More comments contained within.

"???" wrote in message ...
John,

Almost all of what you say is true for almost every candidate in the last
30
years. It is a statement of the obvious. That the more well heeled people
are, the more complex their financial life. Hence, more room for
reporting
error. Your error is that you focus only on the financials of the Kerrys.
I
do not engage in the politics of personal finance, so I will only suggest
that you apply some energy into appreciating the financial lives of Mr.
Bush
and Mr. Cheney.

I don't really count 1 or 2 accounting errors either, unless they are
whoppers. Unfortunately, the current tax system leaves people no choice but
to try and squeeze out as much as they possibly can and sometimes they will
squeeze too much. But Kerry's "personal sacrifices" are still symbolic
only. Do you have any doubt that he will pay it off in the near future.
Bush and Cheney will never recoup their losses either.

To pass your test of who is qualified to run for office would mean not
having a complicated financial life. Perhaps not a bad test, but not
realistic.

I suggest that your comments are based in emotion. In the absence of
including in your analysis the financial "bloopers" of Mr. Bush and Mr.
Cheney, you have failed to establish a basis for comparison. Yet you seem
to conclude that Mr. Kerry has a "dirtier" financial life. This is the
outcome of an emotional reaction, not thoughtful analysis.

It is kind of like the people who say they will vote for Mr. Bush because
he
is "moral". When asked what they know about the "moralness" of Mr.
Kerry,
they state they "know nothing". Yet, they feel they confident in
concluding
Mr. Bush is more moral.

I have done some reading about the moral character of Bush and Kerry, and
Kerry does not pass muster for me. Almost everything I have read says that
Bush is honest. Haven't seen much to oppose that except from Democrat
politicians who blame EVERYTHING bad on him. But Kerry doesn't take much
reading. Starting with the men that served with him in Vietnam, to his
post-Vietnam activities, to his voting record in the Senate. Even today.
Remember that abysmal performance of Kerry throwing out the first pitch at a
baseball game recently? Read the true story of that. The serviceman that
"caught" the pitch was the one scheduled to throw it. Kerry decided that he
wanted to do it and had his staff make a few calls. He "graciously" allowed
the servicman to catch. After the pitch, they all went to the box that
Kerry was using and cameras were everywhere. After about 30 minutes all the
cameras left and Kerry had the serviceman escorted up to the nosebleed
section. Is that the kind of morals you want? He used the serviceman and
then threw him away. That is probably the same thing we would do for our
military. There are more stories about Kerry like this.

By the way, can anyone reading this confirm or deny that Kerry's picture is
displayed in Vietnam as one of their heroes (and NOT for our side)?

Like them, it is obvious you have made up your mind and will continue to
find information that fits into what your emotions have already led you to
conclude.

You too. You have said that you have changed your party affiliation so I am
assuming that you were a Republican. If so, you HAD to have been a RINO.

As for me, I choose the same analytic approach I use to evaluate my stock
portfolio.
But yet, all of your reasons for changing party affiliation are emotional
and not analytical. Kerry's campaign so far has been a purely emotional
plea to voters. He says "I know how the system works" and uses that as an
excuse for not providing any details about how he plans to accomplish
anything. My guess is that he doesn't have a plan yet. The only detail he
has mentioned is rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the top 2%. That will
pay for Kerry's other plans for a little while, but what about the other 364
1/2 days in the year? Maybe that is what is holding up the plan.

"Has the management done what they said they were going to do?
Are there good reasons why they have not met their benchmarks?"

As already clearly laid out, Mr. Bush has failed to achieve the benchmarks
he himself set. When asked why those benchmarks have not been achieved,
he
has lots of reasons, none to do with himself or his approach.

Maybe you should analyze why they have not been met. Maybe the reasons ARE
out of his control. After all, 9/11 wasn't just one day. It was a day that
changed the entire world much like Pearl Harbor. You claim that he has not
met any of his benchmarks, but I disagree. He has met some, come close to
some, and yes, has missed some.

Look at some of Kerry's benchmarks.
Get my ass out of Vietnam ASAP by using false claims of Purple Hearts. -
accomplished.
Protest the Vietnam war like my idol Hanoi Jane. - accomplished.
Disrespect my "Band of Brothers" by claiming they committed war crimes. -
accomplished.
Vote against every weapons system that can defend this country. -
accomplished.
Tell the American people that I am the one to defend them. - ongoing

This is when investors who were paying attention got out of Tyco and
Global
Crossing. Only those who were emotional about the stocks rode them all
the
way to the bottom.

Finally, my analysis of American history leads me to a conclusion the
seems
to escape many who make political decisions based on emotional reactions.
This Country is inventive enough, strong enough and flexible enough to
prosper and grow no matter WHO is in office. That is simply our History
as
a People.

My analysis tells me the larger and more intrusive our government gets, the
more inventiveness, strength, and flexibility (and freedom, I might add)
suffer. Kerry (any Democrat) will make it larger and more intrusive at a
faster rate than Bush or any (true) Republican.

Yes, it is my nature to be skeptical of someone who claims we can only
survive under his leadership. But it is my analysis of the two different
visions being offered that leads me to support Mr. Kerry and to reject Mr.
Bush's vision.

I find this to be a totally self-contradictory statement. You say you are
skeptical of someone that claims that we can only survive under his
leadership, but both candidates say this. There is absolutely NO difference
there. Even you must see this. And then you say "But it is my analysis of
the two different visions...". Give me a break. There is no analysis here.
That is purely an emotional response.

No other President in our history has so based his leadership on promoting
FEAR. EVERY President in times of National peril has focused NOT on the
present dangers that MAY rear up; but, on the future that awaits us. What
is facing us RIGHT NOW is no different that the threat of Atomic War we
faced for 40 years. It is no more than that. Just isn't. Can you
imagine
Mr. Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan promoting
the level of fear being pushed by Mr. Bush?

I think this argument is just plain silly and that you are absolutely wrong
on this one too. Must be another emotional response. Do you think, for
example, that Roosevelt was telling the country that the future was rosy
while selling war bonds, encouraging our youth to volunteer for military
service, implementing rationing, and conducting war so we could overcome the
menace growing in Europe that would certainly spread to the US at some point
if we did not intervene? Of course not. He was telling the American people
about the Nazi and Japanese threats. And again, what was Eisenhower saying
that caused so many Americans to build bomb shelters. I don't think they
were being built because he was telling everyone just how rosy the future
was going to be. They were being built because the President was telling
the people about the evil Soviet Empire and the threat to the American way o
f life. Every president in times of national peril HAS focused on the
present dangers. They have to. It's their job. It is without a doubt the
single most important thing they have to concern themselves with at that
time. Can I imagine the former presidents promoting the level of fear that
Bush has? You damned right I can. It would be irresponsible of him not to.
But it could all come down to what you define as fear (Damn Bill Clinton!!).
I don't think keeping people informed and educated (as much as can be told)
is promoting fear.


These leaders then pushed efforts to help Americans learn to deal with
attacks that might occur. They did not say; "It is MY responsibility to
protect you completely; so trust only me." They said "The Government is
and
always will do its best to avoid the unthinkable. But, you need to know
how
to cope should the unthinkable happen."

See above.

Here we are, three years out, and what do YOU know of the laws passed
giving
the CDC the authority to invoke quarantine and martial law and under which
conditions soldiers are authorized to shoot those attempting to leave a
quarantined area. What do YOU know of the plans for rationing drugs and
long term care equipment needed to care for those made sick or injured in
an
attack (and some of the possible biological agents can only be treated
with
long term supportive care such as a bed in an ICU)? What do YOU know of
the
pecking order for who gets those drugs and access to those ICU beds?

I am certain you cannot answer those questions without first doing some
Google searches. Very few can. Is THIS the kind of leadership you want
to
follow? A leader who says "The world is a fearful place and I am the only
who can protect you".
Again, Kerry is saying the exact same thing.

But THEN he never prepares Americans for what to
expect should the unthinkable occur? Does he have that little respect and
confidence in average Americans?

Hmmm. Respect and confidence in average Americans. Make no mistake about
this. The election is about power and money. It isn't about the people,
especially the "average Americans". Both candidates are the same in that
respect. But historically, it is typically the Democrats that promote and
implement programs like affirmative action and remember racial quotas? Talk
about disrespect. These progarms were implemented because minorities were
thought to be too stupid to achieve goals on their own. Bush's vision is
for the people to pull us up. The Democrats vision is to continually lower
the bar to the lowest level. That is disrespect for all above the bar. So
to answer your question, I give a slight nod to Bush on this one. Well,
maybe not to Bush directly, but the Republican party.

Oh, and don't tell me it needs to be kept secret for National Security.
You
will find what you need to know at the various University BioWarfare
Centers, CDC, FEMA, the Congressional Record and other such sites. But as
of today, YOU have to hunt it down.

In this area, I have no idea how Mr. Kerry would approach the preparation
issue. But at least he has not already failed at it.

Then why raise this as an issue? Since there isn't enough data to perform a
proper analysis, this is yet another emotional response. But again, look
at Kerry's voting record in the Senate. If he had his way, we wouldn't have
an inteligence agency that was worth a crap (and remember, it was another
Democrat named Bill Clinton that really castrated the CIA), and we would
have no defense platforms that have protected this country through strength.
There is a failure for you. It would have been catastrophic failure.

--
Regards,
Dewey Clark
http://www.historictimekeepers.com
Restorations, Parts for Hamilton M21s, Products for Craftsmen
Makers of Historic Timekeepers Ultrasonic Clock Cleaning Solution
http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/mysit...est&ref=878707



Go drink some more Kool-aid,

Wayne