Tuesday, November 30, 2004


Welcome to a new blog for Kerry! I didn't have a blog for Kerry in 2004 but am delighted to jump in early for John Kerry in 2008. The nation does need a Massachusetts liberal! Please join in the discussion here and let's start talking about 2008. John Kerry gave it his best shot in 2004 and lost by the smallest of margin. We can do it if we do it together!



Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah! Kerry '08! Hillary for Veep!
Make Michael Moore their campaign manager!
This born-again Christian would love to see that!
We just might stop the real bloodshed that's disgracing our land--abortion (averaging 3,000 murder victims a day)!

9:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:23 PM  
Blogger BobsAdvice said...

I feel like I have arrived! The blog has been christened with an anti-abortion post! Thank goodness for the Evangelical Christians! Unfortunately for them, John Kerry will hold the line on those that wish to take back reproductive rights from Women. The same moral voters who seem quite comfortable with Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo of this Administration, desire to invade the privacy of a woman and her physician who must ultimately make the important decisions regarding a pregnancy together.

Just another good reason to be supporting John Kerry in 2008.


10:13 PM  
Blogger Mac Daddy said...

Kerry ’08, huh?

I previously e-mailed Bob this same letter, but I wanted to post it for visiting bloggers to see.

It’s often been said that the Democrats are anything but conciliatory towards failed presidential candidates. Looking back, I can understand why the hostility is often times there.

In 1976, the Democrats presented to the nation George McGovern as its candidate for the presidency and it makes you wonder whether or not the Democrats were sincere in their attempt to send Tricky Dick Nixon back to Yorba Linda, Cali. McGovern liberalism would go on to consume the party and drive moderate Democrats (by today’s standards), who believed in the social policies of John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, but also believed in a strong defense, out of the party and into the Republican column.

In 1980, President Carter lost his bid for re-election to Ronald Reagan, whose policies would go to produce soaring deficits because of his ridiculous arms build-up and tax cuts; not to mention, during Reagan’s era, in the inner-cities, minorities would be reduced to economic injustice and disenfranchisement. Now of course ‘ol Jimmy from Georgia meant good, but he had an unsuccessful presidency, plain and simple. For that, the Democrats should have given him the Franklin Pierce treatment in 1980, denying him re-nomination.

In 1984 came Walter F. Mondale, former vice president under Carter, who was defeated by the Gipper, losing 49 states. Need I say more?

Then came Massachusetts’ Michael Dukakis in 1988, who lost to Reagan’s vice president George H.W. Bush. You mean to tell me I don’t have a right to be mad at this idiot for parading around in a tank? And boy, oh boy, in one of the debates, Governor Dukakis was asked whether or not he would seek the death penalty if someone were to rape and murder his wife Kitty. Without hesitation, Dukakis gave a seemingly emotionless and cold-hearted answer, that compelled many voters to look past their policy disagreements with Dukakis and conclude that some screws was missing with this guy.

And who can forget how Al Gore famously blew the winnable race of 2000? Had former Vice President Gore had not been such a pawn for Washington-big business special interests, enough Ralph Nader voters in Florida might have given him the nod, and consequently, the presidency.

So after the Al Gore disaster, that should have told us Dems that the lesser of two evils isn’t the best way to go; we go off and nominate John F. Kerry.

I for one wasn’t wowed by the JFK initials or the Vietnam service at any point, but I held my nose and supported him.

In the end, there weren’t enough people who thought like to me to give Kerry a win and he lost, giving George W. Bush, possibly the worst president in history, another four years in the White House.

Since that sobering experience, I can now understand why many people in Florida and Ohio, who were on the fence trying to figure whether they should vote for the Democratic candidate since Bush had done such a bad job, wound up giving President Bush their vote.

It’s simple, John Kerry wanted to be on every side of the issue and please everyone. And people saw right through Kerry's lifelong opportunism. People who voted him for, all throughout the campaign were begging Kerry to have a backbone and stand up, but to no avail.

A perfect example of John Kerry’s ambivalence comes from, what many called, his finest hour, in the first of three presidential debates. Everyone from Chris Matthews to Joe Scarborough was saying that Kerry bested the president in the debate. But the reason Kerry wasn’t able to sway any votes with his performance was because:

On the subject of Iraq, Kerry tried his best to explain his position, which was: a) He believed Saddam Hussein was a threat, which is why he voted to give President Bush authorization for military force; b) However, when asked about his infamous “I actually voted for the $87 billion, before I voted against it,” Kerry replied, “I made a mistake in talking about the war, but the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?”; c) But still, when asked whether or not our troops were dying for a mistake in Iraq, Kerry replied, “No.”

Now please spare me the jargon about how Kerry believed Bush did Iraq the “wrong” way, because let’s remember, John Kerry said that even knowing everything he knows now, meaning that Hussein had no weapons and Bush rushed to war without a plan to win the peace, Kerry still would have voted to give Bush war authorization.

Oh, and what about John Kerry’s promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, but his policy plans would have cost some one or two trillion dollars!

This isn’t a problem that began with the ’04 presidential campaign. People who served beside John Kerry in the U.S. Senate for some 20 years, all know that Kerry simply likes to be on every side of an issue.

That’s not the making of a solid, strong, and reasonable commander-in-chief and now that he’s lost, I am actually asking myself, how much better would he have been than Bush? After all, as soon as Kerry would have been sworn in, he would have starting focusing on re-election in 2008. And that would have brought on even more nuances, flip-flops, indecision, and ambivalence.

John Kerry for President 2008 is one of the worst ideas I’ve ever heard in my short life. Hope to hear your responses.

1:53 PM  
Blogger BobsAdvice said...


Thanks for participating here on the blog.

I received your email and invite other bloggers to answer your comments as well.

You wrote that you "held your nose and supported him." None of the Kerry supporters I knew were holding their noses. They viewed the choice between Kerry and Bush as a "no-brainer". Except the "no-brainer" won.

You echo the Republican websites talking about flip-flopping and ambivalence. Did you ever read about the $87 billion vote? Do you realize that all of the Republicans first voted AGAINST the $87 billion before voting FOR the $87 billion. That all of the Senators were "flip-flopping" as you put it. Because THAT is the nature of politics. That sometimes you vote against things because of Amendments and sometimes you vote for things...without the amendments?

I agree that John Kerry could have been harder on the President about Iraq. But he was fed the same LIES as all of the other Senators. Haven't you heard about all of the visits between Dick Cheney and the CIA and how all of the information was influenced by this President?

And cutting the deficit? All John Kerry was promising to do was to deal with the economy as Bill Clinton did. By working to stimulate growth with middle class tax cuts and not for the top 1%. In fact he was workingt with Robert Rubin, the architect of the Clinton program to do exactly that. We know what Bush has been doing with the deficit. Wasn't it time to give Kerry and the Democrats a chance?

Your claims of being a Kerry supporter in 2004 stretch my credulity.

John Kerry was and is right on Defense, Stem Cell Research, Space Exploration, Social Security, Public Education, Separation of Church and State, Women's Rights, Judicial Appointments, and protection of the Environment. Your smears are words I have heard before. They won't work so well in 2008.

Good luck and you are welcome to post here anytime.


10:15 PM  
Blogger Mac Daddy said...

Well, my pre-concieved notions that you were a naive idiot have been thrown out of the window. Now you're just naive ...

In response to my criticism of John Kerry's vote for the war resolution, you say Kerry saw the same sexed up intelligence that all of his colleagues saw; point taken. But even on the campaign trail and as recent as the first presidential debate (again, Mr. Kerry's finest hour), he said he belived "Saddam Hussein was a threat." You mean to tell me that you haven't met one person dismayed that the Democratic presidential candidate was talking that way? For God's sake, what threat that dictator Hussein propose to us? You know as well as I do that the answer is a resounding NONE. And as far as Kerry's guilibility in October 2002 when he voted for the war resolution, let's remember that Mr. Kerry said, knowing what he knows "today" (this is back in either September or October '04), he would have voted for the resolution giving the reckless President Bush authorization for force against Iraq. Some consistency.

On the subject of John Kerry's vote against the $87 billion, I can fault Mr. Kerry for two reasons: 1) his extremely poor communicative skills and incohorence (point in case, "I actually voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it."); and 2) John Kerry voted against the 87 billion because he didn't want to be positioned as the pro-war candidate, WHICH HE WAS. Even Joe Biden has said that.

If you think I'm the only person that voted for John Kerry while believing that he was an incohorent, indecisive, and ambivalent idiot, you DEFINITELY need to get out more.

But the sad truth is, is that your naivety doesn't end there. You actually think that John Kerry can run again in 2008. You're in for a rude awakening.

5:55 PM  
Blogger BobsAdvice said...

Thanks again for participating here!

I do not intend to debate you point for point. Does Senator Kerry have any faults? Can I find anything to criticize him? You bet I can.

I just feel that he is still the best candidate for the Presidency for 2008. Maybe we just need to let Kerry be Kerry.

Who do you find that is preferable to him?


6:37 PM  
Blogger Mac Daddy said...

Four years is a long time from now, so I've refrained from picking out of a candidate for 2008. Alot can change between now and 2008.

But two people I know with all my heart that can do nothing but harm and lose if nominated are John Kerry and Hillary Rodham Clinton. We lost in 2004 for a host of reasons, but one of the central causes was the general belief that the Democratic Party sits on the left bank of the mainstream in American politics. As a centrist Democrat, I find this to be particularly disturbing and a big problem for our party in the new century.

Now I understand Senator Clinton has been trying to position herself a moderate for quite some time (her most recent attempt was a speech on abortion a few days ago), but whether or not she's sincere isn't my biggest concern. My biggest concern is the realization that people in the states Kerry couldn't touch last year, will see Hillary for what she is and always has been: a liberal.

While I won't make up my mind some four years in advance, I will say that Evan Bayh, Blanche Lincoln, the Democratic governor of Tennessee (I've forgotten his name) and many other moderate Democrats who have experience dealing with people who see us as elitist, godless limousine liberals. Those are the people Democratic voters in Iowa and New Hampshire should look at seriously.

6:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree that Democrat voters might well benefit from moving to the middle in terms of winning elections. Warner and various others would stand a good chance of being elected. But he would sinply be Repblican lite, much like Bill Clinton was. Clinton was basically a free trading, budget balancing, wellfare reforming conservative. Not all of that is bad, but when you consider that by 2008 we will have had a Republican president for 20 out of 28 years, the fact that Clinton was conservative is bad, because basically we will have 30 years of Republican rule. Prior to Clinton Democrats were viewed as the party of working men. Many people still feel this way, but thanks to Clinton the line between the two parties has been blurred. Kerry would have struck a major blow for labor in this country and I think that he deserves another shot. He has solid funding and recieved 55 million votes in 2004. THe religious right won't show up in droves again in 2008, especially if a certain pro-choice mayor from New York gets the nomination. I think that if Kerry gets 55 million next time around he will win it.

5:28 PM  
Blogger BobsAdvice said...


Thanks for the comments.

I believe that as this second term of this Administration rolls out, more and more Americans will wonder whether the nation might just have made a mistake in the 2004 elections!

Some candidates are only good for one attempt at higher office.

John Kerry is a fighter. He didn't get wounded badly as Al Gore did, who apparently needed to retrench after his failed attempt. John Kerry dusted himself off and kept on going.

I am confident that he will be a strong candidate in 2008! He really wasn't even on the map this time during the 2004 election cycle. Everything was about Howard Dean.

I believe that most Americans who voted for Kerry would be willing to give him another chance. I also believe that many who voted for the Republicans are sure to be having second thoughts as we as a nation get bogged down in Iraq, in a more and more Vietnam-like war.


11:47 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home