Experience matters

[Clint]

John Edwards, who if elected, would be a heartbeat away from the presidency, has been a trial lawyer and now has a partial term in the Senate to draw experience from. How can he consider himself qualified? How do we know he can do anything other than make speeches, argue and vote? He's a great cheerleader but can he make a decision?

He and Kerry both see the world in terms of speech making, arguing and voting. Their lives have been lived in the world of consensus building. Neither of them have a history of decision making or leading. The executive decisions they make are related to which argument they will employ next. I know Kerry commanded a swift boat 34 years ago but that was then and a swift boat is a lot smaller than a nation with global influence.

Both of them have questionable attendance records in the Senate. I want a President and Vice President who have experience making decisions and will be present when a decision needs to be made.

[Paula]

He needs to go on Howard Sterns show, take the wife too. :wah: :wah: hahahhaha, grill the s&!t out of him, hahaha....

[Clint]

I’m sure Howard Stern would get information out of him about his experience but I’m thinking that kind of experience may not be relevant.

[A Karenina]

Of course people will vote for him. He plays on fear, church doctrine, and patriotism. He allows people to live their merry lives without thought or challenge to the way things are versus the way we want things to be. It doesn't matter that he lied. It doesn't matter that he's screwed up every company he's ever been involved with or that he's guilty of insider trading with Harken. It doesn't matter that he's boldly stated that he "doesn't even think about bin Laden"...



People are deserving of the government they have...and Bush's election and potentional re-election are a very serious indication of a large segment of our population. THAT is the real issue, in my mind. In a country that provides education to the masses, that offers freedom to state your mind, to explore nearly any kind of information or technology or possibility...why do we produce these ostriches?

[Clint]

Karanina and Squeeker,

Well what you say is what Michael Moore says so at least you have a movie to back up your claims. That’s the problem. You are quoting baseless hype. It doesn’t matter to me though, because if it was all true and multiplied by three, I still wouldn’t vote for John Kerry. The TRUTH about him scares me to the bone.

In 1991 Kerry voted to cut defense spending by 2 percent. Only 21 other senators voted with Kerry, and the defense cut was defeated.

In 1991, Kerry voted to cut over $3 billion from defense and shift the funds to social programs. Only 27 senators joined Kerry in voting for the defense cut.

In 1992, Kerry voted to cut $6 billion from defense. Republicans and Democrats alike successfully blocked this attempt to cut defense spending.

In 1993, Kerry voted against increased defense spending for a military pay raise.

In 1993, Kerry introduced a plan to cut the number Of Navy submarines and their crews; reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force; terminate the Navy’s coastal mine-hunting ship program; force the retirement of 60,000 members of the armed forces in one year; and reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one. The plan was DOA.

In 1995, Kerry voted to freeze defense spending for seven years, cutting over $34 billion from defense. Only 27 other senators voted with Kerry.

In 1996, Kerry introduced a bill to cut Defense Department funding by $6.5 billion. Kerry’s bill had no co-sponsors and never came to a floor vote.

In 1996, Kerry voted yes on a fiscal 1996 budget resolution – a defense freeze that would have frozen defense spending for the next seven years and transferred the $34.8 billion in savings to education and job training. The resolution was rejected 28-71.

Such votes add up to “a 20-year record of being weak on the military,” says former Republican National Chairman Richard Bond. “To this day, the defining issue of this election is that America is under attack. I do not believe in the end Americans will vote for someone with a soft worldview.”

That is just part of his record on defense. He has equally ugly records on other issues.

[A Karenina]

Clint,



I should hope I have more backing my view than just the illustrious Michael Moore! :p



I've already voted, and I left "president" blank. (We vote by mail here). I still naively believe in voting my conscience. Neither of the options appeal to me on any level.



This is where my idealism utterly defeats my pragmatism...you see, I just can't sit here and compare the wrongdoings of one to the other and then try to find a "winner".



I'm no more for Kerry than you are - on a selfish level, I'd like to vote for him. But I can't, because I feel he will take a Clinton-like approach. Our economy was awesome! But it was also over the backs of other peoples and I just can't deal with that.



However, I'm not for Bush either. His bible-thumping gets to me, scares the hell outta me in reality. God talking to him, evil-doers, his lack of farsight, his hell-bent destruction of innocents, trying to use the constitution to deny rights to a specific group. Nope, can't deal with that either...



And even though I do put some credence into the thought that Bush is better in the long-run precisely because he alienates the world, and because he'll ruin us economically - thus eliminating the "danger" we pose to certain foreign populations as well as motivating/educating the US populace...even though I get what they're saying, I cannot bring myself to vote for a man who I feel destroys everything beautiful about our country.



(shrug) And I steadfastly refuse to vote for a "leader of the free world" who struts for the world with straps between his legs on an aircraft carrier. Puuulllleeeease! Whatever happened to dignity? Wisdom? Careful thought? To me, those are qualities I'd like to see in a world leader. Too bad we couldn't get Nelson Mandela.