Kerry/Edwards

Kerry bumper sticker.jpg
I spotted one of those bumper stickers a few days ago. They always amuse me.


They make me think some people still have hope – that Kerry will win the 2004 election. More likely, those people are glad to have supported Kerry – and the sticker won’t come off.
I wonder what names people will be slapping on the back of their cars next year: “Rudy/Rice”? “Mitt/Newt”? I would rather the names in the second set be reversed. If there’s a “Newt 2008″ sticker, I will probably keep mine forever.
Enough about my car (actually, I won’t have one of those for a while.) None of the Democratic candidates have monosyllabic names, so their bumper stickers will be harder: “Hillary/Obama” is all I can think of. The Democrats’ bumper stickers would be saved if Al Gore runs for president. “Gore/somebody” sounds all right. I just thought of an interesting one: maybe there will be another “Clinton/Gore” ticket.
This is probably silly to think about. But hey, someone really does this every 4 years. And the candidates probably spend a good amount of time coming up with the exact names that will be on bumper stickers, buttons, and signs, because the way the candidates’ names are presented will affect how the public views each candidate. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m guessing people would respond more positively to a “Rudy” sticker than to one that says “Giuliani”. “Rudy” sounds friendlier and more relaxed. Who knows? A catchy phrase just might win the election for someone in 2008.
But I would hope that instead of basing their votes on appearances, people take the time to examine each candidates’ stance on the issues.
Because then, they would vote for Newt. I hope he runs.

This entry was posted in Random thoughts. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Kerry/Edwards

  1. Jens Puhlmann says:

    Quote: “But I would hope that instead of basing their votes on appearances, people take the time to examine each candidates’ stance on the issues.
    Because then, they would vote for Newt. I hope he runs.”
    Please explain. What are his positions?
    Is he going to restore Habeas Corpus (“The Cornerstone of Freedom”), that 800 year old law that gives people the right to question their imprisonment, wiped away by G.W. Bush with the stroke of a pen?
    Is he going to abolish the 2006 Detainee Bill, which gives the FBI the right to torture people?
    Is he going to get rid of the Patriot Act, which gives the FBI full power to spy on innocent American citizens without legal warrant?
    Is he going to end this despicable war, which so far has cost ~3200 American soldiers their lives, as well as 100,000 Iraqis, probably far more than that?
    Is he going after G.W. Bush, for the lies that lead to this war and the loss of all those lives?
    Is he going to spend money again on the school system rather than wars, making sure that YOU or your kids will receive a good education?
    How does he intend to stop global warming? Apparently, prayers alone don’t help.
    Please, don’t mention his family values– he surely doesn’t have any, as you would been able to tell if you read the news past week.

  2. Kathy says:

    Jens,
    Maybe you don’t know that Jake is homeschooled and doesn’t receive his education at government expense. Check Profiles.
    Years ago, in studying info regarding teacher certification, I remember learning that because education was not addressed in the Constitution, education was left up to the states to regulate/decide. That makes it unconstitutional for the federal/national government to be saying anything about public education. Of course, that’s not the politically correct or popular view, but it is the only valid legal view.

  3. Jens Puhlmann says:

    Kathy,
    I apologize for not properly checking Jake’s background information and that I also mistakenly assumed that the general idea of my question was clear, so please let me rephrase my question:
    Is he going to spend money again on the school system, so that millions of poor children, who’s parents are either incapable of homeschooling or simply don’t have the opportunity or funds, can still receive a good education and therefore have a chance to succeed in life?
    Is he going to increase funds for medical research again, so that maybe at one point in time an efficient cure for AIDS, Alzheimer or Parkinson’s?
    Is he going to increase funds to make health care affordable, especially for the elderly?
    Is he going to increase funds for better social security coverage, so that elderly still can afford a decent living and don’t have to be afraid of every gas bill in the winter months?
    Or are his priorities the same as the ones of the current president, who at one point in time apparently claimed that God wanted him to go to war? Religion is a bad guidance to run a country, as can be seen by looking to the Middle East.
    Would Mr. Gingrich be doing his job (protecting ALL people of America, including Non-Christians, while abiding to the Constitution) or is he simply going to follow a Christian agenda? Or could it be that exactly that agenda is the reason that many would like to see him win?

  4. Kathy says:

    Unfortunately, most citizens of our country think that all our problems are caused by the government and that the government’s job is to solve all our problems. Jens’s questions also seem to support this. Another term for liberal left is “gradual socialism.”
    The government cannot fund research for every disease and anticipate/plan for/react to every possible disaster. This is not the government’s job and the government is not capable of spending money for this in the best possible manner.
    We, the citizens, need to become responsible for ourselves, our family members, our neighbors, and our cities.
    Personally, I don’t hold out much hope for us avoiding socialism and I believe that most people will be happy with the government running their lives.
    As for Mr. Gingrich, I heard him speak (on local York channel) last year when he was in York. I don’t know if I’d vote for him. However, in talking about our country, he seems to understand the nature of the issues, beyond the politics. I don’t know if he could put his philosophy and ideas into practice in running the country.

  5. Jens says:

    Kathy,
    I think you misunderstand. I don’t make THE government responsible for problems, I make THIS government responsible for problems.
    The present government has shown a total disregard for human life, the constitution as well as the right of privacy. That’s why I asked Jake, who has hopes that Mr. Newt Gingrich, a man who prosecuted Bill Clinton for his affair with M. Lewinsky, while he himself had an affair with another White House aide 20 years younger than himself, why he wishes for Mr. Gingrich’s success. I pointed out several things that I think the Bush administration has done wrong– including, but not limited to illegal actions like violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act from 1978.
    Personally, I doubt that Mr. Gingrich (or any other republican candidate, for that matter) is willing to make a stand to have all the injustice created in the name of the “War Against Terror” reversed and prosecute the people responsible.
    I realize that there is no way researching every single disease or supporting every single person with problems in this country, yet I have major problems when my tax money goes towards a war without any merit. Children, elderly, sick… I’d rather support them, but instead billions of dollars (if I remember correct, Clinton left the office with a major surplus?) are being dumped into killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, even though the US had not been attacked by Iraq. Or the spying on people without a court warrant. Meanwhile, Halliburton’s profits skyrocket, based on No-Bid contracts sanctioned by the government.

  6. Jen says:

    I would have to agree with Jens. When we are not spending billions of dollars on a needless war then you can talk to me about what is not the governments problem. There are many places that money would have been better suited for. Such as education, health care, housing, just to name a few.
    We in New Freedom recently lost a 21 year old soldier in Iraq. What is sad is he did not have the best home life, but yet he always had a smile and a comment to make you laugh. You could be certain your bad mood would have a time contending with his good one. Just imagine if all the money spent on this war would have been put into education, he may be here now.
    This government absolutly messed up, in more ways than one. I am proud to be a liberal left, and think we need more people, whether liberal left or not, to stand up for what is right. Bring the troops home and stop the needless dying at our hands in Iraq. Focus on what will benefit this country.

  7. Lily says:

    oooh! comment wars. No, I have nothing intelligent to say on this subject. I just think (know) this post is the most successful when it comes to comments.

  8. Kathy says:

    I don’t like the fact that we’re in a war (service members dying and spending money) any more than you do. I do know that only history will tell whether this was the right move. If we had known that the Soviet Union would fall after 70 years, the U.S. may have never become involved in Vietnam. I served in the “cold war” military and we never guessed that the build-up of power and attempts to keep a balance of power would lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
    Having been in the military and having served in leadership positions, I would like to have a president and government leaders who can accomplish something without taxing and spending. However, it seems that most people want the government to take care of their problems and that will be paid for by us. There is a definite shortage of smart and effective leaders, in general.
    One observation on Mr. Gingrich…did you notice that he looks like Senator Ted Kennedy with a smile?

  9. Jens says:

    Kathy, you forgot to mention the possibly 100,000+ Iraqis which died during this war.
    Usually, history books only deal with facts– or at least, should, if they want to be taken serious. That said, the following facts are presently known about this war:
    – The US government stated on several occasions that weapons of mass destruction, including several “mobile biological weapons laboratories” where to be found on Iraq soil (you can check that throughout the newspaper records preceding the war)
    – The Iraq government stated in response that that was not true
    – Mr. Rumsfeld stood in front of the UN, asking for support for a war, based on some really bad satellite pictures
    – The UN weapons inspectors stated on several occasions that no indications of illegal weapons could be found and more time would be needed
    – The US started tis war, together with Great Britain as main supporter
    – No weapons of mass destruction where found in the aftermath
    Eventually, history books will have access to the “real” death toll this war has caused, but there won’t be too many reports as to “what could have happened if…” With that in mind, looking as to how this war might be received in the future is useless and will ever remain a theory– History is not like Chemistry or Physics, where an experiment can be repeated under different conditions to examine the results. In history, there is only one path– Actions in history will remain permanent. At least until H.G. Wells fiction becomes reality.
    So far I have never expected this government (or the previous one) to take care of my problems– All I said is that I would see my tax money better spend on health care, nursing homes, schools or something similar.
    I don’t think that there is a shortage of leadership– I think there is a shortage in people questioning the actions of their leadership. Both of my grandfathers died in WWII (Wehrmacht) for the lies told to them by their leaders, so forgive me if my opinion of the military leadership isn’t too high– and the actions (lies?) of the present US government have only strengthened this opinion.
    But apparently, Mr. Mokris himself isn’t too interested in this blog anyway, since he prefers to track down spelling errors or the Wiener mobile, so I wonder if commenting here makes any sense– I guess I’ll never find out why he wants Mr. Gingrich to win. Maybe I was right about the Christian agenda, after all?
    PS: I still have my Kerry/Edwards sticker on my car, out of pride not to have supported the current “leadership”.

  10. Jens says:

    Sorry for the Multi-post… apparently, the page was not reloaded after the post, so my new comment was not shown. Will try to be a little bit more careful next time.

  11. Kathy says:

    Concerning history, terrorism and the Iraq War, I think that the survival of our society and western civilization is what’s at stake. Only history will tell whether we needed to invade Iraq, conduct this war, fight terrorism, etc. I don’t know the answer.
    Most people just look at the immediate outcome and how the war affects us now. Terrorism will spread or it won’t. Our society and way of life will continue or be destroyed. Only history will tell. Personally, I’m pulling for our way of life and western civilization. Maybe it doesn’t matter to you and you just want the war to end. I think a lot of people feel that way.
    The other consideration is, how will our leaving affect Iraq? Is it right to just up and leave or is that the best thing we could do for them? Again, only history will tell and I wouldn’t want to be responsible for making those decisions.

  12. Jens says:

    Kathy, what exactly had Iraq to do with terrorism?
    But you stated this correctly: “…needed to invade Iraq”. Invade. The US had not been attacked by Iraq, there was no threat either; the US “invaded”. Again, here my problem: Who will hold the people responsible for this invasion? Germany had N├╝rnberg, Albert Speer received 20 years, if my memory serves me right– he never killed anyone personally. No Republican politician will give me the satisfaction of seeing the people responsible for this war on trial.
    But I agree with you– the US cannot just leave. They have to clean the mess they created. The lost lives, however, can never be restored. How does the US intend to compensate the destroyed families of this– let me please repeat it again: “Invasion”?

  13. Jake says:

    Thanks for commenting, Jens. I’ve had things to do recently – like decide where I want to go to college.
    I just put up a post on why I support Newt Gingrich:
    http://www.yorkblog.com/teentakeover/2007/04/root_for_newt.html
    I support Newt for his ideas and political views. I did not know until later that Newt had anything close to a “Christian agenda”, when I found out about his book, “Rediscovering God in America.” My guess is that he knows more about the relationship between Christianity and U. S. history than most people.
    Please remember why we went to war in Iraq: the government thought that was the right thing to do at the time. There is no evidence the president lied or had an evil plan.
    While I am wary that some of the administration’s actions (like warrantless wiretapping) are of questionable constitutionality, the debate over their constitutionality is not decided. Thus, you cannot say that the administration has commited injustices. In addition, you tend to exaggerate:
    Quote: “Is he going to restore Habeas Corpus (“The Cornerstone of Freedom”), that 800 year old law that gives people the right to question their imprisonment, wiped away by G.W. Bush with the stroke of a pen?”
    You know very well that we are talking about terrorists’ rights, which are not completely established. And Habeas Corpus is completely safe in the U. S.
    By the way, I don’t read the New York Times for the typos.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>