The Boston D Party
The All New JFK
This week brought us the Democratic National Convention from Boston Mass., where John Forbes Kerry was officially nominated to be the Democratic party's Head Honcho for the next four years.
The challenge was to make the wooden, un-charismatic politician to be more open, more presidential, and uh, less wooden.
After ringing endorsement after ringing endorsement throughout the week from everyone from...everyone in the Democratic party, Kerry finally faced the nation on Thursday evening.
"I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty," Kerry declared.
"America can do better, and help is on the way," Kerry said many times throughout his acceptance speech that officially launched the final leg of the amazing race to the White House.
Kerry:"I Could Have
Danced All Night!"
Kerry declared the American flag doesn't "belong to any president. It doesn't belong to any ideology and it doesn't belong to any political party. It belongs to all the American people."
The Democratic challenger's speech capped a four-day convention designed to persuade millions of undecided voters that he is a man tested by war and ready to assume command.
Personally, I have zero interest in politics. I think the two party system is designed to be unproductive and is mainly in place to give politicians cushy jobs. But, my personal feelings aside, I was very impressed with Kerry's speech. I think he showed what he needed to show and said what he needed to say for the American people to realize that there's an actual person behind the politics.
And Bush's reaction to Kerry's speech.....
Let the race begin!
posted by IriotiGuy @ 10:13 PM
11 comments
11 Comments:
Flip-flopping on all the issues, protesting a war he voted for, protesting another war he served in, blasting incentives for the upper class, when he's upper class himself, and blasting Bush for issues that he voted *for* in the US Senate.
I wholeheartedly agree with him. America really can do better.
Yea, it makes much more sense to support the guy who took a $127 billion surplus and turned it into a $500 deficit in less than four years, who gave phenomenal tax breaks to the rich, supported special interest groups, while over 3 billion jobs have been lost, who has gotten us involved in an unwinnable war, and refuses to pull us out of it...
I could go on, but what's the point. All I know is that there's never been a time in my lifetime when the right has been so far right. That the rich have gotten so much richer, while the middle class and lower class have struggled as much. And there's never been a time that I remember when America has been so despised as a nation around the world. It's really a sad thing.
More than half of the $500 billion deficit was *not* the result of George W. Bush or the White House. It was the result of the Senate's overspending on "special programs" (i.e. donations to several questionable causes). I'm not saying it's the result of the Democrats; I'm not saying it's the result of the Republicans. It's a result of both parties. The tax breaks, Iraq War, and post-9/11 anti-terror measures are not the main cause of the problems.
You say they're tax cuts for the rich. They're tax cuts for people who've paid taxes. Which socio-economic group contributes the most in taxes? The upper class. And that's a fact. You can look that up and see the exact same statement plain as day. One can argue that richer people don't *need* bigger tax breaks, but it can't be argued that they are the one's who have rightfully *earned* those breaks. Of course, some may argue the tax breaks were unnecessary from the start. Then, the economy was in a recession. It has actually been proven the tax cuts (more specifically, those hefty rebate checks) contributed to moving the economy forward again. They worked with Reagan to help bring the economy out of the Carter-years, and they helped Bush to get the economy moving forward from the downfall that began in the last months of the Clinton administration. The downfall is that it created a defecit; just as Reagan's tax cuts created a defecit.
Unwinnable war? This isn't the Vietnam War, by any means. The Iraq War certainly is a winnable war, and the training of Iraqis to defend themselves, and helping the new Iraqi government sort out initial problems is the road to progress. An "unjustified" war? Perhaps. However, I don't believe Bush lied to America. He was misinformed. I don't believe this was a "war for oil", I truly believe Bush believed Iraq to possess weapons of mass destruction. Not only him, but the CIA believed it as well. And British Intelligence, MI5. And Russian Intelligence. All of those agencies have stated "We believe there to be illegal weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." So, did Bush take us to war for the wrong reason? Yes. Did he lie to America? No. Has any good come from this war? Certainly yes. As for pulling us out? For goodness sakes, you can't do that right now! Iraq would collapse! The government would collapse, leading to further insurgency and crime in Iraq. Iraq's "government" would become an international auction, with the ruling authority going to the highest bidder.
Unemployment? Certainly. That's a result of the recession a year or two ago. But let's pinpoint when the job losses began: the final months of the Clinton administration. Do I blame Clinton? Certainly not. Do I blame Bush? Certainly not. However, jobs are now on the rise. Granted, not on the rise that they were four months ago, but they are still on the rise. The economy isn't growing at an astounding rate, but it growing at a "sure and steady" pace.
Don't know a time when "the middle and lower classes struggled so much"? Let me refer you to the late-1970s. Alas. The Jimmy Carter years. Times really were hard then. Stagflation. High interest rates. The current economic situation, or even the recession at it's peak two years ago, are nothing compared to the late 70s. Speaking of which, I don't agree with the fact that middle and lower classes are struggling. My family is upper-middle class. Aside from the Reagan years, we have never enjoyed more prosperous years. However, my father's company, as other numerous companies in the area, began downsizing in the mid-90s. It's strange how people credit Clinton as having the "glorious economy years", while Bush has the "we're living in poverty since the blue-chip fall!" years. It seems our personal economic condition inversely relates to the "big picture".
America being hated? America has always been hated. We are the wealthiest country in the world, we are the most generous country in the world (monetary wise), and we are the most diverse country in the world (religious and race wise). Yet people around the world continue to hate us. It's nothing new. It's just been more vocal recently because of the Iraq War. But if you go back to the Vietnam War, the world was just as vocal against the United States. It seems when we stall and wait for this giant UN approval, and "let's waste time while other countries can "officially" refuse to help us", the world doesn't seem to have a problem. Yet when we take action immediately, say "You can either help us or get out of the way", and take action while the UN is still "deciding" whether to "authorize" us to go to war, the world hates us. The United States does not do things based on whether or not the world will like us. The United States doesn't set internal regulations to placate the world. The United States doesn't "avoid war", because some snooty European country thinks it's "uncool to go to war". The United States does things for the benefit of its citizens, not because the rest of the world will approve.
In a nutshell, this is a very messy campaign. Democrats are blaming Bush for things that started in the Clinton White House. Republicans are blaming Kerry for things Ted Kennedy has done. Democrats say Bush is a "war-monger and war profiteer". Republicans say Kerry is an "uncharismatic wuss and flip-flopper". There are no moderate Democrats or Republicans. In this election, you're either a right-wing conservative, or a left-wing liberal. Where's Joseph Lieberman when you need him?
You make some interesting points, Prox.
But you still haven't convinced me otherwise.
On a couple of points:
"but it can't be argued that they are the one's who have rightfully *earned* those breaks".
Sure, it can! These big corporations and ultra-rich businessmen are the ones lobbying and lining the pockets of these politicians to get those tax breaks. If anything, the rich should be grateful for their success, and should want to give back to the country that allowed them to become rich. Not look for loopholes and look for opportunities to get out of what they should owe. Bush and his cronies give the impression that they are in that rarified air that think they don't have to follow the same rules that have been imposed on the rest of the people.
"Has any good come from this war? Certainly yes"
Uh, certainly?! What good is it for us to continue to pour millions after millions into the struggle to keep Iraq free from a tyrant like Saddam Hussain? We've learned the hard way that these people aren't just going to lie down and let the United States run the revolution for them. Meanwhile, hundreds of our soldiers continue to die, sometimes on a daily basis. I don't see any of this as good.
"The United States does things for the benefit of its citizens, not because the rest of the world will approve."
How is this war benefiting the citizens of the United States? By keeping America safe from those weapons of mass destruction?
Trust me, I believe we need to have a strong military both hear and abroad. Unfortunately, we live in a time when we have to check the daily news to see what color of threat level we're at. I think we need to focus more on protecting the citizens of this country, rather than trying to spend all of our money and human resources on trying to put a bandaid on the gaping wound of the middle east and the rest of the world that doesn't like us and wants to see our nation destroyed.
I'd love to believe that there's a politician out there that truly cares for the people, and that truly puts the needs of the people above the needs of their own political agenda. But it ain't gonna happen this election year, either.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Random comment,
But cool post, and awesome bush picture.
Hey, Prox -
I'll be happy to delete your posts...but I haven't been able to figure out how to do it! I looked in every section of the Blogger Dashboard, but couldn't find any access to the comments. Got any clues?
Ah, nevermind. Blogger doesn't seem to have the capability of "physically" removing a comment. It only says "Post removed by author".
Regardless, here's what I intended to say:
"Sure, it can! These big corporations and ultra-rich businessmen are the ones lobbying and lining the pockets of these politicians to get those tax breaks."
Those big corporations and ultra-rich businessmen contribute more in taxes than people like you or me. Now then, who deserves the bigger tax breaks? You and I, who contribute relatively very little in taxes, or the ultra-wealthy, who contribute much, much more?
" If anything, the rich should be grateful for their success, and should want to give back to the country that allowed them to become rich."
Taxes aren't the only way to give back to the country. Philanthropy. Answer this: do you really trust the government to do the right thing with our tax money? Your tax money is supporting a war you don't agree with. My tax money is supporting programs I don't agree with, such as welfare, and other questionable "causes". But philanthropy is fail-proof. Donate to the Red Cross. Donate to the Shriners. Donate to the local school systems. Donate to your local colleges. Donate to the local libraries. Donate to the local fire and police departments. If you do that, you get an extra benefit: it's a tax write-off!
I'm not saying taxes aren't needed in America. To sustain a viable and strong country, taxing is needed. However, the government needs to start being more responsible for the tax money, and for the causes they shell out the tax money to. When I mean "government", I mean Congress AND the White House.
"Uh, certainly?! What good is it for us to continue to pour millions after millions into the struggle to keep Iraq free from a tyrant like Saddam Hussain?"
First of all, this war was good because it rid the world of Saddam Hussein's tyranny. Saddam Hussein wasn't only bad for Iraq, he had, on numerous occasions, contributed to the disruption of peace in the Middle-East. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein has always been a nuisance and a threat to the United States. We were never certain that Saddam was truthful in his claims that Iraq did not possess illegal weapons, such as the ones used against the Kurds and in the Kuwait invasion. Even Clinton viewed Hussein as a threat, as war against Iraq was on the brink multiple times during the Clinton years.
Furthermore, America WILL benefit from a free and stable Iraq. A free and stable Iraq is an allie to the United States and Great Britain. A free and stable Iraq will contribute to the stability that is urgently needed in the Middle East. A free and stable Iraq is good for Iraqi people.
"We've learned the hard way that these people aren't just going to lie down and let the United States run the revolution for them."
Let's think a moment of the people we see on the media who are parading against the United States. We see two groups. Militant groups related to al-Zurquai (spelling?) and children, teens, and out of work young men. Those militant groups aren't an accurate representation of an average Iraqi by any means. And the second group, the children and young people, don't know what they're doing! They're the "rebels without a cause". They're fighting, but they don't know what they're fighting against. Simply put, they're fighting to be fighting.
Believe it or not, the majority of Iraq does want to be free and stable, and out of Hussein's control. But, those people aren't the ones shown on the news, because those people aren't killing our troops and causing chaos.
Let's me use another example. The southern US during the 1950s and 60s. Almost every night, we saw riots against anti-segrogationists, angered whites abusing blacks, and even whites killing blacks. But was the "blacks are inferior! Get them out of the south!" attitude prevalent among families in the South at that time? Not necessarily. Was the majority of the South involved in those riots at that time? No. Yet the people rioting against blacks were the ones portrayed in the media, because those were the people killing, abusing, and creating chaos.
"How is this war benefiting the citizens of the United States?"
See my comments above.
"By keeping America safe from those weapons of mass destruction?"
America's benefit from this war was not primarily because of the weapons of mass destruction. But I do put this out on the table. Now, we are 100% positive that forbidden weapons are not in enemy hands.
"Trust me, I believe we need to have a strong military both hear and abroad. Unfortunately, we live in a time when we have to check the daily news to see what color of threat level we're at. I think we need to focus more on protecting the citizens of this country, rather than trying to spend all of our money and human resources on trying to put a bandaid on the gaping wound of the middle east and the rest of the world that doesn't like us and wants to see our nation destroyed."
If we weren't at war with Iraq, do you believe the government would place those soldiers in the streets to protect America? No, that is the FBI and local police force jobs. FBI agents and policemen aren't being sent to Iraq; US Army personnel are the ones being sent.
And indeed, we are putting more funding into protecting this country, via the 9/11 Commission. They made urgent recommendations that need to be put in place immediately, and President Bush has already began taking some of those recommendations.
"I'd love to believe that there's a politician out there that truly cares for the people, and that truly puts the needs of the people above the needs of their own political agenda. But it ain't gonna happen this election year, either."
Every candidate has a political agenda. Bill Clinton had a political agenda. Ronald Reagan had a political agenda. Jimmy Carter had a political agenda. Al Gore had a political agenda. George W. Bush has a political agenda. John Kerry has a political agenda.
The only candidate in Washington, who I believe truly cares about the American people above his own political agenda, who is willing to take criticism and outrage from his own party to do what's right for America, and who's about protecting America regardless of political organizations is Joseph Lieberman. I praised Lieberman earlier, and I'll continue to praise him in the future.
In the end, we have to vote on which candidate will BEST protect America. You believe it's John Kerry. I, on the other hand, believe it's George W. Bush. Perhaps we'll never know for certain who can best do that.
Whew!
I'm glad THAT'S over!
:)
Seriously, you are very well-informed, Prox. And I appreciate all of your points. But don't you understand, I don't like to be proven wrong?!
:) :)
And I can only imagine how frustated you must've been to post that lengthy response, only to have it not get posted. Yikes!
I am too! I was getting carpal tunnel syndrome. LOL ;)
Most people say I am well informed...to only be 18 years old. Maybe it's because I listen to NPR; it started out as just listening to "CarTalk" and "A Prairie Home Companion" (which my blog is a tip-of-the-heat to), but then I started listening to the news programs.
Or maybe it's because it's a rarity that people my age take politics seriously. I do. What happens in Washington affects ME, it affects how much and how I'll pay for college, it affects my student loans, it affects how I can conduct a relationship with my boyfriend in public, it affects how much I'm taxed, and where my tax money is being spent, it affects if I'm drafted to serve in the military, and it affects my privacy and rights. I'd say politics at my age; at any age; are pretty darned important.
But, my replies are nothing compared to replies I'd give at "Crazy Old Wizard's Domain", in the political forum. But unfortunately ("unfortunately" being sarcastic) I can't post there anymore, as I was banned for calling the administrator "a fat, fat, fat moron who will never amount to anything in life because he's too lazy to get off his mother's couch", because I was (according to him, unjustifiably) offended when he said I "had a stick up my ass".
Post a Comment
<< Home