By-Tor.com

Check this link out.

http://www.cpusa.org/

That shouldn't come as any surprise. He's been allied with communists for a long time.

MSNBC reported that Senator Kerry tried to help a Chinese espionage agent and arms dealer in 1996 in return for campaign contributions for his Senate reelection campaign, according to congressional and other documents, interviews, and photographs.

And of course in the Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum (formerly known as the "War Crimes Museum") in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon), a photograph of John Kerry hangs in a room dedicated to the anti-war activists who helped the Vietnamese Communists win the Vietnam War. The photograph shows Senator Kerry being greeted by the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, Comrade Do Muoi.

And I'm sure we've all seen the pictures of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Bin Laden. And a communist endorsement of Kerry pales in comparison with who's endorsing Bush.


A couple of days ago, I posted this to another message board. Most of it applies here:

The main thing I notice about this presidential campaign is that both sides seem to be working on the basis of knocking down the other guy. "Vote for our man - he's not as bad as the other guy."

Almost every campaigning ad I've heard has been on this theme. But it's even stronger on this board - always attacking the other party's candidate, and seemingly never saying anything positive about your own. There's been very little from either side about policy, and the only thing about Bush's last 4 years that the Republicans have mentioned in his favour is a couple of ads that revolve around 9/11 - a flagrant and disgusting abuse of those people's memory for political ends.


Why is it so rare to hear anything positive about either candiate from his supporters? The really sad thing, of course, is that this tactic is likely to work. With the two-party system you have in the US, it is possible to get your own man into the White House purely by bashing the other guy. Here in the UK, that would be a false dichotomy, because we have three main parties and countless smaller ones. Of the main 3, the smallest has fewer than 10% of the seats in Parliament, but it's enough - if neither of the others can secure an outright majority, the balance of power lies in the hands of the third party. And of course the politicians all know this - which is why the negative campaigning so prevalent in the US will never be quite so dominant here (although it does exist, of course).


What all the negative campaigning does is this: it produces in the electorate a state of ignorance of the actual policies of either party. Instead of promoting themselves and what they stand for, each party spends all their effort in attack, attack, attacking the other.

What does George W Bush intend to do if he wins a second term? No idea.
What does John Kerry intend to do if he wins the election? No idea.


Okay, that's not quite true - it's reasonable to assume Bush would continue as he's gone for the last 4 years, and that Kerry would pick up where Clinton left off, more or less. But the point is: this inference does not come from anything in either man's campaign.


So, if I were able to vote in the US presidential election, who'd I vote for? Kerry. Why? Because he's not as bad as the other guy.

Hmm. I just took a look at the cpusa.org site.


I noticed two things:

Firstly that they appear to be making the same mistake that I outlined in my previous post - attacking Bush rather than supporting Kerry.

Then, secondly, they are not endorsing Kerry. http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/591/1/27/

2. The CPUSA does not endorse any candidate for President in the 2004 election.
We do not endorse the candidates of other political parties. We
have refrained from fielding our own candidate so as not to
distract from the main effort of defeating Bush and the
ultra-riight[sic] extremist agenda.

It's been fun to watch. I haven't yet met anyone who actually likes John Kerry. It all seems to be based on Bush support or Bush hatred. But there isn't any real Kerry support out there that I can see in the mainstream population... maybe a little on the fringe. We'll see if the "anyone but Bush" contingency is large enough to elect this other guy that no one really likes.

Mind you, the Kerry campaign recently suffered a hostile takeover by Bill Clinton sending in Carville and Begula (sp?) to run the show. These two ran the Clinton campaign of 1992 and were able to get Clinton 43% of the popular vote. When Morris ran the Clinton campaign of 1995 he was able to get Clinton 49% of the popular vote.

This supports two theories.

1. The Clintons still run the democratic party in this country.
2. The Clintons do not want John Kerry to win this election.

i don't like to discuss politics among friends because it often gets me in trouble..BUT..

GO BUSH!!

i could never sleep at night if i knew kerry was running this country. yes, i know, edwards is from nc, but i didn't exactly agree with him in the first place!

i know George W. Bush will never waver just because his opinion is unpopular. i believe in him.

carolynn

So um...what DOES Kerry stand for anyway?

Aerosmitten wrote:So um...what DOES Kerry stand for anyway?

To paraphrase Senator Kerry - It's a complicated manner...

going back up a bit to the whole quoted part...

even when you get past the personal attacks (we of the message board communities like to call it flaming...) there are at least half a dozen 'distractor issues' to keep people off of the real, important stuff. these issues include Abortion, Gun control, taxes (oh how we love to keep our money), and most prominantly, gay marrige. once you get past THOSE (which are important, but not nearly as important as they're blown up to be) you get to what REALLY matters. what the HELL are we doing in Iraq? why are our boys still dying? what about all the jobs leaving country? what about the economy?

stupid politicians.

oh, I'd like to point out that I support neither major party, nor the Green Party. in fact, I'd like to quote a bumper-sticker I saw recently:

"Why settle for the lesser evil? CUTHULU FOR PRESIDENT 2004!"

The Snow Dog wrote:what the HELL are we doing in Iraq? why are our boys still dying?

Ummm... because the job isn't finished yet? I'm sure you know what would happen if we pulled out tomorrow.

My question along those lines would be, what are we still doing in Germany 40 years after WW2?

Devil's Advocate wrote:And a communist endorsement of Kerry pales in comparison with who's endorsing Bush.

Uh... who? Japan, Italy, Britain and Australia?

Gay marriage, doesn't that go against the religions? Therefore gay marriage should not be legalized, they need a Life Partner Certificate for them to fill out

The Snow Dog wrote:
"Why settle for the lesser evil? CUTHULU FOR PRESIDENT 2004!"

HAIL CTHULHU!!

http://baharna.com/cmythos/mythos.htm

ElfDude wrote:

Devil's Advocate wrote:And a communist endorsement of Kerry pales in comparison with who's endorsing Bush.

Uh... who? Japan, Italy, Britain and Australia?

Al-Qaida. Read the link.

Just thought I'd share something light-hearted and meaningless, but relevant to the topic (or at least the direction the thread has taken).

As you know, last week, ABC News and Washington Post issued their latest poll, and it showed that Bush was up by nine points, 52-43. Well, there were some internals in that poll that they only see fit to release today and it's in a story by Dana Millbank (washingtonpost.com). "In last week's Washington Post/ABC News poll, John Kerry was viewed favorably by only 36% of registered voters, down 18 points over the past six months... but just how low Kerry's standing as fallen cannot be appreciated fully without comparing his standing with other household names in Gallup polls over the years. Kerry finds himself in a dead heat now, in terms of how favorably he is viewed, with Martha Stewart and Joseph McCarthy. He is behind Herbert Hoover."

Here are the rankings and the appropriate years: Michael Jordan, 83% favorable in the year 2000. Tony Blair 76% favorable in the year 2003. Pope John Paul II, 73% favorable in the same year. The Democratic Party, a 54% favorable this year. John Ashcroft? He's lower than Ashcroft! Democrats hate Ashcroft; they despise Ashcroft. John Kerry is at 36%. Ashcroft is at 49%. Dukakis, 47% favorable. Kerry, 36%. Prince Charles, 45% approval. John Kerry 36%. Herbert Hoover, 43% in 1944. John Kerry 36%. Jesse Jackson, 38% approval. Vladimir Putin, 38% approval. He trails Putin! He trails the Reverend Jackson. He's tied with Martha Stewart. He's one point above Joe McCarthy, and Rush Limbaugh is at 34%.

Incidentally, I've been thinking about something DA said about the two-party system in the U.S. I used to think the exact same thing until 1992. As I mentioned above, in the 1992 election Bill Clinton won the election with 43% of the vote. That can't happen if there are only two parties influencing the election. Consequently, I had to abandon my dogmatic viewpoint and try to gain a better understanding of the system in which I live. I'm not quite there yet, but I'm getting closer.

For the record, in 1992 when I voted, it wasn't for any of the three major candidates. Distrusting George Bush Sr., Ross Perot, and Bill Clinton, I voted for the guy in one of those little parties. He was the most decorated Green Berret ever. Sounded like a good commander in chief to me. Anyway, he got 1% of the popular vote. Ya can't win 'em all.