I thought Kerry gave a very good speech. It was optimistic and that is what Americans go for. We are a hopeful people and we are inspired to do better because we are Americans.
Overall, the Dems ran a good convention. I had low expectations and I thought time would be spent on Bush-bashing, but there was very little of that. For the last four years, we have seen a party that was fixated on the mess in 2000 and their strong dislike of W. There wasn't much hope. What I saw in Boston was a different party. If Kerry and the Dems keep up this optimism, they just might win come November.
Posted by Dennis at July 30, 2004 01:04 AMYour blog was great! The time spent reading it was well spent! There should be more people like you that write interesting blogs! You've done a great job so I tell you to keep up the good job! acne
CAPITOL HILL BLOoPER
Sorry, Capitol hill, but...
Nancy Regan STRONGLY supports President Bush.
href=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/8/2/161745.shtml
Oops!
Posted by: Bob at August 22, 2004 02:38 PM"suffice it to say that Kerry's characterization of health care as a "right" seems to me code for socialized medicine ..."
Kerry would like to give us an "opportunity" to buy into the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP)
which is generaly considered to be the best private health care insurance around (it covers Congress and the White House - and we pay the premiums)
So it is not "socialized medecine" (as it's delivered by the private sector) and whether or not it's the same thing that Clinton advocated for isn't really relevant - it is what is.
--------------
In the end, it won't matter however because the private health care delivery system as we know it will collapse around 2012 or so
as more and more employers and employees drop out due to rising costs until a critical mass is reached and the remaining participants can no longer afford to keep lights on.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats have a solution for that yet
there too busy calling themselves rightwing wingnuts and commie/pinko/fags.
Posted by: dorsano at July 31, 2004 12:18 AMI don't know what you are smoking. John Kerry lied his way to the left of center. It was incredible. "I pray we'll be on God's side." We'll God works through people and John refuses to use his influence to be on God's side. Hipocryte. BTW I'm slightly right of center. Really! I don't like the far right. What was that garbage he said about the family. All he talked about was how government will replace fathers. Head Start etc. The only thing he promised families is tax cut (lie) and medical (true). I don't understand how some people are so blind. Socialism mixed intelligently with regulated free market is a good thing. But I am a real man and I will fight any dogma that marginalizes men. We are important to society. Prison rates are so high because of lack of fathers. (check the studies out) Higher male incarceration rates create a cycle spiraling out of control. blah blah blah. I'm ending my rantings. Have a nice time leading up to the election.
dorsano,
I'll get into details tomorrow on my blog. For now, suffice it to say that Kerry's characterization of health care as a "right" seems to me code for socialized medicine or at least something similar to Hillary's health care plan that she tried to push through Congress in 1993-94.
In a civilized society, it is surely both moral and practical to make sure everyone can obtain medical treatment when necessary. That said, health care may not be a "privilege," but it is certainly not a "right." Characterizing it as such certainly does not fall under John Locke's definition of natural rights and comes a lot closer to Marx. Can you imagine centrist Dems like Bill Clinton or John Edwards saying such a thing? To me, Kerry has proven himself a true New England liberal.
Posted by: Dave at July 30, 2004 11:37 PMDave, I don't care to defend John Kerry. If he's going to president, he needs to make his own case to anyone that intends to vote.
But I'm not quite sure what you're saying.
What is "HillaryCare"? What is "socialized medicine"? and when exactly did John Kerry say he was going to give us that?
As far as "Isolation abroad" goes - this country has never been so isolated as it is now - I can't imagine how any president, Democrat or Republican could make it any more isolated -
short of invading another country because he has a hair up his butt.
Re: Capitol Hill Blue. It's a tabloid rag. Don't believe anything you read in it.
Re: Kerry's speech. I can't believe what I'm reading on this site. I thought the speech was horrible. Kerry is no centrist. He's a liberal and he proved that last night. He wants to raise taxes not just on millionaires, but on those who make over 200k a year. Never mind the fact that a family of four living in a major city is barely comfortable on 200k a year as it is (with mortgage, student loan payments, car payments, etc.). And what's he going to do with the tax revenue? Pay down debt, right? That's what we'd do. But no, John Kerry is going to SPEND every last dime. He's going to socialize medicine --- we ARE going to have HillaryCare after all! He pandered to teachers' unions and environmentalists. And after he spends our tax dollars five times over, he's still going to balance the budget. That John Kerry. He must be a magician!
On top of all that, he said he would never use our military unless a threat was imminent. I take it that means he wouldn't have gone to Kosovo either. Wait. Didn't he support that when Clinton was president? Can we believe anything this guy says?
I am now convinced more than ever that Bush must be reelected. Kerry's theme should be "Socialism at home; Isolation abroad." John Kerry is the 21st Century version of Michael Dukakis. Before, I was reluctantly supporting Bush because I thought he'd be a bit better than Kerry. Now, I'm fully supporting the president. Kerry would be a disaster.
Posted by: Dave at July 30, 2004 10:33 PMWell, if "Capitol Hill Blue" is credible (and the name leads one to wonder), here's a handful of votes the president won't get.
"Mrs. Reagan does not support President Bush’s re-election and neither do most members of the President’s family,” says a spokesman for the former First Lady."
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4935.shtml
True or not, I do think that if this government is taken to task for its actions and turned-out of office,
it will be because Republicans decided that it needed to be done.
And I wouldn't be one bit surprised if the margin of this administration's defeat comes from the oldest generation of Republicans
and the greatest generation of Americans
who in some cases, may likely be giving us a parting gift
and their final advice about how to conduct our future affairs.
Posted by: dorsano at July 30, 2004 09:57 PMI have to urge all moderate Republican to cast a vote for John Kerry in November. George W. Bush has done more to divide America since the days of Johnson and Nixon. It is time to stop the polarization of our country and I firmly believe that John Kerry can accomplish this job. I voted for W. in 2000 because I believed him when he said he would work together with both Democrats, Republicans, and the independents to do what's best for America. He didn't. Since then he has told all that disagree with him that they don't matter, that they are stupid, and worst of all, that they are Un-American. I find this stifling of opinions very disturbing and truly Un-America. At this difficult stage of America history I believe that we ought to debate all of our actions thoroughly, respecting all the ideas and concerns of all of the American people. John Kerry will do this. And for this reason I urge you all to vote for Kerry.
Posted by: Dave Cronin at July 30, 2004 04:12 PMThe speech last night was what I hope to see the republicans do soon. Move to the middle. Without going into details on the promises... kerry's only fualt was that he seemed to promise what people wanted to hear not what he can do.
Bush would be wise to move center and try to pick up those few undecided...
Posted by: Andrew at July 30, 2004 12:37 PMItaly isn't a strong and "major country" ally of Bush? And why the implication that the smaller,
The Labour Party remains a socialist party, with Tony Blair duking it out with his party members on quite a few domestic issues. Other than Tony Blair, why should the GOP have just any old Labourist on their convention floor? Did the Democrats have Sen. Zell Miller - who has endorsed Bush - on their convention floor?
Posted by: molotov at July 30, 2004 12:16 PMAnd the current administration wants to know why the rest of the world will not support us! Let alone why the rest of the world hates Americans!
It is time for CHANGE!!
Have you seen the report about the conservatives running the GOP convention has/had barred a British Labour MP from the convention floor? They wouldn't even negiotiate the matter (and they had to negiotiate a deal to attend back in 2000, too). This guy, representing the government of one of Bush's strongest (and only major country) allies, this guy coming from Tony Blair office with Tony Blair's blessing, got the door slammed in his face! Just because he's not conservative enough (Labour was socialist before Thatcher's time, but re-invented themselves to be like, well, Clintonesque centrists). What does that tell you about the people in charge now? Their way or the highway, even for the ones who are/were supporting them. Sheesh!!!