Listen..... we can go back and forth on this but one thing is certain.....

Kerry is just like Bush... they both agree on many of the same issues....

I just cant see the difference.

Republicans don't seem to believe in nuance anymore. It doesn't matter if Bush lies about wmd, not being a "nation-builder" and so forth, as long as he looks tough saying it and constantly covers up his lies by talking about what a 'straight shooter' he is. God forbid we have a president who's actually capable of understanding the world isn't black and white.

Thank you!

Thoughtful discussion does indeed not make one a flip-flopper. Changing one's stance to a diametrically opposed position for political expediency does however. I suppose whether Mr. Kerry does this is a matter of percption, another one of those "shades of gray."

Quote:

He stands for the rights of the common man, not some neo-con trickle down wet dream.

Just to correct a small, but irksome, point, Neoconservatives by and large do not subscribe to Supply Side economics, or "trickle down" as it is derisively referred to here. Certainly not all of them, but a large number of those labeling themselves as Neoconservative are actually Keynesian in nature. Hell, some even have socialist tendencies.

Quote:

He stands for moderation in foreign policy..."walking softly" if you will.

Is this why he has repeatedly voted for the use of military action? Make no mistake, when a member of Congress votes on a particular Bill authorizing military action, they know exactly what the end results are going to be.

Quote:

He stands for the rights of minorities, women, and gay people to be equal partners in our great democracy.

Then why is he against gay people being allowed to be married? Doesn't sound like an equal rights guy to me.

Quote:

He stands for war as a last possible resort...because he's been there.

Answered above.

Quote:

He stands for our government paying its way now...not leaving massive debt for our kids from optional wars, spending orgies, and tax cuts for the wealthy.

His economic proposals are wrought with spending increases as well as tax increases for a variety of people, not just the wealthy. Nothing he has proposed by itself will decrease our debt.

Quote:

He stands for health care as a basic human right.

Who doesn't? The level of care that all should receive is what is at issue, and more importanly, how to best achieve that end.

Quote:

He is everything Bush isn't (except rich), which sounds just about perfect to me, and I can't wait to vote for him.

Thanks for asking.

As a great deal can't wait to do the opposite.

This whole thread really should be in Other.

That having been said, thanks for the characterisation!

That is, after all, the only thing I look for in my President, the ability to talk and look tough. You nailed that one. I am also sorry that I am not able to see things as well as you are. Thanks for pointing out things that I can not otherwise see or comprehend.

I love it! First of all, everyone (with one courageous exception) voted for the war! Why? Partially because that was the way that public opinion was headed. But I dare say it was mostly because the White House said it had compelling evidence that Iraq not only aided terrorists, but had weapons of mass destruction poised to attack the US. And now the Republicans turn around and accuse Kerry of being twofaced. Unbelievable.

As I understand it that same information was made available to those in congress.

Hey... i may be a republican but i am open to both views.... but to say that Kerry will be a big saint if he wins the election is just very wrong. If kerry is such a great candidate for the office, then why does this election look so close?


This is why there is two sides to this election and why half the americans are either voting for bush and the other half Kerry.


Sorry back to Moore, there are alot of misleading things he says and many of his documentaries are against Americans to begin with.

He is not against America. He clearly cares very deeply for America or he wouldn't bother making documentaries.

You may disagree with his opinion but these sorts of statements are far too commonly used against him. "Michael Moore Hates America"...he is against Americans...If you believe in freedom, then you believe in Bush...etc.

The right wing of the Republican party has been doing this since Bush got elected. They oversimplify the issues and reduce everything to an emotional question and assume that they are on the right side. By doing that, you save yourself the trouble of putting any real thought into an issue. Sean Hannity is a master of this tactic.

Those on the other side have the same opinion of liberals/Democrats. It's hardly a one-way street and why the country continues it's division.

Lets see....

I will vote for Bush. That i will but i have not put him over here for nothing...Plus just because he makes these documentaries doesnt mean he loves America.

But it seems as though just because i dont fully agree with the things Michael moore says then that means that we dont hear anything else and that the right wing always says this and that and blah blah blah.... Come on give me a break.

Come on.... politics is politics.... Tell me again.... If Kerry is the answer to our country... Why is the American People so divided on who to pick?

For the same reason(s) people were divided when they chose one of the greatest presidents this country has ever had- Kennedy.

Pro-B

It is all about STEM CELL RESEARCH. Terrorism kills almost no one compared to heart disease, cancer, obesity, etc. We can save millions with real research to cure everyone. Bush is against it on religous reasons alone which ends all credibility with anyone that has a working brain and can think ahead. Most Republicans in the Senate and House are OPENLY in support of stem cell research. There is no controversy or debate with anyone who reads the facts. The next time anyone has a family member in horrible health will wonder "could we have saved them if we had been working this whole time?" 2 years WASTED already and with Bush re-elected 4 more go down the drain. You want to save lives, you do THIS. Kerry says he will put stem cell research into effect THE DAY he reaches office. That ends everything for me. There is no other issue on the spectrum that will help and effect more people in the long run. Just think about it.

Stem cell research is one of the big reasons I will vote for Kerry and hope he wins. The man doesn't rule based off what religion tells him (although he is a religous man) but what is best scientifically and for the people.

I feel that Kerry won't do something like No Child Left Behind, which really does leave many children behind, and claim that it's in the best interest of everybody, then turns around and refuses to fund it.

Kerry won't be cutting things like Head Start that helps low-income families give their children a decent chance of suceeding in school. He will care more about someone like me who is struggling to make ends meet and doesn't ask for much, just the chance to have "affordable" health care offered to me. When you earn a two percent increase in your salary annually and then see your health insurance premiums go up by more than 10 percent each year, something is wrong. Bush just doesn't seem to recognize that or care.

I know Bush joked at the correspondent's dinner in the film that his base was the haves and the have mores. I realize he was cracking a joke, but for many of us that joke hits too close to reality.

Hey, whatever floats your boat.

I'm a deficit hawk, a social liberal, and a foreign policy moderate myself, but everybody has a pet issue and I agree with yours 10000% even if jesus, moses, and the tabernacle choir told Bush it wasn't kosher in a vision.

For the poster who thinks Kerry should be baited into coming out for gay marriage, I say "no thanks" and so does he. I think that "live and let live" is the right (and American) thing to do, but I also think that joe public is clearly not on board yet. Kerry, has already come out in support of civil unions, which affords gay people their constitutionally protected (for the time being) right to equal protection.

Again, it comes back to nuance...which apparently cannot coexist with taking a stand...but don't get me started on THAT again.

Re: Macro-econ: If we're not practicing good, old-fashioned, deficit be damned, trickle-down, supply-side, voodoo, neocon, MFing reaganomics right now, then what exactly would you call it?

I'll discuss nuances with you anytime you would like, at least on any issues that are important to both of us.

Quote:

Re: Macro-econ: If we're not practicing good, old-fashioned, deficit be damned, trickle-down, supply-side, voodoo, neocon, MFing reaganomics right now, then what exactly would you call it?

The point is you are completely misusing the Neoconservative and are misrepresenting what Neoconservativism is. Again, Neoconservatives actually don't usually have much to say about economic matters at all. When they do the usually are not supply siders. Of course, one size does not fit all, Neocons most certainly do run the gamut. It is just that to align Neoconservativism with any economic theory or plan, let alone one like supply-side, is wrong.

As to what we are practicing right now, it is a mixture of some monetaris policies, pro-growth supply-side policies, and some good old-fashioned Keynesian policies, the type that most Democrats going all the way back to FDR are usually so fond of, the type that folks such as Senator Kerry economic advisof Gene Sperling are in favor of. In my decidedly pro-growth opinion, the current administration has in fact implemented way too many Keynesian policies, but that's just me.



Regardless, I do hope you all have enjoyed, or will enjoy, the film, even if it doesn't change any minds at all, from either side.

You and I have almost identical opinions. Your remark about Bush's joke hitting too close to reality is what really left a bitter taste in me as well.

Very well said!!

Pro-B

ps
Now....on a side note....GO BIG RED!!

Ah, I see where you are going now. Neoconservative is more of a social/foreign policy position than an economic one. Assuming that is the case you are making, you're right, I am overgeneralizing. Ironically though, I fail to see the nuances in Bush's fiscal policy that you do. It just doesn't pass the duck test for me.

As far as nuance goes, I have no doubt that you get it. I just believe that the constant spinning has people thinking in 20 second soundbites about whether they are on the white side or the black side (bad choice of noncolors, but you get the point) and the fact is that most difficult issues are difficult by definition because they are gray. So somebody like Bush comes along who thinks he's a combination of moses and the marlboro man and speaks in 6 word sentences, and folks like him because he speaks their limited language and generally picks the majority side. Meanwhile, somebody like Kerry comes along, who has a career of thoughtful discourse and has to vote up or down on 200 page bills with multiple riders, and it's just impossible to do without making some compromises and seeing the nuances of issues. I mostly just think that it doesn't pay to be a legislator these days if you have other aspirations.

Anyway, I'm rambling now...should get to bed.

Final note: I don't think the film will change many minds per se, but it will motivate people who might not otherwise be motivated...namely the young. My theater was packed with kids who otherwise probably never considered voting, but absolutely will this year based on their reaction.

You probably don't want to research the opinions Kerry had on Iraq and its threat-level prior to Bush's administration. I'll give you a hint, though. It blows the whole "Poor Sen. Kerry was fooled" nonsense out of the water.

Nope!

I am still voting for the less of all evils... none. It doesn't matter who's in there they all suck!

But Bush has taken suck A$$ to a new level!

Not only does this guy not have a clue but looks it!!!!

Why doesn't he sends his daughters over to help his troops in IraQ?

Nope, no change. Bush is still a moron.

I am someone who votes for the person that has the best "Real Ideas", not just general statements.

Example:
1. Health Care for everyone:
-How will we pay for it
-How will it be run
-How much heathcare will people get (when will a treatment be to much ???)
-More details would be awesome

2. War/Home Land Security...
-How would are shores be more secure
-How would we go after terrorist before the hit us
-Draft? I am not yes or no, it would be interesting to see how each one stands on the issue.

3. Economy/paying of the Gov debt
-What would their plans
-Goals

4. Any other issue they have a real plan for

Reagan and Clinton both said what they were going to do when they 1st took office and did. Right or wrong they did it. Niether of the currect candidates are giving us anything at this time.

I would like one website for each stating their stand on the issues and what they would do after taking office. Get rid of all the slamming ads and just give us what they believe in and what are they going to - then let us vote.

Iron Giant,

I agree that Kerry could be presenting more specifics, but when you are running against somebody who screws something up every other day, it might just be a good strategy to present broad moderate ideas. If you don't like this method of campaigning, blame Bush.

In 2000, Bush 2 kept things vague and just watched Gore trip over himself. Kerry seems to have a similar strategy this year...for better or worse. It's not the type of campaign that appeals to me (or probably you), but it's been proven to work...ironically by Bush himself.

Clinton and Reagan, as you rightly pointed out had a much more focused message. Clinton in particular had very specific policy ideas that he could discuss at length off the top of his head. Bush 2 basically repeated the usual conservative mantras with that whole "compassionate" twist. The only specific I remember was his dislike of the surplus, which to his credit, he followed through on immediately by creating massive deficits.

Side note: Time permitting, I'd love to discuss healthcare policy sometime. I just finished a second Master's in healthcare administration from Baylor and I have several newly formed opinions on the subject. Bottom line: The eventuality of healthcare as a public system is inevitable. US businesses cannot compete with their labor costs and healthcare has never worked as a true market commodity. I'm leaning single payer myself, but the reality is that a regional managed competition system is much more likely.

The film didn't change my opinion one bit. I still wouldn't vote for Bush if there was a gun against my head.

The only reason I have to flat-out not like Kerry is his disapproval of gay marriage. But even there, Bush has completely outdone himself by pushing to insert hate into the US constitution. At least Kerry realizes that is wrong.

I am convinced that the gay marriage issue has largely been manufactured by the republicans in attempt to paint the Democrats as loony left-wingers. That is to say, I think this sudden controversy right before the election is not an accident. So I think it's probably smart politics for Kerry to equivocate a bit with regard to the issue. I would prefer that he supported it outright (and I have a feeling Kerry would as well), but I'm sure he doesn't want to alienate those people who aren't comfortable with it. It's a little sad that it's necessary, but I think he's just being realistic. In any case, his position is a far sight better than Bush's.