posted on February 15, 2004 06:04:49 PM new
Does Kerry really know what he wants from one day to the next? Which Kerry will you libs support?
In the more than 250 days until Nov. 2, John Kerry can answer questions that linger in spite of, or because of, all he has said so far. Such as:
Other than denoting your disapproval, what does the adjective mean in the phrase ``special interest''? Is the National Education Association a special interest? The AFL-CIO?
You abhor ``special tax giveaways for the privileged and special interests.'' When supporting billions in ethanol subsidies, mostly for agribusinesses, did you think about corn-growing, caucus-holding Iowa?
Is the National Rifle Association a ``special interest''? Is ``special'' a synonym for ``conservative''?
When you denounce ``lobbyists'' do you include those for Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club? Is ``liberal lobbyist'' an oxymoron?
All the Americans affected by laws you pass -- that is, all Americans -- refuse to pipe down and mind their own business so that you can mind their business for them. Often they hire lobbyists to exercise their First Amendment right to ``petition the government for a redress of grievances." Can you despise lobbyists without disparaging that right?
You say the rich do not pay enough taxes. In 1979 the top 1 percent of earners paid 19.75 percent of income taxes. Today they pay 36.3 percent. How much is enough?
You say the federal government is not spending enough on education. President Bush has increased education spending 48 percent. How much is enough?
In January 1991, after Iraq extinguished Kuwait's sovereignty, you opposed responding with force rather than economic sanctions. Have such sanctions ever undone such aggression?
On Jan. 11, 1991, you said that going to war was abandoning ``the theory of deterrence." Was it not a tad late to deter Iraqi aggression?
The next day you said, ``I do not believe our nation is prepared for war." How did unpreparedness subsequently manifest itself?
On Jan. 22, 1991, responding to a constituent opposed to the Gulf War, you wrote ``I share your concerns" and would have given sanctions more time. Nine days later, responding to a voter who favored the war, you wrote, ``I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis." Did you have a third position?
You say the Bush administration questions ``the patriotism" of its critics. You say that as president you will ``appoint a U.S. trade representative who is an American patriot." You mean the current representative, Robert Zoellick, is not a patriot?
You strongly praise former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin, who strongly supports NAFTA and free trade. Have you changed your mind about him or about free trade (as you have changed your mind about No Child Left Behind, the 2002 war resolution, the Patriot Act, etc.)?
You oppose immediate termination of U.S. involvement in Iraq, and you opposed the $87 billion to pay for involvement. Come again?
In 1994, the year after the first attack on the World Trade Center, you voted to cut $1 billion from counterterrorism activities. In 1995 you proposed a $1.5 billion cut in intelligence funding. Are you now glad that both proposals were defeated?
You favor civil unions but not same-sex marriage. What is the difference? What consequences of gay marriage worry you? Your state's highest court says marriage is ``an evolving paradigm." Do you agree? You say you agree with what Dick Cheney said in 2000: States should have a right to ``come to different conclusions" about same-sex marriage. Why, then, were you one of only 14 senators who opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, which protects that right? Massachusetts opponents of the same-sex ruling are moving for a referendum to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. How will you vote?
You favor full disclosure of political spending. Organized labor is fighting new regulations requiring full disclosure to union members of the political uses of their mandatory union dues. As president, would you rescind these regulations?
Praising McCain-Feingold restrictions on political contributions, you said: ``This bill reduces the power of the checkbook and I will therefore support it." In December you saved your sagging campaign by writing it a $6.4 million check. Why is your checkbook's unfettered freedom wholesome?
You deny that restricting campaign contributions restricts speech. How much of the $6.4 million did you spend on speech -- broadcast messages?
Billionaire George Soros says he will spend whatever is necessary -- just a few million so far, but more coming -- to defeat Bush. As one who believes -- well, who says -- there is ``too much money" in politics, are you appalled?
There are 28 more questions where these 28 came from.
posted on February 15, 2004 06:42:30 PM new
bear, it's like desquirrel said....Kerry has had a nice 'ride'. He'll have a very rough ride if he gets the nomination and has to address all these questions. I can't wait.
But I'm still bettin' that ol' "she who ran the WH last time' will come forward to 'save' their party at the last minute.
No Child Left Behind, the 2002 war resolution, the Patriot Act, etc.
Yes....that was the third one I couldn't remember at the time. The Patriot act. LOL The issues that so many of those who will vote for ANY dem have argued against.
posted on February 15, 2004 08:47:51 PM new
1971 Photo of Kerry Doctored
By Michael Rothfeld
Staff Writer
As a 20-year-old photographer documenting the country's struggle over the Vietnam War, Ken Light snapped the picture of John Kerry at a peace rally in Mineola. It captured the future senator alone at a podium, squinting into the sun.
Light did not photograph Jane Fonda on that warm June Sunday in 1971. The actress, who is reviled by many Vietnam veterans for her vocal stance against the war, did not even attend.
But when opponents of the Democratic presidential hopeful began e-mailing Light's picture to one another four days ago, it depicted Fonda standing by Kerry's side. The photo had been doctored.
"I'm horrified," said Light, 52, who grew up in East Meadow and now heads the graduate photojournalism program at the University of California at Berkeley. "I think this kind of alteration is probably one of the scariest forms of trickery, particularly when it's done against a political candidate."
Dag Vega, a spokesman for Kerry's campaign, said, "The smear tactics have started already."
Kerry, who co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War, spoke at the Register for Peace Rally on June 13, 1971, when thousands gathered for "the largest anti-war demonstration ever held on Long Island," according to a story in Newsday the next day. Light recalled Long Islanders of all ages sprawled across the State Supreme Court mall in Mineola, with American flags and peace symbols. Former members of Congress who attended included Bella Abzug, Allard Lowenstein and Lester Wolff. Folk singer Peter Yarrow entertained, and the rally ended with a burst of thunder and lightning.
Light, a student in Ohio at the time, took the picture of Kerry but never published it, and it sat in his files until two weeks ago when he shipped it to Corbis, his Seattle-based agent, which placed it in its online archives.
That is apparently where someone found it, and attempted to capitalize on the attention garnered by an authentic photo of Kerry and Fonda at a Vietnam-era rally -- seated some distance apart -- posted early this month on a Web site called www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com. The Web site's creator, Ted Sampley, a Vietnam veteran from North Carolina, said he received the doctored photo by e-mail on Wednesday from a woman in Richmond, Va.
"Thought you might want to include this pic on your site," said the note from Loree Siemek, with an attachment called "HanoiJohn.jpg," a takeoff on "Hanoi Jane," the derisive nickname given to Fonda by her critics during the Vietnam era. It is made to look like a newspaper clipping, headlined "Fonda Speaks to Vietnam Veterans at Anti- War Rally," with an Associated Press photo credit. Sampley said he was immediately skeptical, and e-mailed it to some friends who concluded it was faked. He did not post it.
"I looked at it and it didn't feel right," Sampley said in an interview. "It just looked too good."
Siemek, 34, reached by phone, said she found the picture on a conservative Internet message board and had no idea it was phony.
"This thing has spiraled out of control," Siemek said. "If I had any thought that photo was not real, I would never have forwarded it to the veterans' group."
posted on February 15, 2004 08:52:18 PM new
Recently, when asked about his IQ, Kerry responded is a manner ALL liberals (including Skylite) could understand.
