Yep, Kerry can relate to the working class....

[Swamp Monster]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=7&u=/ap/20040322/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_homes

Yep, a guy with 5 homes worth a total of $33 Million can definitely relate to the pipe fitter in Pittsburgh. Atleast Bush actually does some work on his ranch. The only tools Kerry can probably use are a fork and bill counter! Yes, I know purely speculation on the bill counter thing so, no, I will not post references!
I would like to have his place in Idaho though!

[n.pike]

Yeah, you really have to feel for this poor guy. He does care about the poor, I bet it keeps him up at night. He is an "average joe" just like us.

[WILDCATWICK]

Food for thought......I have yet to meet a poor politician regardless of party affiliation!:(

They are all fat cats

[TrailFndr]

if anyone thinks that Bush can relate to the working class any better than Kerry, or ANY other politician, regardless of party, WAKE UP... as stated before, ALL are FAT CATS..

I KNOW Bush owns more than that Lil'ole ranch in Crawford, Texas...

[Swamp Monster]

I agree....they are all fat cats....no arguement from me. I'm just tired of hearing that Kerry feels for the working class etc. All he cares about is their Vote (yes, like all politicians).

I'm sure Bush owns more than just his ranch, and face it that ranch would probably eat a good portion of that $33 million up!

[WILDCATWICK]

Now were talking...
All he cares about is their Vote (yes, like all politicians).

This is why I don't beleive in the way politcal parties are set up.
There is an advantage too having career politicians and disadvantages but the on thing remain true they will do what ever they feel will get them elected!

I don't beleive the framers wanted career politicians running the country. I thought the only reason they created the party system is because the general population did not have constant media exposure so the only way those that didn't knew who to vote for was by politcal affiliation. They would know generally what theat person stood for.

Politcal parties still do tell us generally what someone would stand for but why is it necessary when now we get blasted by the media by with what all candidates views are and also what they do in the bedroom and who with?

It's been well over 200 years there have been alot of changes in the U.S. shouldn't the system itself change?

[Moron]

WILDCATWICK
You wouldn't be trying to inject some commonsense here now would ya.:)

[MiketheElder]

I still can't figure out how a guy can get a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and 3 Purple Hearts and only miss one day of duty. I want to see the scars. Probably got one from one of those little folding can openers we used to get. Probably got another scratch diving for cover.

After what I saw working in an army 500 bed general hospital in Japan (1970-1972), guys like Kerry that keep bringing up "what a brave veteran I am. Vietnam, you know...." makes me want to puke. This place was also the Far East Burn Center. One of the toughest guys I ever met in my life was a chopper crew chief named Jenkins. He was unconscious most of the time, had 70-80% third degree burns and managed to live three times as long as anyone expected. Staph infections finally got him. That guy was a hero.

JOHN KERRY KISS MY @$$!!!!!!!!!!!!

Over 30 years later and I still think of all the guys that went through that hospital. Still have the bead necklace that Lance McAlpin gave me before he was shipped home. A good book to read if you can find it is called "365 Days". It was written by a doctor stationed at the same hospital that I was at (Zama Hospital). Each chapter was a story told to him by a patient.

[DaveW731]

Mike:
Thank you for your perspective and for your service to our country. My gut level revulsion towards Kerry as a man is along the same lines you mentioned.

My opinion of him as a politician is a combo of my gut reaction and my understanding of his voting record and my fear that he would subordinate national interest to the United (socialist) Nations.

I also think that party affiliation DOES still matter. I think there are enough differences between Dems and Repubs so that party affiliation is a good beginning point in evaluating a candidate. I am a pretty staunch Republican, but will OCCASIONALLY vote for a Dem (at least, I think I did in 1987 :D ).

Finally, I think that the only worse alternative to our political system is any other one. The best way to have qualified and honest political leaders is to have an informed and involved electorate......the cause of career politicians (I don't like em either) is a lazy voter.

[WILDCATWICK]

Good views Davew. A question for you. What does being a dem or rep tell you that the various independent media can't. Or their webpages can't? ALL I see by having dems and republicans is party lining and people making trades. I'll vote fore your bill on something my constiguents wouldn't want if your vote my bill that my constiguents definetly want. I am just under the opinion that the chains would be broken if all were forced to be independents. You are right when you say informed voters would help. But if you change the system they would have to be informed. Right now you have to many people voting for a party across the board or for an individual because they are a paticular party affiliation without even knowing the individual. That is being blind. Do they know what that persons experience is, do they know what their stance is on ever major subject that effects their locale? I just think to many people are not voting and most that do vote blindly. Just look at how the last Presidential election went down in Florida

[Moron]

I believe voter apathy is caused primarily by so many people being fed up with the limited selection at the polls. It should be made easier for other candidates to get on the ballots. The way it is now being a dem or rep candidate gives you automatic access to getting on the ballot. Which in turn gives you an advantage over all others based simply on party affiliation rather than personal qualification.

Make it easier for alternative parties to get on the ballot and more people would vote. :)

[lostmale]

I would like to see us have a choice. Instead of the rep and dem picking one candidate we should have all of them in the primary on the ballot. The one with the most votes wins Pres and runner up be VP give us a doz or so to pick from. The past few elections it has come down to who is the best of the worst. This year I would have voted for Clark or Edwards over Bush, in a heart beat but I would never vote for Kerry no matter what he says he can do for me. Being a Viet Era Vet what he did to the vets that were still in Nam with his protesting is still with most of us today. He makes me sick. Now he is running on his medals again but won't come forward on how he got those medals. The same medals that he once tossed away in protest he is now trying to use to get him to be Pres. The same medals he used to get himself out of country he is using to get himself to be Commander in Chief. The flip flop king. He betrayed this country before he would turn on it again.
To read more on why I feel this way about Kerry go to
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0104/29garlock.html
http://www.gopusa.com/tomsegel/2004/ts_0223.shtml
http://www.petitiononline.com/kerryrec/petition.html

http://w115.wnd.com/images2/Kerryfondasticker1.jpg

[Dick Graves]

Swamp Monster, I detect a tone of jealously in your statmement. You could be a war hero, marry a widow with about 4 or 500 million in the bank and run for president to. First thing you got to do is find the right widow:cool: If you should get lucky and find one, see if she has a sister, or even better a good looking daughter. (just a little humor for a pretty sad subject)

Then the most important part about seeking the highest office in the land IS........you have to remember what you said yesterday?:eek:

DaveW731 you nailed it pal, lazy, uninterested voters put these people in office, Dem.s, Rep.'s, whatever, once they get there, very few want to leave;) Can't imagine why?:D :o

[jdt]

bush have proven that anyone can be president.

[DaveW731]

I'd like to pull together a few ideas, from the last posts:

First, I do NOT think that party affiliation is enough to base a vote on. Even when I do end up voting for every Republican candidate, I still cast the votes individually, just on principle. I happen to think that the founding principles of the Republican party are more consistant with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights than is the case for the Democrat party. For that reason, one of the first questions I ask of a candidate who calls him/herself a Republican is how consistant is this person's position with basic GOP principles. By that criteria, I would consider John McCain a Democrat (IMHO). IF the person appears consistant, THEN I will want to look at issues of character and particular stands on current issues. If the GOP candidate fails on any of the above tests, I will then look elsewhere.
Second, I question how independant the media truely is: I think every media outlet has a bias and an agenda. I read the NY Times and Fox News, in order to get both biases.
Next, I agree with the dangers of the two-party system, i.e., the party-line issues. However, again, the only thing worse is anything else: IMHO, the factionalism, shifting coalitions and instability in a multi-party parlimentary system (Italy and Isreal for example) would be worse. Interesting point of history: at one time, the Consitution DID call for the winner of the Presidential vote to be President, and the VP went to the guy who came in second. The problem this created was a politically divided administration, with divided loyalties and even greater intrigue and duplicity than we have today! This is why I think the various primaries are EXTREMELY important, as a forum for chosing between multiple candidates. I would like to see a series of National Primary Elections (sort of a political version of the NCAA tournament, LOL) to narrow the field, before the general election.
Finally, I think it is great to have this forum! The opportunity to read about and exchange ideas may help deal with the "voter apathy issue".....maybe we will inspire others to keep informed and involved.
Thanks,
DaveW

[WILDCATWICK]

Excellent post davew. I agree that media has an agenda but I don't beleive it is to the extent the general public puts it at. Most people will claim that the media rips on conservative and praises liberal views. Most people also say that media only spreads bad news. Studies have shown that News papers is right at about the 50/50 between "feel good" news and "non-feel good" news. I worked with Gannett for numerous years and was a member of the national think tank for Newspaper that met annualy in Washington.

With all that being said I also eleive that there is equal critisism towards both Republican and Democratic view in the press. If there is a liberal political staff writer there is almost always a conservative on the same staff. They do a decent enough job in giving equal coverage. Unfortunatly people see and hear what they want to beleive. If you beleive that papers only pump the liberals, then odds are that is the articles that you will notice. Go through a paper sometime and highlight pro-conservative talk in one color and pro-liberal talk in another. See for your self.

The other argument is that the majority of press is liberal. Remember this fact: the ceo's and owner's of the press are generaly conservatives.

Granted you can't alway beleive everything you read, hear, and see but with so many sources now it becomes it's own check and balance system.

excellent points again Davew....open mindscan receive information, process the information and act on the information......closed minds don't get past step one;)

[DaveW731]

Wildcatwick:
Man, would I love to have a debate with you over a couple of brews about our respective views of media objectivity! My point would be that the extent of the agenda is actually GREATER than most people believe...... Just to make it fair, we could then debate about how helpful social workers really are! (read my profile!)
I am a passionate advocate for the First Amendment ( along with the second, of course!), so I consider the press and the media to be indispensable for a free society. At the same time, I think that the only "balance" in the media is different outlets.....add the conservatives on one side and the liberals on the other and you may come up even. IMHO, I have yet to read any single publication that I believe consistantly presents equally well-reasoned arguements on both sides of the same issue.
Yours for passionate and respectful debate,
Dave

[WILDCATWICK]

Davew, Being formerly apart of the organization I fore mentioned I am use to hearing what you just stated. Seriously get those highliters out for one weekend and see what you come up with.

On a lighter not, I now do mortgages and do not have to defend the industry of journalism anymore and all I can say is THANK GOODNESS:D

[DaveW731]

Wild:
Haven't used a highlighter, but do base my opinion on what I consider to be a pretty careful evaluation over the years. Sounds like we may just agree to disagree (unless you change your mind, of course:D :D ).
So...how long do you think before interest rates go up?

[WILDCATWICK]

Rates will probably start going up in just a couple of months. Third Quarter at the very latest. If your looking at doing anything, move on it right now. Everytime there is terrorist activities on democratic country's the rates jump. If anything happend in the U.S. the rates are going to go up and stay up. Rates are as low as they have ever been take advantage now instead of "hoping" you can get an1/8th better. The risk is not worth it.:p

[kingfisher 11]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if anyone thinks that Bush can relate to the working class any better than Kerry, or ANY other politician, regardless of party, WAKE UP... as stated before, ALL are FAT CATS..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets see, Bush likes to spend alot of his spare time working on the ranch. Sure, he is rich enough to sit back and hire someone to do it while he is sipping Margarita's on the back deck. But, he does not, he works it when he can. Maybe just for the time to think in peace and quiet, but he is working. Having a ranch can be some of the hardest work out there. I bet you won't find any dirt under Kerry's finger nails.

Even though they are all fat rich cats. I think Bush is closer to the working class then Kerry.

And you guys need to wake up if you think he is going to add jobs. First you need to have his wife's company, H J Heinz, bring some of those jobs they have overseas back here. Can't even do it in his own backyard and you expect him to turn around what is going on in this country?

[jdt]

i would think that kerrys finger nails got a lot dirtier in nam then bushes did in alabama!

[slayer]

Well how many oil wells does john kerry own ?? Talk to me this summer when gas is 3.00 a gallon and bush is running his cash counting machine grinnin from ear to ear !!!!!!!!!!:mad:

[Chris_Davis]

Originally posted by slayer
Well how many oil wells does john kerry own ??

He, probably, doesn't own any oil wells directly. He does have a sizeable investment in Exxon Mobile.