Kerry = Apple?
Posted September 1st, 2004 @ 03:33pm by Erik J. Barzeski
I said I wouldn't blog about political stuff, but this is just ridiculous enough to make me want to point it out. I still remember that it was Dubya who helped Microsoft get off pretty damn easy in its antitrust trial.
Kerry is nothing like Apple. If he were, he'd announce cool new policies, tell us they'd be available within three weeks, and then make us wait for eight or nine months. Instead, Kerry simply fails to announce any policy (or, apparently, show up to vote on other people's).
Oops, I slipped. 🙂
Donate Life
Posted 01 Sep 2004 at 4:08pm #
If you're looking for policies, they're here.
Posted 01 Sep 2004 at 9:52pm #
I hear this a lot, but it doesn't make any sense. No candidate can dwell on the issues. There isn't enough time in the campaign for substantive discussions of the issues. Can't fit them into a sound-bite. Gore tried to talk about the issues and he was branded "boring." Which is it going to be? Another case where someone insults a candidate on a base-less issue and people run with it. So far, every campaign I remember has been filled with them.
Posted 02 Sep 2004 at 11:37am #
Grayson,
That's hilarious. Umm, how's this for an issue: the war on terrorism. If you don't mind, I think it's quite clear that most Americans don't know what Kerry's position is on this. He "voted for the war before he voted against it," and he harshly criticized the Vietnam war and now wants to act like a pro-war candidate. Give us substance, Mr. Kerry, if you have any. We have time for that issue.
Ted
Posted 02 Sep 2004 at 5:07pm #
Ted,
I'm not going to argue any of your other points, but it must be said that the War in Iraq was not immediately connected to the War on Terrorism.
Iraq was not a terrorist threat. However, it could be argued that they are a terrorist threat now after everything got stirred up.
Posted 03 Sep 2004 at 10:44am #
First, Kerry did not "voted for the war before he voted against it." He voted to give the President power to declare war in the event it was necessary. Bush took it and ran with it. He didn't vote against the war later, but rather refused to pass a bill that would essentially give Bush a blank check for the war (it was later "just" somewhere in the $80 billions). But then I guess if some talk-show tells you that he "voted for the war before he voted against it" enough times, you'll probably just believe it. However, if you aren't aware of what actually happened, then you haven't been listening to the Kerry campaign refute it.
What's wrong with criticizing the Vietnam War? I didn't know we were still trying to make ourselves feel better about getting stuck in a quagmire overseas and losing lots of young men. He served. That should give him the right to criticize. His reaction was fair and when interviewed, there was another individual to refute Kerry's points. It was legit and isn't an issue.
Pro-war? Here's pro-war: "I'm a war President." -Bush
I'm not keen on the whole war hero deal with Kerry, but he is a veteran with more experience than Bush. He has promised that he'll use his background and what he learned to help our soldiers. He isn't pro-war.
Which leads me to the issue of war. Kerry has said repeatedly that he wants to end the conflict in Iraq. He wants to work with the world to get US soldiers out and others in to show that it isn't an occupation (which it currently is) and set up a stable democracy (which it currently isn't). That's the gist of his plan, although the details of it can be found on his website. As for the war on terror (which in itself is such a vague concept that Bush doesn't know if we can never win or if we're about to win it, check back on that flip-flopping next week), Kerry has plans for alliances the globe, modernizing the military, and giving up any dependence on oil from the Middle East.
These sound like issues to me. My point was that there was no time to get into any depth of the issues in any current political forum. Soundbites are the game of today. That doesn't prevent anyone from actually knowing the issues or hearing the candidate's stance, but most do not get into the potentially long and complicated issues of global politics. Bill Watterson wrote in the 10th anniversary book of Calvin and Hobbes, "Most ignorance is willful." It sure is.
Posted 06 Sep 2004 at 5:57pm #
Grayson pretty much said it all, but allow me to elaborate.
One of Bush's most fond forms of spin is to say something to the effect of, "He voted against the 'Do-Something-Good Act', effectively voting against the government's ability to Do Something Good."
That's why Bush doesn't want you to look into "gray areas" or "complexities" (in reference to Zell Miller). Because if you do, you'll realize that a law is more than what it's named. That Patriot Act isn't about patriotism just because that's what it's named. It's about giving up freedom in the name of unproven security. The No Child Left Behind Act will continually leave children behind without funding to back it. And the second "vote to go to war" wasn't just about going to war; it was about a ton of kickbacks to Cheney's company, Halliburton, it was about corruption, and it was about a blank check for a war that turned out much more complicated than anticipated.
Just because you hear some politician bagging on another for not voting on one of his proposed bills doesn't mean that he's against what we think the bill is really for. There are gray areas, and there are complexities. Screw Zell Miller and look into them.
Posted 10 Sep 2004 at 8:17am #
From an article on Wired: If Deng (Xiaoping) were still around today, he'd be using a Mac. I'd take him over John Kerry, I think. :-)...