I think that the most important reason to vote Kerry (without bashing Bush or anything- I'm trying!) is that he would be able to serve the country very well in foreign policy, especially with the current strains in Europe. He speaks French fluently, and while I know that that might seem like a turn-off, it would really be amazing if he could deliver a speech in Europe in a native language. That would show that Americans really do take interest in foreign affairs, rather than seeming to be huffy and pretentious.
He's a war hero. Unlike many wealthy people in his generation (and I'm not only talking about the other guy), he served. He was in harms way. He didn't have to.
He is conscientious. He could have come home, gotten a cushy job, and forgotten about Vietnam. He decided to take an difficult stance and come out against a war he thought was bad for the troops and the country.
He has tons of political experience. He has showed he can satisfy his constituents year after year. He knows his way around DC which like it or not is helpful when working with the other party or passing legislation and generally getting things done.
Also, you should hopefully like your candidate for their positions on issues. I like a lot of his positions, but there's too many to enumerate.
THAT SAID, why would anyone want to ignore who the person is running against? We are in a two-party system. You have to choose between two people. You can approach it as the better candidate or the lessor of two evils but a comparison is implicit.
Even IF Kerry's not a great guy, it makes sense to vote for him considering the alternative. There's nothing unreasonable or bad about this. That said, here are some reasons to like Kerry.
you know.. other than AnandTech Moderator; and, of course, LunarRay isn't telling at all.
but as it turns out, we're all just two people arguoing over this segment of cyber space
here is a post worth repeating:
even then it's still full of anti-bush... seriously, make a case for your candidate that doens't insult the other guy! it's the only way to actualy win.
Remember bob dole? Same thing's going to happen if dems don't wakeup to the need to sell the American people something.. Like a bridge, or a hat.. Most wanted that lock-box.. But it wasn't all that flashy.
Might i suggest selling America as the "bringers of democracy and freedom, those that will treat all members of the world as though they are citizens of America"
We shouldn't have to treat them as citizens of America. Why? Because 1) They don't want it. 2) They aren't Americans. It's this sort of mentality that brought us to where we are in foreign affairs. We aren't the parents of the world, we aren't the police of the world AND WE SHOULDN'T TRY.
I understand what the original poster wanted, but man it's almost impossible to NOT mention Bush in pro-Kerry rationale, considering that Bush has been the absolute worst President in recent memory. Yes, even worse than Carter, but at least Carter was a very decent human being. In essence, I would've supported Alice Cooper if he decided to run for President.
I don't think there's enough Bush haters out there to win the day for Kerry. So, how do you convince those who don't hate Bush, but are undecided?
Riprorin,
He's a war hero. Unlike many wealthy people in his generation (and I'm not only talking about the other guy), he served. He was in harms way. He didn't have to.
He is conscientious. He could have come home, gotten a cushy job, and forgotten about Vietnam. He decided to take an difficult stance and come out against a war he thought was bad for the troops and the country.
He has tons of political experience. He has showed he can satisfy his constituents year after year. He knows his way around DC which like it or not is helpful when working with the other party or passing legislation and generally getting things done.
Also, you should hopefully like your candidate for their positions on issues. I like a lot of his positions, but there's too many to enumerate.
He's a war hero. Unlike many wealthy people in his generation (and I'm not only talking about the other guy), he served. He was in harms way. He didn't have to.
He is conscientious. He could have come home, gotten a cushy job, and forgotten about Vietnam. He decided to take an difficult stance and come out against a war he thought was bad for the troops and the country.
He has tons of political experience. He has showed he can satisfy his constituents year after year. He knows his way around DC which like it or not is helpful when working with the other party or passing legislation and generally getting things done.
Also, you should hopefully like your candidate for their positions on issues. I like a lot of his positions, but there's too many to enumerate.
Hawk, Sen. Kerry pissed off a lot of veterans with his post-war antics. I can't find it, but I heard that there's a CBS poll that shows that Bush has more support among veterans than Kerry. So I don't think think his record in Vietnam will push him over the top.
With regard to your second point, there's a lot of politicians with experience that know Washington.
What makes Sen. Kerry uniquely qualified to be president?
"Sen. Kerry pissed off a lot of veterans with his post-war antics. "
I thought we were trying to convince you. If you are a veteran and you are pissed off I will address it though. You shouldn't be pissed off at him. Like I said above, he served his country well in Vietnam. Have you heard the medal stories? He showed bravery. It shows he puts his others interests above his own in at least some situations. He helped bring an end to war that wasn't doing our troops our country any good. We needed to have troops at home making our economy stronger or at least in areas of the world where US troops were welcome. The Vietnam war was bad. Yeah, he said US troops were doing bad things. They were doing some bad things in Vietnam just like we do today in Iraq. He called it like he saw it which took honesty. It's like the guy who broke the scandal in Iraq, he's put an end to some of the problems hopefully. Finally, he was one of them. He was criticizing himself too. That takes honesty I think as well.
"What makes Sen. Kerry uniquely qualified to be president?"
I don't think ANYONE is uniquely qualified to be president. But that wasn't your main question. And if you think someone must be uniquelly qualified in order to be elected then there will be nobody to elect!
There are still reasons everyone can like Kerry even if the other candidate is not in the picture. He's not perfect, nobody is, but his record of service suggests he's a good citizen and would make a good President.
it would appear that kerry is not going to generate much excitement over any issue that is important and will just get outspent anywhere the electoral race is close.
I can hardly wait to see where democracy will spring up next...
I would argue that a couple of the attacks levied against Kerry are excellent reasons to vote for him.
Nuanced. Funny how Kerry's critics are trying to make "nuance" a dirty word. Last time I checked, intelligent decisions about how to run our country and how to handle foreign policy are hardly black and white. I like the fact that Kerry as a senator has paid enough attention to the votes he's making to notice when a completely unacceptable "rider" gets attached to a bill that otherwise sounds like a no-brainer (as many of the shocking "attacks" on Kerry's voting record happen to omit).
Kerry has occasionally changed his mind on policy details after new facts come to light. Perhaps if a team of respected scientists came to Kerry's office with solid and convincing evidence of an environmental harm that could be prevented with a policy change, Kerry might hear what they have to say and change administration policy on that issue. I suspect that if elected, he will end up signing some "conservative" legislation that will piss off the far left for similar reasons: it will make sense. He comes off to me as someone who is open to influence from people outside of his inner circle, as long as they are respectful and argue their case convincingly. Kind of like how almost anything gets done in the Senate when disrespectful partisanship is a one-way ticket to a filibuster. Anybody with a lengthy Senate tenure is going to look "wishy washy" when facts are presented selectively.
----
Some additional reasons:
He is running a comparatively clean campaign focused on his own qualifications. Whether or not you're getting that message is more of a function of our dysfunctional media channels than Kerry's effort to provide reasons why Americans should vote for him. Read around in his website and make up your own mind. I support many of his positions, but maybe you feel differently. If you don't support Kerry's positions, don't vote for Kerry (if you feel bad about not voting at all, write in whatever 3rd party schmuck you can find with a view or two you like).
Having the advantage of a "clean slate", Kerry will have a much easier time patching up damaged relations with important U.S. allies, and improving America's image abroad. The Iraq prison abuse scandal is providing way too much fodder for those recruiting the next generations of Anti-US suicide bombers. Whether or not current administration officials are responsible for the culture that allowed those abuses, a different administration will have better chances at the ongoing battle for "hearts and minds", if only because it doesn't bear as much of a perceived stain from these vivid abuse images (I say as much, because I doubt the martyr recruiters will make much of a distinction either way).
For the concerned conservatives out there, odds are Kerry wouldn't be able to turn the U.S. into a socialist utopia (or commie hell depending on your viewpoint) even if he wanted to. Having the legislative branch (likely) controlled by an opposing party does tend to keep government safely restrained. At worst, you're looking at gridlock - but given how evenly divided America seems to be, giving a single party carte blanche for a lengthy amount of time could be viewed as ironically undemocratic (at least from an impartial centrists' view). There are plenty of Americans who "split" their national votes with the intent of providing an additional "check & balance" to our already institutionalized checks and balances. That may not be a persuasive reason to sway your individual vote, but for some it is.
I've tried my best to refrain from directly mentioning why to vote against Bush. I do have to ask however, if Bush was your employee and his annual review was coming up, would you give him a raise based on his Job performance so far? Personally, I would fire him based on his performance, and that's what I intend to do with my vote come November. I'm perfectly comfortable having plenty of reasons both for one party and against the other contributing to my vote, and i don't see anything wrong with that.
Nuanced. Funny how Kerry's critics are trying to make "nuance" a dirty word. Last time I checked, intelligent decisions about how to run our country and how to handle foreign policy are hardly black and white. I like the fact that Kerry as a senator has paid enough attention to the votes he's making to notice when a completely unacceptable "rider" gets attached to a bill that otherwise sounds like a no-brainer (as many of the shocking "attacks" on Kerry's voting record happen to omit).
Kerry has occasionally changed his mind on policy details after new facts come to light. Perhaps if a team of respected scientists came to Kerry's office with solid and convincing evidence of an environmental harm that could be prevented with a policy change, Kerry might hear what they have to say and change administration policy on that issue. I suspect that if elected, he will end up signing some "conservative" legislation that will piss off the far left for similar reasons: it will make sense. He comes off to me as someone who is open to influence from people outside of his inner circle, as long as they are respectful and argue their case convincingly. Kind of like how almost anything gets done in the Senate when disrespectful partisanship is a one-way ticket to a filibuster. Anybody with a lengthy Senate tenure is going to look "wishy washy" when facts are presented selectively.
----
Some additional reasons:
He is running a comparatively clean campaign focused on his own qualifications. Whether or not you're getting that message is more of a function of our dysfunctional media channels than Kerry's effort to provide reasons why Americans should vote for him. Read around in his website and make up your own mind. I support many of his positions, but maybe you feel differently. If you don't support Kerry's positions, don't vote for Kerry (if you feel bad about not voting at all, write in whatever 3rd party schmuck you can find with a view or two you like).
Having the advantage of a "clean slate", Kerry will have a much easier time patching up damaged relations with important U.S. allies, and improving America's image abroad. The Iraq prison abuse scandal is providing way too much fodder for those recruiting the next generations of Anti-US suicide bombers. Whether or not current administration officials are responsible for the culture that allowed those abuses, a different administration will have better chances at the ongoing battle for "hearts and minds", if only because it doesn't bear as much of a perceived stain from these vivid abuse images (I say as much, because I doubt the martyr recruiters will make much of a distinction either way).
For the concerned conservatives out there, odds are Kerry wouldn't be able to turn the U.S. into a socialist utopia (or commie hell depending on your viewpoint) even if he wanted to. Having the legislative branch (likely) controlled by an opposing party does tend to keep government safely restrained. At worst, you're looking at gridlock - but given how evenly divided America seems to be, giving a single party carte blanche for a lengthy amount of time could be viewed as ironically undemocratic (at least from an impartial centrists' view). There are plenty of Americans who "split" their national votes with the intent of providing an additional "check & balance" to our already institutionalized checks and balances. That may not be a persuasive reason to sway your individual vote, but for some it is.
I've tried my best to refrain from directly mentioning why to vote against Bush. I do have to ask however, if Bush was your employee and his annual review was coming up, would you give him a raise based on his Job performance so far? Personally, I would fire him based on his performance, and that's what I intend to do with my vote come November. I'm perfectly comfortable having plenty of reasons both for one party and against the other contributing to my vote, and i don't see anything wrong with that.
Your post is off topic. Democracy spreading? Kerry generating excitement? The original question was whether there was something good about Kerry outside of not being Bush. It had nothing to do with spreading democracy or generating excitement.
I think the best reason to vote for Kerry is that he will be able to repair the foreign relations. With new technology the world is a lot more connected than it was a few decades ago. It is important to have good relations with other countries IMO
conceded - the point of my OT post is that you probably can't convince such a person because they are not paying attention.... so 4 more years. As I re-read it, that did not really come through clearly. thanks IH
Good point. I think Kerry has the personality and termperment to have good relations with other countries.
Another thing about Kerry is he would be a good commander-in-chief. He was one of the grunts. He'll be in touch with them. Also, he'll have working knowledge of the chain-of-command from his days in the navy and from his time on capitol hill.
Sorry to post again and again but another thing I like about Kerry (again I don't think he's perfect) is that he has a moderate position on gay marriage. He's not for it, as most Americans aren't and I am not, but I think he is for civil unions (which many people including myself are also for). Such a position could go a long ways towards making both sides happy.
I agree with both of those. I also am hoping Kerry will change his gay marriage stance (state's right to decide) because I'm pretty sure it differs from his real views, he's simply playing to the center. Kerry also probably won't have tax cuts like Bush did, but if he does I would hope it's more for the citizens on the lower end of the financial spectrum. I think Kerry will find a reasonable way to fix the prescription drug fiasco...something that helps a little bit more than Bush's bill
the fact that he's changed some of his positions (re: the "flip-flop" argument that the bush camp uses) actually makes me respect him more. I'd rather have a president who listens to both sides of an issue and is willing to change his mind about something, as opposed to a president who picks a position and sticks with it, even when he's obviously wrong.
he seems willing to at least try and put partisanship aside.
Kerry in '04 means that we won't have to worry about Hillary in '08.
plus, NorthEastern liberal = love.
I think its pretty clear that hardly anyone can bring up a point PRO-Kerry that doesn't include 'Bush' in it... Unfortunately for dems, I don't think just being against another candidate is enough to win an election.. Clinton is proof of that.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter