Why it's crucial that you, I, and everyone else cast a vote for Kerry this fall...NO MATTER WHAT (thanks, Todd!)
Well, I'm not crazy about John Kerry myself, but he IS head and shoulders above the current occupant. Style points go to Alan Blevins for having the cojones to name his site JohnKerryIsADoucheBagButImVotingForHimAnyway.com. Kerry may well be, but Norman Schwartzkopf will march in a Gay Rights Parade wearing leather pants and a pink fishnet muscle shirt before I vote for George W. Bush.
A visit to the referenced site revealed one well written essay and the promise of four future installments, the purpose of which is to convince people to vote for Kerry, even though he is a "douche bag". This is likely to take far more than five essays!
The author attempts to soften Kerry's lack of qualifications, integrity, intelligence, and socialist leanings in several ways, and with varying degrees of success. If one is looking for reasons to justify a deciscion to hang a chad for Kerry, this essay will help fuel the denial required to do so.
The essay is for the most part accuate, but I took exception with the admited lack of research in the part where the author actually tries to defend Kerry's senate voting record:
"... This is not even to mention the numerous “flip-flops” that show Kerry supporting or not supporting something based on how he voted on a particular resolution. I have not the time nor the energy to look up and read through years-old legislation to find the true purpose of each resolution, but we can just assume that the Bush website has properly paraphrased these for us, right?"
Wrong!
The quoted paragraph follows a section of the essay suggesting that the lengthy list of Kerry voting facts on the offical Bush website are attempts at "deception" that are "clever, even downright sneaky." This characterization is well deserved on many sites, both D&R. For example, I'm sure an internet search would find a picture of Norman Schwartzkopf marching in a Gay Rights Parade.
The more "official" political web sites, again both D&R, tend to hold a higher standard of accuracy. Distortions are certainly there, but not to the degree the essay depicts. I researched some of the author's accusations, and found them without merit. The essay encourages its readers to assume that anyone who says something bad about Kerry must be lying or distorting the truth.
Here's a sample of the "lies and distortions" found on the Bush site:
In 1998, Kerry Voted To Allow States To Continue Taxing Internet Access After Moratorium Took Effect. Kerry voted against tabling an amendment that would extend the moratorium from two years to three years and allow states that currently impose taxes on Internet access to continue doing so after the moratorium takes effect. (S. 442, CQ Vote #306: Motion Rejected 28-69: R 27-27; D 1-42, 10/7/98, Kerry Voted Nay)
In 2001, Kerry Voted To Extend Internet Tax Moratorium Until 2005 And Allow States To Form Uniform Internet Tax System With Approval Of Congress. (H.R. 1552, CQ Vote #341: Motion Agreed To 57-43: R 35-14; D 22-28; I 0-1, 11/15/01, Kerry Voted Nay)
Kerry Said “We Do Not Support Any Tax On The Internet Itself.” “We do not support any tax on the Internet itself. We don’t support access taxes. We don’t support content taxes. We don’t support discriminatory taxes. Many of us would like to see a permanent moratorium on all of those kinds of taxes. At the same time, a lot of us were caught in a place where we thought it important to send the message that we have to get back to the table in order to come to a consensus as to how we equalize the economic playing field in the United States in a way that is fair.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/15/01, p. S11902)"
I don't know about you, but the only distortion attempt I see here is John Kerry trying to get people to believe that he's against taxing the internet. After voting to tax the internet twice, he say's he's against it half a dozen times, then says we need to "equalize the economic playing field." This kind of spacey socialist drivel frequently preceedes a politician's vote for tax increases and new taxes. Broad base items such as an internet are prime targets for tax champions like Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy and the others because they can tax the masses rather than political buddies in corporate America.
In fact, Clinton/Gore/Kerry already succeeded in "taxing" the internet" Of course they don't actually call it a tax (clever deception?) It's amongst the numerous "fees" listed on your telephone bill. Perhaps I'm distorting the issue by refering to things like the Universal Service Fee as a tax, after all - only congress can levy a federal tax, what these sly bastards did is give the FCC authority to collect a fee.
Now there's a distortion for you!
Let's call a spade a spade here: politicians voted for it, a federal agency administers and collects it, and it's money out of my pocket. For all intents and purposes it's a tax.
Vote for Kerry if you really want higher taxes, especially sneaky ones, even if he is a douche bag.