|
Edited on Wed Feb-11-04 03:04 PM by Nicholas_J
Listen, I like Clark, would have supported him if he was the candidate (I would support anyone but Dean, even the much maligned Lieberman, who is as honest and honorable as Clark is).
Part of Clarks proble was trying to present himself as a "Washinton Outsider". Most people know that Generals are career Washington Insiders, and they work for the department in Washington that has the biggest budget. If you do not think that Clark didnt lobby his bosses, Congressmen, and the President for bigger chunks of budgets for his arena of military control, you are mistaken. Most people who looked at Clark and supported Kerry, know that.
ALl in all, simply looks at experience. Kerry has done it all. He has the military expererience. He has years of both Domestic and Fpreign affairs experience. Edwards has some. His experience as trial lawyer is experience of a sort, but it is not the same as government experience. Dean was a governor of a state with a population smaller than that of the number of people working for the federal government.
And Denas claims for what he did as Governor are wanting. His fiscal balancing act was largely accomplished by a plan that was in place when his predecessor died, Dean simply let it run on. Same thing with Vermont's health care programs. They were created in 1989, a few years before he became Governor, and were by in large the ideas of a Vermont independent named Con Hogan who served as the head of health programs for the Governor who preceded Dean. Dean has never showed much talent for coming up with ideas of his own.
Kerry has the government experience that Edwards has, and more of it. He was a lawyer, and a prosecutor at that, also a Lt Governor. Has had years of foreign affairs experience, as well as having been in charge of a number of domestic comittees, the Small Business comittee comes to mind as being one of the more important.
You decide. IF you were going to have delicate brain surgery, who would you choose. A guy who had just gotten out of residency, and had seen the surgery done a few times and assisted. A small town doctor, who has gone through medical school, but has never performed major surgery, or someone who has had years of experience at it, and done the surgery dozens of times.
Like all politicians, Kerry has made the odd error, and had to make the odd compromise. Sometimes if there is something very critical in a bill that you want passed, but Republicans have tagged something offensive onto that bill, if the thing that is important is a bit more important to accomplish, then sometime you vote for legislation that is a bit offensive. Not one cnaiddate stands free of having made complromises that could be conmsidered unacceptable by people who beleive that you should just sit and oppose everything if you dont get everything you want. Unfortunately, our government was designed exactly that way. It contains the means by which the minority party can prevent the majority from getting everything it wants, using these techniques. This is the genius of our government. There is no way to get everything you want, without compromise. Thats why we have things like filibusters, and rules that it takes a supermajority to break them.
The difference between Kerry and the others, to be honest, is that he has all of the qualification that the other candidates claim to have, but none of the other candidates have all of his.
Even Kucinich, idealist that he is presented as, has a slighly tainted past record, and though I will take his word for his change of heart, It does seem to have come at a rather convenient time.
Only Kerry has a consistant record that matches his current platform. He has been unflinchingly liberal, and frequently gone against eventhe majority of the democratic part on issues like DOMA. He was prevented, by the Democratic Party moderates, from pursuing articles of impeacment on Reagan after Iran Contra. He started demanding it, but was voted down.
It is total past record that anyone should look at. Passion is one of natures lower and rather unstable functions. It serve a purpose, but it does not stem from the higher areas of the brain. Reason does. SO look what your candidate says, and go back and look to see if that candidate has been relatively consistant in the past though actions, with what they are claiming in the present.
And then convince yourself, rather than have others try to sway you with their slant on it. Put your own slant on it. Use your own head, your own intelligence, your own eyes, and thne choose. But dont base it on having your passion arroused by hat a candidate says. These people are trained to speak persuasively n front of people, as that is one part of leadership. But they are also trained to lie, sometimes for good purposes. I am sure at time Clark was forced to lie about certain situations that involved security, and misdirect, and mislead people. In his case, I am certain that the lies were necessary for a greater good. But a talent for lying convincingly can be turned to less than noble purposes. Self Serving ones. Sometimes absolutely dangerous ones. So relying on the fact that someone can get your passions aroused is no guarantee that they are telling the truth while doing so. Its better to use your head in these areas, and rely on the word of no one, who already supports a candidate. Rely on your own intelligence and judgement. This is how most voters who have been doing it for a while select their candidates. They have heard all of the campaign promises and speeches, and know that the only way to really tell anything about a candidate is to look back, not straight ahead.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
