Ciao!

ha! i will remember to never hump you on the dance floor.
man oh man...

I saw Kerry on the Daily Show last night. He was terrible. He lacks the charisma of Bill Clinton's big toe, and I'll probably vote for him. He squandered a good chance to draw in more skeptical voters by appearing on Stewart's show. And in my opinion, Stewart is probably one of the sharpest comedians in the entertainment biz.

Never had the dry humper problem. Don't know if that makes me lucky, or just ugly :)

I'm starting to be less & less likely to vote for Kerry. He's just like Bush in most ways (campaign ethics, foreign policy prescriptions, double-talk patriotic rhetoric). Only he's "not" Bush. Sheesh! What a stupid campaign center-piece. "Hey, vote for me. I'm not that guy."

As for the dry humping girls (there wer two of them). I don't think they were flirting w/ me. I'm pretty sure they were trying to be funny or whatever. Sometimes I really miss the days of my youth w/ moshing was an appropriate response. Sigh.

"Sometimes I really miss the days of my youth w/ moshing was an appropriate response."

:) (*hilarious*)

Kerry never branded his campaign as "Vote for me, I'm not that guy". It just so happens that Bush has pissed off so many people that it has turned into just that. Also, if you think that Kerry's foreign policy prescriptions are the same as Bush's cowboy style unileratal approach, then you are blind and a moron.

Your blog itself is biased against Kerry. Your pretense that you're a "swing voter" is a weak attempt at trying to grab more attention from casual blog readers.

As for the biased media against Bush, why is it that 60% of Americans still believe that Iraq and Saddam were directly behind 9/11? If that is the case then it is no wonder you have "philopher kings" trying to reveal the truth behind the moron. Have you seen Fox news? Why don't you whine about that?

And the only people who can complain about Kerry's salute are people who have served. If something as trivial as that peeves you then it is just more proof that you've been clearly biased against Kerry from the get-go.

Buzz, I appreciate your candor. I really do. But. I have to offer a defense.

First, in 2000 I voted for McReynolds. You probably don't know who that was. Look it up.

Second, I do believe the media's biased against Bush in much of their coverage. I'm sure they drop the ball on many other issues as well, but in the era of internet blog media, the CNNs of the world will be crucified.

Third, I don't watch FOX news, but from what I can tell, yep, they're as biased to the right as CNN is to the left. And I'm OK w/ that, since it gives viewers a choice.

Fourth, as for saluting. Well, growing up in a country governed by gun-slinging military dictators who're fond of saluting at military parades make you less likely to have favorable impressions of people who do it. And why can't something like be other than trivial? It's another indication that he's running primarily as a war veteran. And I'd rather he run on issues, tell me what he'd do, not just give vague platitudes. I can accept vague platitudes from the Bush camp, because at least I've three years of prior experience to know more or less what he'd do (the devil you know). I need a frame of reference on Kerry (the devil I don't know).

But here's a tip for you: Calling me a moron because I happen to believe Bush & Kerry have similar foreign policy agendas (as does my friend Patrick, who worked on Dean's campaign) won't help win my vote to your side.

As for my anti-Kerry bias. Frankly, I didn't know much about Kerry "from the get go" as you suggest to have any bias against him. Primarily because I was overseas for about a year, so could barely keep up w/ the large Dem primary field. I did, however, cast an absentee primary ballot in Michigan ... for Lieberman.

I've been waiting for Kerry to do something to impress me and win my vote. I really have. I've not yet seen anything to convince me. I was disappointed w/ the Dem strategy during the primaries, by emphasizing Bush bashing rather than giving some sort of platform. In part, of course, the party's in dissarray (w/ the Gore & Clinton wings the most prominent schism). But it would've been nice to see a campaign revolving around issues, rathern than a rehashing of the Vietnam war.

See, Buzz. If you want to attack me personally, that's fine. We can have a disagreement. But if you call me a blind moron and a whiner, what chance do you have to convince me that I should agree w/ you? As a rhetorical tactic, it won't win you many converts.

BTW, Buzz, in the last few weeks Kerry has managed to convince many of my friends — most of whom are life-long Democrats — that Kerry would follow pretty much the same foreign policies that Bush followed. It's enough to drive some of them to vote third-party.

And, in case you're wondering, I didn't vote for a Republican in the two previous elections I was able to vote in. I voted for the Socialist candidate. I'm still waiting for a Democratic Party that doesn't just pay lip service to liberal issues when it suits them, that isn't run by some of the richest white men in America but claims to know what's in my best interest as a brown-skinned American. I'm still waiting for a Democratic Party I can be enthusiastic about.

buzz has bees in his bonnet. Or underpants. Hard to be taken seriously when ranting like that. Does more harm than good for Kerry's "side," doesn't it?

A - The goal of my criticism of your criticism is not to win you over. I don’t work for Kerry or Dean’s camp. I voted for Bush in 2000 thinking he seemed more down-to-earth, a compassionate conservative as he labeled himself. I remembered the cowboy style of Andrew Jackson and thought maybe this guy can make a difference just as Andrew did with crushing the proposed Central Bank at the time. Obviously George has not lived up to my expectations. So for you and Tom to assume that I am in Kerry’s “camp”, don’t assume. If I had it my way I’d prefer that Lyndon LaRouche win, but I know that vote would be a waste, like yours was when you voted for McReynolds.

B – As for your “tip” on how to win your vote, again, my goal isn’t to sway your already set mind-frame. I just ask that you stop the pretense of being a "diva in distress" waiting to be woo'd by a candidate. LOL.

C – Saying that the Kerry campaign doesn’t revolve around issues is a product of your own ignorance. You pointed out how the media focuses on the bad side of Bush, yet all you state about Kerry is the controversy regarding his war record. If you hadn’t noticed, Kerry spoke about a wide range of issues ranging from economics to health care during the Democratic National Convention. Also, if you are as serious as you claim to be with regards to finding out about both parties’ issues, why don’t you research them? Kerry and Bush have websites with their agendas. Or are you waiting for the same biased media to spoon feed you the information? Sounds a little bit contradictory doesn’t it?

D – Regarding your friends whom are life-long Democrats, I’m sure they aren’t the only ones changing their minds over whom to vote for. Thankfully though most people don’t let one single issue dominate their decision. Just like you and your friends are letting foreign policy dominate your decision, other Americans see other issues equally as important, for example a group of Economic Nobel Laureates who now endorse Kerry. The endorsement, in the form of an open letter to American voters, was signed by George Akerlof and Daniel McFadden of the University of California at Berkeley, Kenneth Arrow and William Sharpe of Stanford University, Daniel Kahneman of Princeton University, Lawrence Klein of the University of Pennsylvania, Douglass North of Washington University, Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow of MIT and Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University. Which group of persons has more credibility in my book?

Lastly, I find it ironic you voted for Socialists in the past, yet you now support a President that has, in the fashion of Ronald Reagan, socially stratified the wealthier classes from the working class. Oh, and you didn’t address why it is that 60% of Americans still believe Saddam was behind 9/11. Is that a product of CNN or Bush's propaganda machine? Hmmmm.....

"There's a lot of talk about Iraq on our TV screens, and there should be, because we're trying to figure out how best to make the world a peaceful place. There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee...that says, fool me once, shame on...... (long pause) shame on you. Fool me …(long pause) can't get fooled again."
-President Bush, Nashville TN, 9/17/02

Buzz,
This Bushism quote is so very appropriate for you and the millions of other Kerry supporters, who view John Kerry as some kind of Democratic dreamboat, who will wisk the nasty Texan away. If people like you, who voted for nonexistent "compassionate conservatism" (a ridiculous phrase from a guy who executed 152 people) are excited about "building a stronger america" from somone who only knows how to build a resume, then you poor souls are going to be so very disappointed.

Let me just clear up the main issue here--John Kerry is NO different than George W. Bush on just about every major issue. In fact, the only clear difference between the Kery and Bush is the tax cut. Kerry wants to repeal the part of the tax cut that applies to those people who make $300,000 or more, while Bush stands by his tax cut as helping out the economy. If that's your rationale for supporting Kerry, fine he's your guy because that would help the US budget deficit. But don't look to Kerry to suddenly improve the economy, the problem is the president has little to no effect on the overall US economy. The US economy is simply too large, so presidents can only seek to tweak various aspects of it to benefit different constituencies.

Here in Massachusetts, no one is excited about Kerry's campaign. Partly, because he's no Kennedy (although he desperately wants to be) but also because there is no John Kerry policy that people in this state can point to and say, "oh, that's John Kerry's issue, he's our guy on ____." Do you understand what that means? Does that tell you something if the people Kerry has supposedly been representing for 20 years aren't excited about his record and candidacy?

On to foreign policy. Contrary to what you believe, Kerry's foreign policy does consist of "support me, i'm not that guy." Kerry has inappropriately stated that if he's elected, various unknown foreign governments would support him in his quest to create a viable coalition in Iraq. Ignoring the political stupidity of playing the "foreigners-support-me-card", Kerry basically believes that what the US is doing in Iraq is justified. He recently stated that even knowing all he knows now, he still would have voted for the war resolution. To find an answer to your question about the 60% of Americans who still believe Saddam was behind 9-11--why don't you ask John Kerry, apparently he believes that--or wait maybe it's Friday and he's changed his position to better fit the latest poll.

On to health care, another issue you cited. Yes, John Kerry has been plying the airwaves in swing states about how good he'll be for America on health care. If you truely believe that I have some questions for you.
1. Where was John Kerry when the AIDS services budget in Massachusetts was cut 50%? I don't remember seeing him talking to Gov. Romney about getting more money for people living with AIDS, or proposing a bill in the Senate to cover the shortfall.
2. Where was John Kerry when Springfield, Boston, and Worcester decided to try and import drugs from Canada because they were going bankrupt buying prescription drugs in the US? I don't remember hearing him talk about really using free trade so people can get the drugs they need.
3. Where was John Kerry when the mental health budget was cut 30% forcing mentally ill people to live unsupervised in shabby half-way homes? I don't remember hearing him talk about the importance of caring for these people who need help to care for themselves.

Why should you vote for Kerry as president when he has not been there as senator?

Final point. Your criticism of Miguel for "wasting his vote" on the candidate of his choice shows the full measure of your narrow-minded and obtuse political views. In a democracy, every vote counts, every vote matters, and no vote is a wasted vote. Rather than criticize him for voting for the person and party and he felt represents his views, I would applaud him and every other person who steps away from the choice between the lesser of two evils and votes their conscience. The continued implication by many Democrats and Kerry supporters that a vote for any one but Kerry is a vote for Bush, represents a dangerous view that does not deserve to win the white house and that does not deserve even the label "democratic."

Buzz, I think Patrick answered you splendidly. But. I want to add my two cents (it is my blog, after all).

1. I do visit the candidates' websites. I actually posted about that only a few days ago.

2. The media is focused on Kerry's Vietnam controversy, but taking his side & charging to his defense. While I think the issue's stupid (I don't give a rat's ass about Vietnam in 2004) it's sad to see many in the media trip over themselves to give Kerry a victory. That speaks volumes about our "democratic" process.

3. Why do you challenge my "set ways" when you clearly are also unobjective & totally unwielding. I've been writing — on this very blog & in discussions w/ friends on their blogs — pointing out just what exactly would win my vote. So far, neither candidate has done it. I'm doing no different than people like Jeff Jarvis, Glenn Reynolds, James Lileks, and others who're publicly agonizing about this election.

4. Every single voter — and I mean every single last one — in this country deserves to be wooed by the candidates. There are no entitled votes, they have to be earned. Wanting candidates to address your needs isn't being a "diva" ... it's wanting political leaders who speak to you.

Patrick,

I understand what you're trying to say and I understand your view. At least you argue for and against both candidates, unlike the owner of this blog.

Nevertheless, as you said, it is still a battle between the lesser of two evils. I for one don't believe someone who is incapable of properly pronouncing the english word nuclear (he says nuc-u-lar), is capable of making any important decisions for my country. Basically, he's a moron. I refuse to support a moron. The Bushism example that you provided, along with thousands of other Bushisms, is proof that he is a moron. The fact that he was a C average student at Yale only because of his family ties shows he's a moron.

I'd have more respect for the White House if Dick Cheney were running it, not a moron puppet. Let me save my breath and let you read an article that headlines why anything is better than Bush, he's incompetent.

THE REAL ISSUE: BUSH IS INCOMPETENT
Fri Aug 27, 2:43 AM ET Add Op/Ed
By Richard Reeves

NEW YORK -- President Bush is coming to town. You better watch out, you better not shout -- unless you're a certified delegate inside Madison Square Garden. With protesters somewhere out of sight, the Republican National Convention will be a celebration of the ideology, values and interests served by this second Bush presidency.

Whether you agree or disagree with the words pouring from the podium over Americans who see reflections of themselves in George W. Bush, the real issue of this election will not be mentioned. The core issue is this: Our president is incompetent. He is not a good president.

Let me count the ways:

(1) He has divided the country; we are all part of a vicious little hissing match. We were united and humbled on Sept. 12, 2001. We are divided and humiliated now, telling lies about each other.

(2) He has divided the world. "We are all Americans now," headlined Le Monde on that Sept. 12. Now there are days when it seems as if they are all anti-Americans.

(3) He is leaving no child or grandchild without debt. He has taken the government from surplus into deficit in the name of national security and increased private investment. We can pay the debt in two ways: with more government revenues (taxation) or by borrowing -- against the sweat and income of new generations. The president has chosen to borrow.

(4) He campaigns as a champion of smaller government, but is greatly increasing the size and role of government. Ideological conservatism, it turns out, costs just as much or more than ideological liberalism. Conservative and liberal politicians are both for increasing the reach and power of government. The difference between them is which parts and functions of the state are to be empowered and financed. The choice is between military measures and order, or more redistribution of income. Money is power.

(5) He is diminishing the military of which he is so proud now as commander in chief. The invasion and occupation of Iraq (news - web sites) have obviously not worked out the way he imagined -- naked torture was not the goal. But the far greater problem for the future is that our proud commander has revealed the hollowness behind the unilateral superpower. From the top down, we have not been able to win Iraq, much less the world. And going into Iraq has compromised or crippled the war on terror he declared himself.

(6) He is diminishing scientific progress, the great engine of the 20th century. Only the truly ignorant can believe that the proper role of government is to hinder medical research and environmental study in the name of God.

(7) He is diminishing the Constitution of the United States. Cheesy tricks like amending the great text of freedom to attack homosexuality can be dismissed as wedge politics. But it is worse to preach against an activist judiciary while appointing more activist judges who happen to hold different beliefs, particularly the idea that civil liberties are the enemies of patriotism, security and freedom itself.

(8) He has surrounded himself with other incompetents. The secretary of state is presiding over the rape of diplomacy and its alliances. The secretary of defense has sent our young men and women into situations they were never meant or trained to handle, and now they are being ordered into battle by an appointed minister in a faraway land. The national security adviser does not seem to know that her job description includes coordinating defense and diplomacy. And then there was our $340,000-a-month local hire, Ahmed Chalabi, sitting in the gallery of our House.

(9) He has been unable or unwilling to deal with declining employment and the rising medical costs of becoming an older nation.

(10) He is, as if by design, destroying the credibility of the United States as a force for peace in the world -- an honest broker -- particularly in the Middle East.

The list is longer, miscalculation after miscalculation. President Bush has not been able to function effectively at this pay grade. He may mean well, but this has been a difficult time, and he is in over his head. We and our kids will pay the price for his blundering, blunderbuss adventure in Washington. He has been tested in a difficult time -- and, unhappily for all of us and the world, he has not been up to the job.

Buzz:

Huh. I guess you've not read my posts that point out things in which I oppose Bush (such as gay marriage). But I'm not here to justify myself to you. See, I think most of my circle of friends know what's wrong w/ Bush. That's fine. I just happen to hold the left to a higher standard, I guess. Perhaps I shouldn't?

Buzz:

BTW. What's up w/ the website you link to? You think I'm not being objective? Well, the one you link to is quite ideologically dogmatic as well. Pot calling kettle?