Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (10080)	3/26/2004 2:00:57 PM
From: JakeStraw	Respond to of 81568

John Kerry Vs. George W. Bush Comparing the Character of the Candidates March 26, 2004 by Bruce Walker Leftists have some fundamental problems of trust with the American people. They spent eight years defending the indefensible - the Clinton White House - and declined to challenge Clinton in 1996, when it was quite obvious that he was the most dishonest president in American history. Leftists also hide their true beliefs. When pundits talk about the need of Kerry to move back to the center, what they really mean is the need for Kerry to conceal his true beliefs. The surreal Leftism of Gore, after losing the presidency, and of Dean, while losing the Democrat nomination, shows just how radical Leftists like Kerry are. Compounding these fundamental problems, Leftists are used to having withering artillery barrages - unanswered by the Right - pummel their real or imagined enemies. Conservatives and Republicans are accustomed to every single real or imaginary flaw exposed to heartless public scrutiny. Leftists and Democrats are accustomed to having the most egregious and clear flaws totally ignored by the Leftist establishment media, which once dominated public consciousness. If this seems extreme, consider whether Republicans in the 1980s could have chosen as their leader in the United States Senate a former middle level thug in the Ku Klux Klan or nominated a draft dodger with a long trail of demonstrable lies as its presidential candidate in 1992. All that has changed, because of the explosion of conservative media, but Leftists are old, lazy people and they have grasped the new reality in which the Right gets its message out much faster than the Left. Because the Right expects its leaders to be honest, this means that conservatives and Republicans behave very well (watched from both sides) while Leftists and Democrats behave very badly (oblivious to the new Media and untouched by their dinosaur old Media.) A recent Association Press poll which asked six questions about Bush and Kerry demonstrate the huge gap that Leftists face. The polling sample was "Registered Voters" which always understates slightly conservative strength because conservative voters are more likely to vote than Leftist voters. The results are very unlikely to change before November 2004. President Bush has been in the public eye now for a dozen years, and has been subject to intensive scrutiny for four years. John Kerry is no novice to national politics either and he rode a wave of very favorable attention in the last seven weeks. Three of the six questions simply reflect how people today intend to vote seven months from now. The questions ask to which of the two men the particular question applies. "He has a vision for the future" (Bush and Kerry are virtually tied at 45% each.) "He shares your view of government" (Bush and Kerry, again, are virtually tied at 45% each.) "He cares about people like you" (Kerry has a slight lead of 49% to 42%, which means Americans perceive both men as indifferent.) Consider, however, the other three questions. "He is a strong leader" (Bush leads Kerry by a whopping 60% to 32%.) "He stands up for what he believes in" (Bush leads Kerry by an almost equally whopping 57% to 34%.) "He is honest" (Bush leads Kerry by 45% to 40% - which is truly remarkable considering that Bush’s credibility has been under unrelenting attack for four years.) These results are stunning. Although the "He is honest" plurality for Bush is critical, the second question, "He stands up for what he believes in," is simply a restatement of the "He is honest" question. If the results of those two questions were given equal weight in the general area of character, then Bush leads Kerry today by 51% to 37%. It is reasonable to assume that those who consider both honest or neither honest or are not sure about the character of either men can either be excluded or can be divided equally between the two candidates. When those voters are excluded, the Bush lead on character issues is 58% to 42%. When those voters are divided evenly between the candidates, the Bush lead on character issues is 57% to 43%. Americans trust President Bush much more than the trust John Kerry. Americans have also given George W. Bush historically high "likeability" ratings, which has been very positive all the way back to May 1998 (again, indicating that the American people already have firmly made up their minds about the man.) Kerry is a aloof personality, not well liked by even fellow Democrats. He is not particularly trusted, and this is before Republicans have really hammered him on his inconsistent positions and flip flops. His low numbers in trust and likeability will only drop as the campaign progresses. Americans seldom support for president a man who they do not like. Almost never do Americans support for president a man who they do not trust. This is particularly true when there are storm clouds on the horizon (one reason Clinton won two plurality elections is that Americans viewed him as essentially harmless because America appeared safe.) The gap between President Bush and John Kerry on character issues does not show up - yet - in trial heats between the two men, but the closer November comes, the more this huge gap will be reflected in head to head match-ups. The result will probably be a Bush Landslide. mensnewsdaily.com

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (10080)	3/26/2004 2:06:13 PM
From: lorne	Respond to of 81568

Kerry ran from the enemy, claims former Vietnam crewman of Democrat candidate By Julian Coman in Washington (Filed: 14/03/2004) telegraph.co.uk John Kerry, the Democratic challenger for the White House, is embroiled in fresh controversy over his much-vaunted Vietnam war record, after one of his crew members accused him of cowardice and making strategic mistakes in battle. The testimony of Steven Gardner, a gunner's mate on the first patrol boat commanded by Mr Kerry in the Mekong delta, contradicts accounts of the senator's military career that depict him as a brave and aggressive lieutenant who won three Purple Hearts and which are a key element of his campaign against George Bush. "He absolutely did not want to engage the enemy when I was with him," Mr Gardner said in an interview with the Boston Globe, which contacted him about the presidential candidate. "He wouldn't go in there and search. That is why I have a negative viewpoint of John Kerry. "His initial patterns of behaviour when I met him and served under him were of somebody who ran from the enemy, rather than engaged it." Mr Gardner has refused to join the tight-knit group of Vietnam veterans who are passionately supporters of their former comrade's White House bid. His portrayal of a timid Lt Kerry is at odds with the accounts of other crew members, and Sen Kerry is said to be "angry" about the slur. John Hurley, the national director of Vietnam Veterans for Kerry, told the Telegraph: "John was shocked by this. Gardner said that John used to take the boat four or five miles offshore 'every single night' so that it would be out of harm's way. John doesn't remember that and neither does the rest of the crew. They all think he's way off base." In his Boston Globe interview, Mr Gardner also recalled an incident in 1968 in which he was slightly wounded, causing Sen Kerry to abort the boat's mission. "I said: 'Lt Kerry, I'm fine, nothing's wrong. I got a little flesh wound here.' But Kerry was already backing out of the canal, getting ready to run for it," he said. Relations between the two men reached their low point after a Vietnamese boy was killed in an encounter with a fishing boat. The Kerry crew opened fire believing their craft was under attack. According to Mr Gardner, Lt Kerry blamed him for the tragedy. "Kerry threatened me with a court-martial, screaming: 'What the hell do you think you're doing?' " said Mr Gardner. "Thankfully the whole crew verified there were weapons being shot at us. That was the end of it." Sen Kerry described Mr Gardner's version of events as "made up". "It's sad," he told his biographer, Douglas Brinkley, "but that's the way it goes in war, and especially in politics," a reference to Mr Gardner's apparently Republican sympathies. "I've spent hours on the phone to him [Gardner]," said Mr Hurley. "But he won't back down on his story, even though the crew disagree with him." Mr Brinkley, who interviewed Mr Gardner for an hour last week, said afterwards: "It essentially boils down to one word: politics. Gardner is sickened by the idea of Kerry as president." An angry Mr Gardner, however, insisted: "I never made the first call to anyone. Until someone called me, I kept it all to myself."