I won't convice anyone. You are entitled to vote for the pro-NAFTA<GATT<FAST TRACK boy if you want, and vote for the IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION and PRO-OCCUPATION guy who was so dumb that he believed Bush, if you want.

The primaries aren't over.

[anti-NAFTA]

10. Damn right.

The jobs we've lost is due to free trade. Sure, the tax cuts haven't helped Americans get employed (since big business is using those cuts to invest and outsource elsewhere); but let's be realistic here: The jobs were lost due to bipartisan support of free trade, of which Kerry's voting record is an example.

[maddezmom]

8. ok, so who do you think we should support? n/t

[anti-NAFTA]

12. Edwards.

I used to think Dean, but he's pretty much finished. And I wasn't really aware of Edwards's position on trade although he's had some shameful votes.

[revcarol]

Kucinich.

Looks at this from all angles. Proven record of MANY YEARS fighting for labor.

[bigwillq]

27. Ok, you answered my question but

not directly.

[anti-NAFTA]

29. What are you talking about?

You asked me which candidate I supported; I said Edwards. What are you trying to do here?

[bigwillq]

33. I asked earlier in the thread who you thought was the right

man for the job. I am just wondering why who responded much later in the thread. I am not trying to do anything here, sorry if you took offense. But again, I'm glad you answered the question.

[Dookus]

9. ok... I'm rethinking...

rethinking... rethinking.... DONE!

No thank you. Kerry can beat Bush, as evidenced by the latest polls. The other candidates can not. But since none of the other candidates have anything more than a miracle chance at securing the nomination, the point is moot.

[lovedems]

11. Well, I think the chimp rallied the people after 9-11 based on LIES

so if you want to have an image contest, the chimps image is that of a liar. And that simple guy who only views the world in black and white has effed this country up. I want a complex thinker who knows what he is talking about!

Sorry, no sale. Perception is reality and the chimp is now perceived as a cowardly liar.

[eileen_d]

13. Uh... I don't let the media, Rove horror stories

or anyone else's predictions of the future guide my decisions.

[anti-NAFTA]

17. Apparently.

You let media hype guide your decisions since you see the latest poll numbers and say to yourself "Wow, Kerry will win." The media is Kerry, Kerry, Kerry all day long. After that, he'll have to start talking about the issues and Bush's campaign hasn't kicked in yet.

[eileen_d]

21. I let media hype and polls guide my decisions? Do tell.

Insulting my intelligence is not going to win me over to your point of view.

[anti-NAFTA]

31. Kerry's being hyped on the media.

Sadly, too many Democrats are jumping onto the Kerry bandwagon because of this. Maybe you aren't, but many are.

[eileen_d]

34. Do you think it might be because he's winning elections?

I realize that there is a chicken-and-egg quality to the whole thing, but sometimes the simplest explanation is the best one.

[Guava Jelly]

15. Please rethink your non support of Kerry

Moderates will pick our next president.
Not extreme Lefties as you and I.
Because if all those things being equal We would have President Nader right now.
The voters have spoken so far. They liked Kerry more.
The media is partly to blame.
But Guess What They are picking Kerry.
He was not my first choice.
And the primary isnt over.
If Dean somehow wins I will support him.
If edwards wins I will support him.
if a hamsandwich wins I will support it.
By the way my vote wasnt counted I am a Clark Supporter who lives in kansas

[lovedems]

16. I am going to go out on a limb and suggest when Clinton passed NAFTA

it was to assist in the importing and exporting of goods, not jobs. I will also go out on a limb and suggest that if a democrat was in office, they would have somehow, some way put a stop to the exportation of jobs. Since the bu$h administration is so friendly with big business, they just let it happen.

I am willing to admit I could be wrong but I don't think NAFTA was meant to be played out in this way when Clinton signed it. With a republican WH and congress all this was a-ok, their buddies were able to get cheap labor and work at breaking up unions in the process.

[anti-NAFTA]

19. I think you ARE wrong.

Clinton was endorsed by plenty of publicly held corporations. He served THEM first, the people second. Clinton passed NAFTA because our government, pretty much both parties, is run by Wall Street and Wall Street decided that it was more profitable to manufacture stuff elsewhere and reintroduce them into the unprotected American market.

[lovedems]

22. That is not convincing enough. I see the results today of an

admimistration who serves the corporations first and during the Clinton administration I don't recall ever thinking that. I recall Clinton caring about the middle and lower classes, not the corporations. He might have struck a balance but I don't think he served them first.

[revcarol]

25. We BEGGED Clinton about China.

All the businessmen said they wanted China to buy our goods, that was why they wanted open trade with China.

When studies and think tanks came out with the real reason, that they wanted to ship JOBS over there to get cheap or slave or prison labor, this was always pooh-poohed.And Clinton went right ahead on his disastrous course, totally ignoring anyone or any organization that protested.

Now we see: business wanted to ship JOBS to China. And Kerry FACILITATED THIS AND CONTINUES TO FACILITATE THIS.
:mad:

[anti-NAFTA]

28. And I want this election to be a real change.

I don't want a return to Clinton even if that's better than Bush. At the very least I want a change in the party, and Kerry goes against that.

[lovedems]

32. And you think if Clinton was still in office (that this was happening on

his watch) that he would just sit back and watch this happen? Still no sale. You would have to convince me that Clinton didn't a crap about working families and would put big business profits above everything else. I still don't buy it.

I will go back to my original point that we had 1 YEAR with a democratic controlled senate, since 2002 we have had republican controlled WH and congress. I think if democrats were in charge of congress or the WH we wouldn't see NAFTA being played out this way.

Edit: I am against NAFTA myself because of the way it has played out under republican control. But, that really hasn't been the point of my posts, it has been what republicans have allowed NAFTA to become. Which, I don't think Gore for that matter would let jobs get shipped overseas without doing everything in his power to stop it.

[revcarol]

37. NAFTA is the responsibility of the executive branch, not the Congress.

And Bill Clinton saw massive job shifts while he was President and didn't suggest dumping it. He COULD HAVE withdrawn according to the terms of the treaty. Next?

And Kerry saw NAFTA tanking our jobs(remember when Levis used to be made in El Paso, not in Mexico?) and voted for MORE AND MORE DETRIMENTAL trade treaties.

He needs to take responsiilibty. Not the best man for the job.

[lovedems]

38. Well, Clinton took a chance and it failed. I still don't think

a democrat controlled congress or WH would let massive amounts of jobs leave the country at middle class and unions expense and then have an economic advisor say it was all good.

We will never know.

[Mad Cow Doc]

39. Have you ever seen an exported Job?

My cousin is a customs agent at the Detroit/Windsor bridge. No trucks leave Detroit with "American Jobs" packed in the back. But he does see lots of Foreign made products shipped in resulting in the loss of lots of American Jobs. Clinton and the congress passed NAFTA to "Assist in the importing and exporting of goods" as you say. But who can blame the company that imports a foreign made cheap part to stay competitive. You and every one else buys the cheaper product and puts your neighbor out of work. Price sells everything!! The Up side is that goods are more affordable. More people can afford the Kia than the Ford. They have more choices and competition from foreign products keep down the cost of goods they buy. All is great if they don't lose THEIR job. Every single day someone ask me to beat my competitions' price for the service that I sell. If I had to compete with the Chinese I too would lose some income. NAFTA doesn't work because the cost of production and the cost of living in the trading countrys is not even remotely close. What we really need is FAIR Trade. But adding cost to the foreign producer by insisting that they treat their workers like US workers are treated, with higher wages, health care, and environmental protections is an unrealistic goal to enforce. How about instead we simply say Trade MUST BE EVEN. That is to say if China wants to SELL the USA say 500 Billion worth of goods then they MUST BUY 500 Billion worth of goods. Even trade or no trade. It would Protect workers far better than NAFTA!!

[bowens43]

24. He's not running on image

he's running on his record and his experience, both of which are exceptional (well ither then IWR and Patriot act votes).

[anti-NAFTA]

35. what happens IF Kerry is elected?

What will happen? Will we still be in Iraq? Yes. Will he keep losing jobs to outsourcing? Yes. Will any of this bullshit rhetoric matter once he secures his election and has to pay back his lobbying groups and corporations? Nope.

Nothing will change except the attitude.

[library_max]

36. The platform isn't written yet.

That is traditionally done at the convention. I'm sure they'll test "Dump NAFTA" with voters and see whether it's a draw or a death rattle. I personally would expect that more voters would be turned off than on, but the pros know this stuff better than you or I. However, if Dump NAFTA turns out to be a winning rallying cry, Kerry is as qualified (or unqualified) to run with it as any candidate still in the race except Kucinich.

[Moderator]

40. Locking.

1. If you start a thread in this forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming. The moderators have the sole authority to decide whether a thread topic is inflammatory. Extremely inflammatory or inappropriate topics will be deleted rather than locked, and the thread's author will receive a warning.

Thanks,
DU Moderator