Gut Rumbles
 

September 17, 2004

sorry, Al

This isn't bad, up to a point: What John Kerry Stands For

1) Stem cell research. This is a big one for me, my sister has MS and my Dad is pre-Alzheimers.

(I have serious problems with Bush's position on this issue, but I believe that the news media have done a shitty job of reporting the story. Stem cell research has NOT been outlawed. The main sticking point, to me at least, seems to be whether or not scientists can "create" embryos in the lab for the sole purpose of destroying them. I don't believe that Bush NOR Kerry has taken a strong position on this issue.)

2) Education. Better funding for the Bush initiated 'No Child Left Behind Act" is important. It's a nice plan and I give Bush credit for it, now they have to fund it. I think Kerry will while Bush has had years and has not.

(The Federal government should get the fuck out of education. They are the ones who made a mess out of public education in the first place, and yelping for "more funding" for a failed program is NOT the answer.)

3) Fiscal responsibility. I know the Dems are traditionally the big government party, but this administration seems into role reversal. All I see is bigger budgets and more departments. The only thing worse than tax and spend is no-tax and spend.

(Sweet Bejus! A liberal Senator from Massachussetts is going to bring "fiscal responsibility" to the US government? I won't even dignify that absolute pap with a reply.)

James, I certainly wouldn't base my decision solely on an hour in prime time -- it *is* more than that, isn't it? -- but I don't know how else to hear from the candidates own mouths what they think. These guys don't answer questions.

Posted by Al at September 17, 2004 02:33 PM

(No politician does anymore. Every one of them is scripted, couiffed, made-up and fed sound-bites and talking-points from highly-paid advisors. If that's what it takes to win your vote, Al, you should be a diving judge in the Olympics and not a voter. Presentation means a lot more than the message to you, doesn't it?)

I don't like George Bush. He spends too much money. He caves to "bipartisianship" when I would be flexing my muscle in his situation. He's NOT a good public speaker. He is NOT shrinking the government. But he's got a set of balls, which is what we need right now.

John Kerry, on the other hand, is a shit-bird. Period.

I would rather have a man I respect but dislike than someone I REVILE as my President.

Comments

On the subject of stem cell research, I believe the ban means that no governemtn money can be spent on embryonic stem cell research. Private industry can do this kind of research. Frankly, if embryonic stem cell research was close to a breakthrough on these diseases you couldn't stop private enterprise from funding the research because they would make millions maybe billions of dollars if they can cure a disease. The fact that private enterprise is not spending huge dollars on this speaks volumes.

Posted by: Kim on September 17, 2004 05:22 PM

Thanks for the response, it's not what I expected and it's refreshing to see real issues addressed head on. It's tempting to get all crazy and write a gazillion words rebutting your rebuttal, but if I wanted to do that, I'd get my own weblog.

However, I can't let this slide: Presentation means a lot more than the message to you, doesn't it?

That is the exact opposite of everything I've been saying in my short time commenting here. I like the idea of debates because they remove the spin. Two guys and their ideas. The closest we'll ever get to a duel (and I'm not sure dueling shouldn't be legal and encouraged). Everything else we get is presentation over message, let's see what the boys have to say, one on one.

As far as your dismissal of my contention that Kerry may be more fiscally responsible than Bush, I'll just point you towards your own words: "He spends too much money. He caves to "bipartisianship" when I would be flexing my muscle in his situation. He's NOT a good public speaker. He is NOT shrinking the government.".

Isn't that what I said?

Posted by: Al on September 17, 2004 07:49 PM

I like the idea of debates because they remove the spin.

I have to ask: How do debates "remove the spin"? I have never seen a debate between politicians that wasn't spin from beginning to end, including the questions. And I've been in all three positions -- answering questions, asking them, and on one occasion even moderating.

As for the idea that Kerry would be more fiscally responsible than Bush, because we can complain about Bush's spending, Al...

Not all choices in life are between GOOD and BAD. Some are between BAD and WORSE.

Bush may be BAD, but everything there is to look at tells me Kerry would be WORSE. Big time.

Posted by: McGehee on September 17, 2004 08:55 PM

"How do debates "remove the spin"?

Unless you attend a campaign thing in person what you see is what the media chooses to report. Whether it is out of context quotes in your local newspaper or a spiffy little 20 second sound bite on the evening news, your seeing what they choose to show. Liberal bias, conservative bias... I don't know and I care.

A nationally broadcast debate is different. I have no doubt that they will stick to the talking points and that the questions are vetted, but we will see it real time. That makes a difference.

Posted by: Al on September 17, 2004 09:09 PM

No Al, it doesn't make a difference. What you insist on calling a "debate" is nothing more than an acting contest.

You want to evaluate the REAL candidate? Look at his past record. That's what he DOES, not what he SAYS he's gonna do.

Kerry HAS no record in government, except for missing meetings and straddling the fence, after 20 years in the Senate. A slick 90-minute performance in an acting contest by Kerry will win your vote?

Sorry, Al... and I don't meant to piss you off... but you should stay home on election day.

Posted by: Acidman on September 17, 2004 09:27 PM

Kim:

The ban does not prevent government funds from being spent on stem cell research -- it simply states that the government funds may only be used on existing stem cell lines. This means that government funds can't be used on new cell lines -- i.e. the fund can't be given to scientists who are creating their own line of cells from newly created embryos. (In their eyes that would be funding an abortion.)

The private sector jumps on the bandwagon once the tough research is finished. That means that they usually let government funded researchers lead the way and once a real breakthrough is announced then they get involved and race to see where the big profits are.

Believe me -- and anyone else out there who knows, stem cell research is going to be HOT and is going to lead to cures for a number of awful diseases.

That is, once the government gets its religious nose out of the lab.

Posted by: Mannaz on September 17, 2004 09:29 PM

Just to clear up the stem cell research thing:

The only thing federal $$ can't be used for is any research that develops NEW HUMAN embryonic stem cell lines, which unfortunately is the frontier of that field.

Existing ESC lines and adult SC lines and ESCs from other animals (mice, monkeys) are all fair game for federal research $$. These are all valid ways to work on MS and AD and Parkinson's and Huntington's and all of the other rotten genetic diseases that we think we might be able to patch, they're just not the ones with potentially endless possibilities.

However, what I _was_ going to say is that you nailed it , Rob. John Kerry IS a shitbird. That's exactly what he is.

Posted by: caltechgirl on September 17, 2004 09:53 PM

"What you insist on calling a "debate" is nothing more than an acting contest."

Yeah. Except it becomes a matter of record. Witnessed bybthe electorate rather than reported by the media.

"You want to evaluate the REAL candidate? Look at his past record. "

I am. That's my whole problem. Because Bush, aside from a few failed business ventures and a brief tenure in Texas doesn't have much of a record. Kerry's record is a little longer but doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Hence the undecided thing. I wish I could share your conviction, but I just don't see it.

"Sorry, Al... and I don't meant to piss you off... but you should stay home on election day."

You can't piss me off, I don't take this weblog stuff all that seriously. I expect come November we'll all make our own decisions.

Posted by: Al on September 17, 2004 10:38 PM

Pretty fuckin' pathetic when Clinton runs up a surplus and "W" runs up biggest deficits ever. And you wonder why stock market lost 20% of earnings? My 401(k) looked a lot better 4 years ago.

Posted by: BJK on September 18, 2004 01:43 AM

BJK:

The WTC looked better 4 years ago too.

Posted by: lpdbw on September 18, 2004 02:15 AM

...and LPDBW, is 9/11 somehow Clinton's fault? I could make a case for it being Bush's fault, but I'll just say that it is both their faults.

BJK is right. W runs up the biggest deficits in history, lost the most jobs since Hoover, given tax breaks to his rich supporters, won't fund No Child Left Behind, and even though the current law provides no federal funding for stem-cell research, Bush favors banning this research altogether on new stem cell lines.

Bush continues to defend a war that we supposedly were waging because Iraq was an immediate threat to the US. Yeah right. I think he was looking on the wrong continent. North Korea, buddy.

My vote goes to Kerrry even though Georgia will probably strongly vote for Bush. That just tells me how many idiots live in Jawjaw. Oh, and yes, I'm a native and seen these ignorant fools all of my 57 years.

Posted by: Roger on September 18, 2004 10:59 AM

..and LPDBW, is 9/11 somehow Clinton's fault? I could make a case for it being Bush's fault, but I'll just say that it is both their faults.

>>> It's more Clinton's fault than both Bush's fault. Barries were built to prevent communication between law enforcement agencies in the 90s so that Clinton's criminal giveaways to the Red Chinese would be obfuscated.

BJK is right. W runs up the biggest deficits in history, lost the most jobs since Hoover, given tax breaks to his rich supporters, won't fund No Child Left Behind, and even though the current law provides no federal funding for stem-cell research, Bush favors banning this research altogether on new stem cell lines.

>>> W inherited the recession. "Tax breaks for the rich" is a bullshite leftist phrase. To dems "The rich" is anyone who isn't on welfare. Scrap public skools, just say no to liberal indoctrination.


Bush continues to defend a war that we supposedly were waging because Iraq was an immediate threat to the US. Yeah right. I think he was looking on the wrong continent. North Korea, buddy.

>>> Kim Il Jong invaded no one. Saddam did.

My vote goes to Kerrry even though Georgia will probably strongly vote for Bush. That just tells me how many idiots live in Jawjaw. Oh, and yes, I'm a native and seen these ignorant fools all of my 57 years.

>>> Kerry doesn't even represent his own party. The dem party line is that success is evil, since the wealthy (or middle class) a) screwed someone to get rich (providing goods and services people want is impossible) or B) inherited it.

>>> Kerry the gigolo didn't earn his wealth. He's UNFIT for command and his wife "Tootsie" is an unclassy turd, made pretty by unearned millions.

Posted by: BKJ on September 18, 2004 12:28 PM

Because Bush, aside from a few failed business ventures and a brief tenure in Texas doesn't have much of a record.

Don't ook now, Al, but Bush also has four years as president to look at. And if you look past that media spin you so despise, you find that he's been doing a pretty good job.

Posted by: McGehee on September 18, 2004 02:21 PM

>>> It's more Clinton's fault than both Bush's fault. Barries were built to prevent communication between law enforcement agencies in the 90s so that Clinton's criminal giveaways to the Red Chinese would be obfuscated.

That is just vague AM-idiot radio bs. How about some facts, Mr. Barries?

>>> W inherited the recession. "Tax breaks for the rich" is a bullshite leftist phrase. To dems "The rich" is anyone who isn't on welfare. Scrap public skools, just say no to liberal indoctrination.

You might actually uses facts to counter. The recession officially began in March 2001. Now...can you answer who was Prez then or do you need to look it up. Same AM-idiot radio knee-jerk reaction to the tax cut.

The Congressional Budget Office says the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average $78,460 tax cut this year. In contrast, households in the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000 per year, will receive an average cut of only $1,090. Sorry but the facts don't support your claims, but don't let the facts stop your far-right redneck thinking. After all, you are a proud Jawjaw'n.

>>> Kim Il Jong invaded no one. Saddam did.

We fought Saddam when he invaded. Who did he invade this last time? Can't recall. Where are the WMD? Why, in North Korea, dummy.

>>> Kerry doesn't even represent his own party. The dem party line is that success is evil, since the wealthy (or middle class) a) screwed someone to get rich (providing goods and services people want is impossible) or B) inherited it.

Kerry won most primaries and the nomination. How exactly doesn't he represent the Dem. Party? Success is evil? LOL. America is all about success. But the people who have the most success benefit the most from this country, and it is their patriotic duty to pay their share of taxes. Of course, some believe that taxes are stealing, but I prefer having a government than anarchy.

>>> Kerry the gigolo didn't earn his wealth. He's UNFIT for command and his wife "Tootsie" is an unclassy turd, made pretty by unearned millions.

Sounds like jealousy to me. How can you use unclassy and turd in the same sentence unless you're full of shit yourself? I'll take a Vietnam vet to a jerk who got in the NG with family pull in an era when that meant a way out of Nam and avoid Canada.

It's people like you who keep Georgia in the 19th century.

Posted by: Roger on September 18, 2004 03:06 PM

Roger, kiss my 19th century Cracker ass.

Posted by: Acidman on September 19, 2004 10:01 PM

Sorry...can't right now. Your mama is giving me a blowjob.

Posted by: Roger on September 20, 2004 08:45 PM

Clinton's policies are a factual matter of public record. There were several terrorist attacks during his administration that were shrugged off. The one we can't shrug off was a direct follow up to those. In order to believe it was Bush's fault, we'd have to believe that they wouldn't have done it if Gore had been appointed by the Supreme Court. That's a lot of planning they went through if they were going to scrap the whole thing if hypercompetent Al became President.

Recessions do not start the moment one recieves a pink slip. They happen AFTER the events that cause them. Threatening to break up Microsoft was arguably not the best thing for the .com bubble. Punitive taxation rhetoric can't do much for investor confidence either.

I just now heard Kerry on TV saying that Bush gave over 20 different reasons for invading Iraq. Right on, Kerry, preach it! One reason he did not give was that Iraq was an immediate threat. He did specify that one reason was to prevent the threat from there from becoming an immediate one. It was Blair who said that the threat from Iraq was already immanent. One of the reasons why we are now tip-toeing around N Korea already became an immediate threat during a certain previous administration.

The people who have the most benefit the most BY DEFINITION. This is not subject to any remedy short of total elimination of all private wealth. The government has existed with lower taxes, and with no income taxes at all. HOW DARE YOU QUESTION MY PATRIOTISM. HAVE YOU AT LONG LAST NO SHAME?(c)George Washington must not have been very patriotic. I should make you give me a nickle every time you drink tea for that remark.

I believe that in this instance, the uses of the words "unclassy" and "turd" were used as descriptive terms for the person being written about. This sort of thing is common in English sentences.

Sorry I had to turn your mama down, Rodger, $5 is too much to pay to stick it to a mass of scabs.

Posted by: Dave Munger on September 20, 2004 09:57 PM

... The OTHER Rodger!

Posted by: Dave Munger on September 20, 2004 10:01 PM

Scabs? More like dust. My mama's been dead for years.

I don't like to pay taxes either. I get madder when I have to pay more taxes because of some loopholes for the rich. I also get mad as I am almost retirement age and am still paying for socialized education. The case against it is supported by your words.

Posted by: Roger on September 21, 2004 08:29 PM
Post a comment














*Note: If you are commenting on an older entry, your
comment will not appear until it has been approved.
Do not resubmit it.