Senator and Mrs Kerry, as well as Senator and Mrs Edwards, spoke here in our area yesterday afternoon. My thoughts were that they both know how to whip a crowd up to a fanatical frenzy, but that I wasn't hearing much of substance. Senator Kerry went on and on about how we need to work with the other countries of the world, and not strike out on our own...but I didn't hear him offer any thoughts on HOW we would work with the other countries. Senator Edwards has a lot of charisma, and "sex appeal"....but is that really what we need when it comes to a leader? Kerry said it himself..."We're the ticket with the best hair". Well, bully for them, you know?

I'll be watching and listening closely to both sides...at this point, neither of them are impressing me.

We're the ticket with the best hair".

Gotta have your priorities right?!

I personally haven't ever found any US politician sexy.

Jilluser:
I am an undecided voter, but I wonder what you think the Kerry people would do different in terms of this issue than what is being done now? I almost sounds like you are saying the current administration is "preventing" terrorist attacks. I'm not sure (just saw Tom Ridge talk about possible attacks before the election) and it seems to me like what I heard was the old "well, don't say I didn't tell you" stuff. Or am I missing something?

Senator Kerry went on and on about how we need to work with the other countries of the world, and not strike out on our own...but I didn't hear him offer any thoughts on HOW we would work with the other countries

Did he mention WHY we need to do this?

I think the average American is naive if they don't consider the fact that all nations around the world are constantly competing. We have trade disputes with our closest allies. If we start acting conciliatory to a Europe that is doing it's best to consolodate and rival the US, I'm not sure that is in our best interest.

Granted, there's probably a couple of fences to be mended, but I really don't care if they get mended. I certainly wouldn't accept any infintessimal hardship in the process.

Senator Kerry went on and on about how we need to work with the other countries of the world, and not strike out on our own...but I didn't hear him offer any thoughts on HOW we would work with the other countriesDid he mention WHY we need to do this?

I don't remember his exact words, but the general idea was so that they wouldn't get angry with us...so as to not ruffle feathers, I presume. He just struck me as saying that the US needs to be best pals with virtually the entire world, and I don't see that being in the best interest of the American people.

I am an undecided voter, but I wonder what you think the Kerry people would do different in terms of this issue than what is being done now?

I am worried that Kerry would close GITMO. I am worried that Kerry would end agressive interrogations of detainees.

I think that if Kerry was in office, we would not have invaded Iraq, and Saddam would still be in power.

I have to comment here because of what I have learned from my schooling and political science classes.  It's common and even expected for the candidates to be obscure about their positions during their campaign. George Bush was obscure himself when he was campaigning back in 2000.  I especially noticed this after watching a documentary that followed George Bush around during his campaign in 2000 on HBO called "Journeys with George" believe it or not.  It's basically due to the fact that during the campaign the candidates are trying to appeal to a wider base than while in office so they try and speak in broad terms.  This has been known to have come in to affect since the late 1960's when television and campaigning became synonymous.  As far as invading Iraq that is something that I couldn't say Kerry would or would not do but truth be told I would rather have an experienced war veteran making decisions on war than someone who has no prior experience.

I would rather have an experienced war veteran making decisions on war than someone who has no prior experience.

Did you vote for Bob Dole?

Just because you have been a soldier doesn't mean you can be a good leader.  There are many veterans that don't think too highly of John Kerry.

As far as candidates speaking in broad terms, duh!  I am just trying to correlate his stance ( I use the term loosely) as Senator with what he would do as president.  I don't like what I see and I am not hopping on the "anyone but Bush" wagon.

CrispE, I agree with Madine.  Also, I think plenty of attacks have been thwarted during the years since 9/11.  Bush has made it quite clear that terrorism will not be tolerated by the US.

Just because you have been a soldier doesn't mean you can be a good leader. There are many veterans that don't think too highly of John Kerry.

Right, right can't disagree with you there, on the same token I think I can also say that being idealic doesn't neccessarily make you right.  As far as veterans not liking Kerry that can be said about the incumbent as well, I quote an article on Msnbc.com that was in newsweek, "27 retired senior government officials released a statement Wednesday morning claiming George W. Bush’s foreign policy has damaged the United States’s reputation abroad...".  That article was published June 16th and it included retired government officials such as Adm. William Crowe, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under George H.W. Bush.  Here is the link to the article on the website if you'd like to read it Link  When Clinton and Dole ran against each other we weren't at war and my decision in that election was during a time when we did not have 150,000 troops in a sovereign nation.

I am worried that Kerry would close GITMO. I am worried that Kerry would end agressive interrogations of detainees.

My problem is that aggressive interrogation of detainees can get out of hand, as we've seen recently.

I am just trying to correlate his stance ( I use the term loosely) as Senator with what he would do as president. I don't like what I see and I am not hopping on the "anyone but Bush" wagon.

I don't have my file of info right here at hand, but a couple of things I can remember regarding Edwards as a senator:
He is against the ban of the partial birth abortion.
He is pro-death penalty.
He is against age restrictions on violent videos.

Right there are three good reasons for ME not to vote for a Kerry-Edwards ticket.

When Clinton and Dole ran against each other we weren't at war and my decision in that election was during a time when we did not have 150,000 troops in a sovereign nation.

Clinton sent our soldiers to fight and die all over the world (Bosnia, Samalia).  You are voting in a Commander and Chief whether we are currently at war or not. 

 

My problem is that aggressive interrogation of detainees can get out of hand, as we've seen recently.

I wouldn't consider the activities at Abu Gharaib "interrorgation" and I have not seen them described as such. Agressive interrogation is not abuse.

Clinton sent our soldiers to fight and die all over the world (Bosnia, Samalia). You are voting in a Commander and Chief whether we are currently at war or not.

I guess I should have elaborated.  That statement as well as this one is on a personal note.  The world has changed much since 9/11 and I have adjusted in the way I think like many people all around the world have.  At that time domestic issues were more important to who I wanted to win than foreign-policy.  Post 9/11 my viewpoint has changed and I have learned that our foreign policy right now is being scrutinized.  The main thing that alters my support is the justification that was given for the war in the first place.  Considering none of those justifications have been proven to be substantial or true, I cannot agree with a pre-emptive policy on Iraq.  Now that we are in Iraq and have to stay I see more importance on bringing our allies closer to us during this occupation because it will help American interests in the long run.  Looking back on Bush's record and life even John Edwards, considering his bid in the Senate, brings more experience in foreign policy to the table than Bush did in 2000.  I also cannot understand how any man who can have the most staggering execution record in the country profess to be Christian, but that is like I said on a personal note...

P.S. As far as Clinton sending troops to Bosnia he embraced a nato peace-keeping force which was made up of many other nations and not as comparable as the brunt of our military in one country.  I quote CNN here..."The soldiers, trained in logistics and communications, will head into Bosnia in the next few days. They will form part of a 2,500-strong NATO enabling force charged with laying the ground work for NATO peacekeepers. The majority of U.S. troops -- some 20,000 soldiers -- will be dispatched after the Bosnian peace treaty is signed December 14 in Paris. They will join 40,000 troops from 25 other countries."  Here is the link Link

If the economy had been worse during Clinton's terms, I'm sure that a bigger deal would have been made about him sending other people's children to die in an war in a sovereign nation that Europe could have probably handled on its own. I'm also sure that people would not be as upset with Bush concerning Iraq if the economy was better, but since they are, Iraq's the perfect excuse.