LiberalOasis: Suggested Answers for Tough Questions about John Kerry
LiberalOasis's Bill Scher has compiled a great resource for Kerry volunteers. His Suggested Answers for Tough Questions about John Kerry (Microsoft Word) provides canvassers and phone bankers with a solid base of concise responses to the most common criticisms of John Kerry.
Addressed in the document are questions like:
- Kerry is a flip-flopper
- Kerry will raise my taxes
- Iraq
- National security
Read this guide. It could prove invaluable when you're out there trying to convince people to vote for Kerry. Email suggested changes to contact@liberaloasis.com.
posted by Luke Francl @ 11:27 PM |
| 
12 Comments:
It doesn't answer this question:
"Both Kerry and Bush are wealthy Yale Bonesman. Surely Kerry will pursue a similarly elitist policy of preserving privilege and wealth for his own class?"
(Don't worry I'll still vote for Kerry, he's just a tad conservative for my tastes.)
Ah, come on now.
Kerry may be rich, but he's got an excellent record on issues that matter to working people.
Card check unionization, anyone?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Off topic comments will be and have been removed.
Trolling is not allowed here.
Interesting resource. The question I've heard the most runs along the line of the following:
I just don't know where Kerry stands on anything, he shifts in the wind too much. At least with Bush, I may not agree, but he takes a clear position and knows how to lead.I've fielded it in much the same way and have reminded them that bad leaders take clear positions and know how to lead people... that doesn't mean they're the right person for the job.
I had pinkmonkeybird ask me at Keagan's a few weeks ago how I was able to handle Kerry on FlipFlopping on the War vote. I made it clear I never saw it that way. In fact, I feel Kerry has been very consistent on the issue.
When Kerry voted to authorize the President to use force, he was respecting the Right and Authority of the Office of President. The vote, in reality wasn;t a vot to go to war, as the link resource clearly points out!
And the next time someone brings up Kerry's vote for funds before he voted against it, look at the long list of Repugs how voted AGAINST the funding amendment when it was being payed for, and then voted for it in a defecit environment.
Flash
Centrisity
"Card check unionization, anyone?"
Sounds good to me.
Big Labor has to get the decision to unionize or not to unionize as far from the worker as it can, or unions are doomed as doomed can be.
You're average working stiff just doesn't know what is good for him or her anyway, right?
"Big Labor has to get the decision to unionize or not to unionize as far from the worker as it can, or unions are doomed as doomed can be."
What is it about card check unionization that pushes the decision to unionize further from the workers? I would tend to think that the traditional method makes it a lot more difficult for workers who want to organize to do so... The 60 day period between showing enough interest to unionize and a final vote to unionize seems like an opportune time for cagey employers to push employees away from unionizing, finding excuses to fire leaders, etc.
Thanks for coming back around to the topic at hand Swifte.
Card check unionization puts the decision to unionize soley in the hands of the workers. If a majority sign union membership cards, the union exists. This is also called a "neutrality agreement" because the employer agrees not to challenge the election.
The reason this is important to working people is that under current rules (unless a union has already negotiated a neutrality agreement with an employer), forming a union can take more than two years after a successful election, during which time the employer can fire union organizers and supporters more or less with impunity. More often than not, this ends up destroying the unionization drive, and the workers there have to settle for less because of it.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
derosiers, I used the feel the same way about Kerry. I thought he was another Clintonian democrat, but I actually think he's the opposite: he is more liberal than he sounds. The more I know about Kerry, the more I respect him.
'sides there's no way we could elect someone liberal enough for you and me. And I'm not sure we should. The president needs to represent the large and diverse population that is the US. And while I believe that social and economic equity are paramount, there are lots of other groups (probably just as small in terms of numbers) that place more importance on other ideals. I wouldn't want to elect a president that wanted to impose a state religion or social darwinian policies or totally isolationist policies; so I think we're always going to have to compromise with our national leaders.
What's unnerving to me is that the Republican Party has swung so far right and ceased, in my mind, to represent most of their supporters; resulting in relatively conservative demacrats being painted as radical liberals. It's hard to even make incremental changes in this climate where a desire to change America (for the better) is seen as "un-American".
-kelly
I hear what you're saying, Kelly, and there's no doubt in my mind about my vote in November. I think I've officially grown very weary of blueblooded white men trying to run my country, usually with an active fuck-the-poor philosophy in their policy portfolio.
I'm also angry this week that Kerry-Edwards seem to have totally abandoned economic issues in order to concentrate on the Iraq mess.
And finally there's Kerry's slapdash approach to the health care crisis, which I think absolutely requires a radical vision during this election.
Post a Comment
<< Home