DescentBB

Why is Kerry qualified to be President? Thats something I'd like to know.

So far in this campaign, I've heard a great deal about why Bush and Kerry ARENT qualified, and a good amount of why Bush is qualified, but I havnt really seen/heard much about why Kerry is qualified to be president. So thats kind of what I'd like to hear from some of the more left leaning people that read this forum, and I really dont want to hear the old "because he's not bush" answer, because if we were going to use that basis for selecting who should be president, we might as well elect my high school physics teacher. No, I want real, concrete answers as to why Kerry should be allowed to take office this coming january.

I watched a good deal of the RNC this week, and while 99% of it was cow-manufactured bull-s***, some of the speakers did have good points, and I'm afraid that some of those points have sunk in and have made me wonder if electing Kerry just because he's not George Bush is enough reason to trust this guy with the powers associated with that office.

So yeah, I'd like to hear some of you guys' ideas on why Kerry *IS* qualified for this office.

And you right wingers, please, I've already heard enough of why Kerry *isn't* qualified. I watched the RNC and I regularly read woodchips posts, so yeah, dont answer that question because thats not what I'm asking. Of course, if someone is posting a completely BS reason, feel free to disprove it...yeah.

So, why is Kerry qualified? I'd really like to know.

Most people will tell you because he serverd in Vietnam. Thats it. But since you want the "left" to answer ill just leave it at that, because there is a significant reason why Kerry isnt even qualified to be a senator.

Well... With the current electoral system, in which there are only two candidates to choose from (aside from insignificant ones), the choice will always be the least bad one of the two, not the best one.

Also, the fact that we hear a lot more about Bush being qualified rather than Kerry, is that Bush has been in office for four years already, we have a pretty good idea what he does as a president now. This isn't the case for Kerry, so obviously he is at a disadvantage here.

Also, I'd like to say, as criticism on the american electoral system, that the qualities required to win elections and become president are quite different from the qualities required to be president. As such, it is quite rare to find someone in office who combined both.

I would reply that being qualified for the presidency is relatively unimportant. Frankly, nobody is fully qualified to be president. Some candidates have business qualifications (Ross Perot), some have military qualifications (Ike), some have domestic government qualifications (governors, senators). Offhand, I can't think of anyone who had all these qualifications when they first ran.

We all know the way a president works is to surround himself with fully qualified people in each of the required areas. These people are appointed to reflect the leanings of the president, and his job is to listen to their advice. He can be a total dumbass; it doesn't matter.

So back to the issue: Bush may be more qualified for presidency in this election because he's had 4 years to figure it out. But Bush certainly wansn't as qualified as Gore was, and nearly as many people voted for him as for Gore. To extend this, if it was all about qualifications then incumbents would win a second term every time automatically. The fact that they don't is because no matter how qualified you are, you can still screw up and lose the confidence of the populace.

So it can't be all about qualifications, can it?

He's qualified? Fooled me.

Well this is not exactly instilling me with any sort of confidence that I was seeking from some of the left leaners (I know youre out there, dammit!). This does not bode well

He's not George W. Bush and he really, really wants the job. Isn't that enough?

he has money, thats all of the qualifications you really need.

Well... not that I actually know anything about Kerry myself (I can afford not to) but what caused him to be chosen to represent the Democrats above Howard Dean (I think he was involved?) and all the others? That should at least give people some ideas....

Avder wrote:Well this is not exactly instilling me with any sort of confidence that I was seeking from some of the left leaners (I know youre out there, dammit!). This does not bode well

Give them time, after all they are looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack!

I was not aware of any qualified candidates running for president this year. I donâ??t really care who gets into office this year, if its bush then its more of the same. Someone asks if all this security and hassle everywhere and the terror alerts that have been completely useless are worth the budget they get, and Bush always points behind them "LOOK OVER THERE! TERRORISTS!" then runs away leaving a cloud of dust. And Kerry, I canâ??t tell what to make of him, so I think I will just settle on "idiot" for now.

Well this thread is a f***ing trainwreck.

Isn't it a b*** when bad things happen to good questions?

Avder, I think it was doomed from the start.

Yeah, it was a mistake to think any sort of logical debate could occur in this forum....

I think it was a mistake to expect any Kerry voters (other than maybe Vander) to provide any positive support. There are other topics where you can get pretty good debate, but this isn't one of them.

Well, it was a losing battle for Kerry supporters as soon as you asked the question.

1/ We know what Bush does because he's had a term in office, we don't know that much about Kerry.
2/ Left-leaning people are a minority in this place. Some of them are foreign.
3/ It's about more than the man itself, it's everyone he brings along in office that determines qualification.
4/ Qualification is only so much. There's policy to consider as well.

Tricord wrote:1/ We know what Bush does because he's had a term in office, we don't know that much about Kerry.
2/ Left-leaning people are a minority in this place. Some of them are foreign.
3/ It's about more than the man itself, it's everyone he brings along in office that determines qualification.
4/ Qualification is only so much. There's policy to consider as well.

1) Kerry has been in office for about 30 years, and he's been campaigning for a year and a half. The fact that nobody knows much about him is an indication of just how vague he is. My chief complaint about him is that, after a year and a half of really trying to figure him out, I still don't really have any idea what he'd do in office.

2) There are plenty of lefties here -- just very few that are enthusiastic about Kerry (we've had a lot of this board's left-leaning contingent go the third-party route.) Besides, "being in the minority" shouldn't lead to there being zero substantial responses. It might lead to there only being a few, but zero?

3) But then, he determines who he brings along, so if we know his character and what he stands for, we should be able to figure out what sort of people he'd bring along. We do know that he couldn't even assemble a campaign staff that he'd leave in shape for the whole campaign. How does that bode for his assembling a good cabinet?

4) Policy is a subset of qualification.

You're trying to make excuses as to why Kerry isn't getting any solid support here. Consider the possibility that the question was stacked against Kerry supporters from the start because of Kerry himself.

Kerry is at least as qualified as bush was in 2000. Many years in the senate is a typical presidential qualification. He also spent some time in combat.

Lothar, since this is the second time you've been too lazy to stroll over to Kerry's website and find his positions, here you go buddy. A 129 page PDF file about Kerry's positions. And I linked it for you! God forbid you'd have to actually type www.johnkerry.com yourself!

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/our_plan_for_america.pdf

I think Bush is just better at the soundbyte game, that's why Kerry seems vague to you. Bush's opinions are much better summed up in little 3 second euphemisms and jingles.

Let's assume Kerry was as qualified as Gore in 2000 to lead this country. What would Gore have done in retaliation for 9/11? That's what scares me.

I dont see Gore sitting around for 8 minutes listening to a story about a goat while one of the twin towers burns.

In fact I see any competent president politely excusing himself to an empty room in the school and making some calls to defense personelle and getting some jets in the air around every major city, especially New York and Washington. Anyone ever look at a minute by minute analysis of what happened on 9/11? If Jets had been in the air immediately after either the first jet had gone off course, or even after the first hit @ the WTC, one or both towers would still be standing, the Pentagon wouldnt have been smashed, and the people on the downed plane would have been ANOTHER example, instead of the ONLY example of how Americans are prepared to fight to the death to protect our nation from attack.

Avder wrote:Well this is not exactly instilling me with any sort of confidence that I was seeking from some of the left leaners (I know youre out there, dammit!). This does not bode well

Has the thought ever occurred to you that mayby Kerry is NOT the right man for the job? Even his own Democratic party are having doubts about him! You dont have to look far to see why.

Birds, I've read tons of johnkerry.com. I've read individual sections on individual issues I'm interested in... and it's mostly vapor.

But more than that: I've listened to his speeches to the American people, and he seems *entirely* uninterested in telling people what he's about. You have to dig through a 129-page PDF file on his website just to get a halfhearted glimpse of what he's about. And I think it shows, in that none of this board's Kerry supporters have even pretended to say they have any idea why he's qualified. Just read this thread...

Avder wrote:I dont see Gore sitting around for 8 minutes listening to a story about a goat while one of the twin towers burns.

In fact I see any competent president politely excusing himself to an empty room in the school and making some calls to defense personelle and getting some jets in the air around every major city, especially New York and Washington. Anyone ever look at a minute by minute analysis of what happened on 9/11? If Jets had been in the air immediately after either the first jet had gone off course, or even after the first hit @ the WTC, one or both towers would still be standing, the Pentagon wouldnt have been smashed, and the people on the downed plane would have been ANOTHER example, instead of the ONLY example of how Americans are prepared to fight to the death to protect our nation from attack.

its called composure, the last thing you want in any situation is panic from your leader.as you saw 9/11 panic spreads quickly and having your leaders in panic mode is NOT a good thing. second off they didnt even know it was a terrorist attack till the second tower was hit. at first they thought it was an airline accident. and third, they most likley would not have shot down any of the aircraft, they would have tried to force them to land. and forth it has already been determined that no Fighters could have reached the aircraft in time anyways so you point is totaly mute and before 9/11 we were not in the habit of scrambling fighters for hijacked aircraft. also could you imagine the uproar from the populace if Bush had ordered U.S. fighters to blow U.S. citizens out of the air

I think the populace could have lived with 400 casualties and 3 blown up air craft better than they lived with the destruction of the twin towers and the 3000 or so dead from that attack.

Avder wrote:I think the populace could have lived with 400 casualties and 3 blown up air craft better than they lived with the destruction of the twin towers and the 3000 or so dead from that attack.

It wasn't an option so why pretend someone else might have chosen it?
Even with the benifit of hindsight, because of the logistics involved, it still wouldn't have been possible to execute so why bother to pretend it was?

Avder wrote:Why is Kerry qualified to be President?

He isn't. Next topic.