Sec/LJB, explain this to me....

[sq764]

Ok.. Kerry is lashing out at Bush and Cheney, saying they are trying to exploit the war on terror and displaying political fear tactics.. He is saying this because he is seeing the gap on who Americans think would be tougher on terror greatly widen..

He then says "I think Americans are fed up and tired with that type of campainging"..

Hmm, so in his opinion, they are campaigning with political fear tactics and while this is happening, Bush's lead is growing almost daily.. YET, Americans are fed up and tired with this.

He really doesn't get it, does he?

[chickenhead]

Kerry is being disengenuous on this point, but I think what he says is true.

If you ask people if they like negative campaigns....they will say no.

If you run a negative campaign, they will generally react to it in exactly the way you wish them to.

[sq764]

But wouldn't you think if Americans were fed up with this type of campaigning AND Bush was doing this type of campaigning, he would be losing ground instead of gaining?

Isn't this logical?

[chickenhead]

People en masse aren't very logical....but the reason I say Kerry is disengenuous is that he is running the same kind of campaign, so I think it's a bit of a wash...Kerry is just much more inept. JMHO.

[sq764]

What Kerry hasn't figured out is part of this is a game, this year and every election year before this.. And Bush is beating him bad at the game..

[GameTheory]

People don't act logically all that often. It is perfectly conceivable that people don't like negative campaigning in general but it affects them anyway (i.e. it works). Plus since both sides do it they can have their cake and eat it too. Bush supporters can dislike negativity from the Kerry campaign at the same time they allow negativity from the Bush campaign to further reinforce their dislike of Kerry (rationalizing that if it is "true" then it isn't really negative, it is just honest). And vice-versa for Kerry supporters.

Undecided voters may be turned off altogether and simply not vote for anyone (getting people to not vote at all is also a common strategy if a campaign thinks they would lean the other way), or if they do they will probably be influnced by the negative stuff whether they like it or not. Sort of like in a courtroom where a lawyer blurts out something outrageous, and then the jury is instructed to "ignore what you just heard", which of course you never really can...

[kenwoodallpromos]

If Kerry would be better at fighting the terror, he would not be worried about Bush exploiting it.

[Dave Schwartz]

I think that the most interesting thing about the state of American politics is that people from both sides are becoming dissatisfied with both sides.

On the one side we have an administration that has shown huge favoritism to big business (which means he has chosen them over the rank and file of American workers).

On the other side we have a guy that sends the message that he will do or say anything to get elected and lacks integrity in a big way.

Now, both sides can leap in and defend their respective choices if they wish, but the bottom line is that both of those paragraphs are true. No amount of denying will change it.

Amazingly, we find ourselves deciding which of the candidates is the lesser evil.


I ask again - "Why is it so difficult to find leaders who are more American than they are Republicans or Democrats?"


You want to see serious change in this country? It can't happen until big business stops buying elections for both sides. Campaign contribution reform is what we need.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Lance]

Kenwood wrote:

"If Kerry would be better at fighting the terror, he would not be worried about Bush exploiting it."

Please tell me what the hell this means.

[Secretariat]

This thread is pretty interesting in contrast to most of them lately.

So much to respond to.

1. Exactly what is negative advertising and where can one draw the lines on what is defensible and what is not? And different people have different opinions about that. Certainly, exposing the record of your opponent on the issues I think is very viable. Otherwise every ad would say I am ___. I love the flag, and kids, and I'm a good guy. I will do such and such.

While those kind of ads appeal, they bore the box office if they're repeated over and over.

In contrast an ad that says, My opponent stood for this, this and this, and this is what happened in America ..I think is not a negative ad but a criticism of his policies.

An ad that says, "My opponent is a bad person, this is what he did 40 years ago..Isnt he a slime? are too me the kind of ads that push the line, whether they are about Bush's Guard Service, or Kerry in Nam.

Also ads that impugn family members, children, etc. irk me.

2. Personally, I disagree on Dave's assessment of Kerry. In fact I see it quite differently, I see Bush saying and doing things now just to get elected. But I don't blame him for that. That's politics. It always has been.

3. I don't see Kerry's numbers going down. In fact according to CNN Bush got the lowest post election bounce of any sitting President after a convention, and compared to Bush's numbers over Gore in 2000 after the RNC Convention, Bush's supposed lead is quite small. Personally, I don't put stock in polls as I've posted here before. I do think that after the debates, pols take on greater importance, but even then, look at florida in 2000 where the newscasters, except for FOX, called the election for Gore, and then had to reverse even on election night. So exit polling is still highly dubious. I am concerned about one thing I saw on C-Span today which is early voting this year. I don't like this trend because people are voting based on different sitations in the world and country and without listening to the debates. But perhaps those are diehard partisan people who will vote for thier candidate no matter what happened. I am a die-hard Kerry supporter, and think he's the best candidate for Pres I've seen, yet if it was revealed before the election that he had abused his office, then I would think differently. If he made a comment which I found offensive, I would not vote for him. I would not vote for Bush, I might write in a vote, or vote for a Third PArty candidate, but I would be willing to changem so not a big fan of the early vote idea.

Anyway, I digress. The negative ad is here to stay. It is just to what degree one finds the negative ad over the line. I think Kerry's ads are legit. I saw nothing but positive ads from his campaign, until after the RNC convention. And those ads were only about Bush's policies and record, not the character of the man.

[chickenhead]

I think you end up having negative campaigns because these guys are running AGAINST each other...it is a bloodsport...a billion dollar power struggle. For me, I want someone that is running FOR us (America)....all of us....I think the campaigns are shaped by the context in which they are launched....and until we actually get someone running FOR something..rather than against..we will have negative campaigns.

Kerry is certainly running AGAINST Bush....Bush may be running more FOR someone, but I'm not so sure it's me.

[sq764]

Sec, you are the spin master..

'Bush's lead is not big when compared to his lead in 2000'... haha, this is precious..

In just a few months, you go from Kerry is winning to ok, it's close, now to Ok, Bush is winning but, um, well, compare it to 2000.. yeah, that's the ticket..

Like George Castanza says "If you believe it, it's not a lie"

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by sq764
Sec, you are the spin master..

'Bush's lead is not big when compared to his lead in 2000'... haha, this is precious..

In just a few months, you go from Kerry is winning to ok, it's close, now to Ok, Bush is winning but, um, well, compare it to 2000.. yeah, that's the ticket..

Like George Castanza says "If you believe it, it's not a lie"

That's what you got out of my entire post?...my fingers are tired...

I have no idea who is ahead, and frankly neither do you. You're relying on polling. My point in showing the Gore point in 2000 was to illustrated that we have a long way to go until election and lots of things can happen.

Personally, my opinion is I think Kerry is winning. Hundreds of Thousands of people were on the streets of NYC in their own poll. I wonder how many of them were polled by Time after the RNC. Can I prove Kerry is winning? nope. Can I prove he is losing? i guess if you beleive in polls....I don't put a lot of stock in this weeks polls. or last weeks polls. But I can't beleive that a half a million people who voted for Gore more than Bush are going to switch in 2004. I'll be surprised if they do. And Nader is much less of a factor than in 2000, and I beleive more Nader votes will go to Kerry than Bush. But its my opinion. We wo;t know until Eleciton day.

[sq764]

Hmm, you might want to tell Kerry's campaign team that no one is winning or losing. They seem to think Kerry has a lot of ground to make up. Where could they be getting this ridiculous thought?

[Derek2U]

Guys .. get real .. Kerry has LOST ... That does not surprise me.
A lotta stuff made his defeat likely . Just to confirm, I HATE bush.
He's a LIAR .. yeah he's smooth etc but when he meets Budha
whats that gonna do? I was hoping for a much better planet.
really I was ... but WHO to lead? I gotta admit Kerry's a letDown.
Bush is a deadBeat. It all sucs. I will Vote for Kerry. But what's
the choice really?

[sq764]

maybe you should go to a new planet

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
I ask again - "Why is it so difficult to find leaders who are more American than they are Republicans or Democrats?"Because decent people don't want their lives destroyed by the media. It is near impossible to come up through the political ranks and maintain your dignity. That's why we see so many politicians sons & daughters becoming the politicians of the next generation. They have a short-cut through the process, plus they're groomed for the job from birth. If you (anyone) think of yourself as a decent person, but have no desire to run for office, ask yourself why?

You want to see serious change in this country? It can't happen until big business stops buying elections for both sides. Campaign contribution reform is what we need.
I don't agree -- I think that would make it worse. The last reforms we've had already have made it worse. Politicians now have to spend more & more of their time grovelling for money. (People like to get on Bush for spending so much time fund-raising, but they are now forced to -- you'll see the same thing from every prez from now on as long as the current system is in effect.) The major problem with campaign finance reform is it essentially hands all the power over to the media, because there will be no opposing voices. (Opposing voices/candidates not favored by the media need money to get out their message, but campaign finance reform always focuses on restricting the flow of money.) I also disagree on principal -- this is America. Anyone (any American) should be able to give as much money as they want to anyone's campaign they want. The only thing I would ask for is that ALL contributions (from who, for whom, and how much) be known & available for public scrutiny. Then if you think candidate X is in the pocket of contributor Y, then don't vote for him.

[sq764]

Game, what do you do if you have a billionaire candidate like Kerry?

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by sq764
Game, what do you do if you have a billionaire candidate like Kerry? Campaign finance reform helps ensure we will have a long line of of billionaire candidates because they'll be the only ones who can afford to campaign. We should be making it easier for potential quality candidates who might not be rich to enter a political race, not harder...

[chickenhead]

I respect your opinion GT...when you talk of "quality candidates" I assume you mean coming from 3rd party or independant...that is the only route I can see for them...what do you think could/should be done, if anything, to best increase the scope of debate/quality of candidates in our national elections?

[Secretariat]

GT,

What about publicly funded monthly debates with a ban on ALL political advertising? Probably wouldn't get through free speech issues, but something is wrong when money buys access in a democracy.

[sq764]

Game, you are saying that we should be making it easier for non-rich people to get into politics.. Yet you also say that any amount of donations should be able to be made to a candidate???

So what would stop the Heinz corporation from donating $1 billion of Kerry's money to Kerry this year?

[doophus]

Yep, non-rich people should be more involved....

Limit contributions to $2 per person per election cycle. If donation is in excess of $2 per cycle, decapitate on village square.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by Secretariat
What about publicly funded monthly debates with a ban on ALL political advertising? Probably wouldn't get through free speech issues, but something is wrong when money buys access in a democracy. That is exactly the sort of thing that gives control to the media. The candidates are then only allowed to express themselves during that 1 hour or so they are debating, and then the pundits take over and pick them apart for hours and hours and hours until the next debate. Now who do you think is really wielding the influence in that scenario -- the candidate or the media?

Re: quality candidates -- they don't have to be from independent parties, just (as Dave put it) more American than partisan. Again, I really put much of the blame on the poor quality of candidates on the media. 40 or 50 years ago a politician could have a semblance of a private life -- there were actually things the media considered inappropriate to report publicly. Now the media doesn't even recognize such a concept as appropriateness and feel free to destroy people's lives without remorse (candidates or not -- think of Richard Jewel; do you remember anybody apologizing for what they did to him?). We don't have quality candidates largely because the process is awful for the candidate to be subjected to. We have candidates (for the highest-profile positions, not low-level local government) coming from three main groups or combinations thereof:

1) The famous (or politically famous). This includes people from political families -- the Kennedys, the Bushes, etc and also celebrities.
2) People who simply crave power.
3) People who are too dumb to succeed in a real job or business where they will be held accountable for their policies.

"Normal" people really have no incentive to get into politics other than they think they can make a difference, but normal people are generally going to choose a life that doesn't involve having all areas of their life (and past life) scrutinized in microsopic detail.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by sq764
Game, you are saying that we should be making it easier for non-rich people to get into politics.. Yet you also say that any amount of donations should be able to be made to a candidate???

So what would stop the Heinz corporation from donating $1 billion of Kerry's money to Kerry this year? Nothing. But they could give it to you or me as well if we were running. If contributions are limited, then only people like Ross Perot who have their own money will be able to campaign effectively.

Put it this way. Let's say I wanted to run for president, and actually put on an effective campaign. I don't have any money myself, so I'm going to have to raise it. However, no one is allowed to give me more than $1000. So am I going to be able to campaign effectively? Not a chance. I'll never be able to do anything at all except fund-raising. Now let's say I have the support of some people who do have money and they are actually allowed to give it to my campaign as they see fit. Now I can campaign. In one scenario, I essentially don't exist as a candidate, and in the other I can be out there getting my message across and presenting myself as a viable choice (more choices is better). If people don't want to vote for me because they don't like the people who funded my campaign or think I will be beholden to them, then they won't (vote for me). Look, the money is always going to come from the people that have it, one way or another. If you try to take away everyone's money with publicly funded campaigns or something, then you're handing the influence to the media because they essentially have unlimited funds and can wield their influence without actually contributing to anyone's campaign directly. For those not favored by the media, they have to pay to get out the message, so they need money. And like I said, if you don't the contributors, don't vote for that person. In the end it is still the people who decide.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by GameTheory
That is exactly the sort of thing that gives control to the media. The candidates are then only allowed to express themselves during that 1 hour or so they are debating, and then the pundits take over and pick them apart for hours and hours and hours until the next debate. Now who do you think is really wielding the influence in that scenario -- the candidate or the media?



But the point is the media is already doing that. The current system actually encourages the media to keep picking sides to keep the race close so that more political advertising dollars come in. Both candidates and 527's.

While your point is valid to an extent, I beleive public funded debates allow the actual candidates to be heard and for people to judge on thier own. Pundits have always analyzed and attempted to tell people what he or she actually was saying.

Candidates still can go on the Bush tours, etc, they are going on now and meet the people. In some ways it would force candidates to work even harder to reach out to people.

Not saying it is an ideal solution, but the current system seems to go to the person who can spend the most.

[sq764]

Secretariat, serious question here..

If you had to name the top 5 things that AMERICAN VOTERS look at in deciding who they will choose, what would they be? Not what you or I or a Dem or a Repub would look for, simply what the average undecided, unbiased voter would look for in voting for their president...

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by sq764
Secretariat, serious question here..

If you had to name the top 5 things that AMERICAN VOTERS look at in deciding who they will choose, what would they be? Not what you or I or a Dem or a Repub would look for, simply what the average undecided, unbiased voter would look for in voting for their president...

I have no idea. I think there is no such thing as the "average, undecided, unbiased voter". I think we each have our own unique preferences. I can only speak to what I look for.

1. Trust
2. Service
3. Proven Leadership
4. Fiscal Responsibility
5. Compassion

These are general but so is the question.

[sq764]

Fair answer..

On a scale of 1-10 where do you rate Kerry and Bush on each?

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
GT,

What about publicly funded monthly debates with a ban on ALL political advertising? Probably wouldn't get through free speech issues, but something is wrong when money buys access in a democracy.

I see noting wrong with the slime ball tacticts going on. It really shows each candidate's true character. Bush has taken the high road, focused on running the country and military, as he has done for three plus years while Kerry has shown he is confused, easily rattle, and a cosntant liar. It is amusing how he has been going down the tubes and all the time being forced into a defensive position by the alleged "dumb" Bush. Kerry has not changed since he betrayed his fellow vets in 1971 and he will only betray the whole country if elected.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
I have no idea. I think there is no such thing as the "average, undecided, unbiased voter". I think we each have our own unique preferences. I can only speak to what I look for.

1. Trust
2. Service
3. Proven Leadership
4. Fiscal Responsibility
5. Compassion

These are general but so is the question.

So now you are for Bush, eh?

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by Secretariat
But the point is the media is already doing that. The current system actually encourages the media to keep picking sides to keep the race close so that more political advertising dollars come in. Both candidates and 527's.I know the media already does it -- I don't want it to get worse. Campaign finance reform helps the Democrats disproportionately, to which you are probably thinking, "Yes, of course, because it puts the power back in the hands of the PEOPLE instead of the big corporations." and to which I say "Hogwash, since when are NBC, CBS, CNN, etc not big corporations?"

Your idea that the media actively tries to keep the race close so it can make extra profit is interesting, but I don't really see any evidence of that.

While your point is valid to an extent, I beleive public funded debates allow the actual candidates to be heard and for people to judge on thier own. Pundits have always analyzed and attempted to tell people what he or she actually was saying.

Candidates still can go on the Bush tours, etc, they are going on now and meet the people. In some ways it would force candidates to work even harder to reach out to people.

Not saying it is an ideal solution, but the current system seems to go to the person who can spend the most. So in your solution, a campaign can raise as much money as it wants, it just can't spend it? This a media age -- the candidates must be allowed to use the media to speak to people as directly as possible without the filter of an unknown editor or commentator. And of course your solution can't be implemented anyway -- no political advertising at all? What is campaigning but advertising?

And again, the people do get to vote in the end. If everyone is dumb enough to be duped just because someone spent a lot of money, then maybe they'll get what they deserve in terms of who ends up in office. To me, once you start talking about restricting this and restricting that you have to justify it on principle first. That is a major problem I have with the left in general -- the big lie that the threat to freedom (primarily) is from the right when we've got an endless parade of examples coming from the left (including biggies like the Nazis & the Communists). The left's thought process when they want to reform something seems to be unprincipled, i.e. "How can we construct things so that everything will turn out just the way we want? Well, first we can prohibit this and restrict that, etc etc." (without regard to whether such restrictions are right or legal). But on what basis? As soon as you say, "People should not be able to contribute more than X amount to a campaign." then my first thought is, "This is America. What right do you have to tell someone that they can't use their own money in whatever amount to support whoever they want?" Before you can go any further, you've got to justify the idea that you have the right to restrict my right to do what I choose with my own money. I don't think you can, and from my point of view the argument really ends there. Whatever good reasons you have and whatever good reasons I have in terms of the EFFECT of such reforms, they are all trumped by the fact that you don't have the right to make such a reform in the first place, and therefore the effects are a moot point. For instance, I am against term limits for the same reason -- why on earth can't I vote for someone I like just because he has been in office for a while already? These laws are all attempts to "protect us from ourselves" and are un-American (and ultimately I would say even un-Constitutional, but sadly we really pick and choose what parts of the Constitution we like to uphold). The country cannot be held up by these artificial props that bit-by-bit erode actual responsibility by the people (term limits, campaign finance, etc are all ways to in some measure make our choices for us by restricting the choices we are allowed to make). I say we should stand or fall based on real and actual freedom and democracy.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by sq764
Fair answer..

On a scale of 1-10 where do you rate Kerry and Bush on each?

You really want to know.

This is my honest response;

1. Trust

Kerry – 8 ( Iwish I could give a 10, but no politician could get that)
Bush – 0 (after watching Bill Moyers NOW this week on 911 this may be too high)

2. Service

Kerry -10 (Iran Contra, BCCI, and Nam)
Bush -0 (He held no federal office prior to Presidency and has messed that up, and his military record is dismal)

3. Proven Leadership

Kerry – 8 (He takes on the fat cats and his men from Nam stick by him)
Bush -1 (He likes to sound tough, but toughness isn’t leadership, bullies swagger. A leader uses his brain)

4. Fiscal Responsibility

Kerry -9 (One of only a few Dems to push for a balanced budget amendment. Promises as a priority to bring the deficit down)
Bush –(-infinity) –Ohh, the deficit

5. Compassion

Kerry -10 (Excellent record on civil rights, veteran affairs, and the environment)
Bush – 1 (I think he loves his wife)

[Secretariat]

GT,

Of course my idea is un-Constitutional, however the Constitution has been changed. To be against slavery was at one time unConstitutional. That's why we have amendments. We already have restaints on what can be seen. It's not unAmerican.

The government and the media already censor dramtically what you see. I've listed some examples below. CBS refused to run poltical ads during the Super Bowl, and media outlets are owned by CEO's who have strong party affiliations and agendas.

I don't think banning ALL TV political advertsing would be harmful to our democracy. People can still protest, advertise in print media, radio, march, organize and spend their money on bus tours, etc and it occurs more at the grassroots level which is closer to how elections used to function.

But what is happening currently is the guy who raises the most dough generally wins, and even the loser has to raise so much money that MANY, MANY voices in this country are not being heard. It's so much about the TV ads. The founders did not envision the power of TV or would have adressed it I'm sure. The media will never do anything to hurt their own revenue from these ads, so they focus on the issues from these ads which completes the cycle of making the ads even more necessary.

I understand your argument, I just think something has to be done or our country will remain an oligarchy.

'''''Examples below

For example, I posted a link showing how redacted information from the Justice Department that it doesn't want revealed and used National Security as an excuse when in fact it was simply redacted to keep it form looking bad. And the media shows what it wants to show, censoring as well;

"TONIGHT'S FOCUS: There are pictures from 9-11 that have never been shown. Other pictures of wars, of terrorism, are available on the Internet, but have never been shown on television. How far should we go? What should the viewer see?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's a dirty secret that every journalist who has ever covered a war knows: it's far worse than we ever show. The real images of war, what really happens, rarely, if ever, make it back to you, the viewers or the readers. Why? We feel that some images are just too much to take. That no one would watch, that no one could bear to watch. And what to do about terrorism? None of the television networks showed those horrific tapes of hostages being beheaded. But they are available on the Internet, and by all accounts, are quite popular. Why? Why would anyone want to see something like that? Do you have to see the pictures to truly understand how horrific death is?

This has become something of a political issue too. Everything is political these days. At least one self-described conservative radio outlet played the audio of one of the hostages being beheaded. Their explanation was that the public needed to know the truth about the enemy, just how brutal they really are. And there was some sense that the media, i.e. us, was censoring this out of some political bias. There was also the position that something was needed to offset those pictures of prisoner abuse in Iraq, to show that the other side is much worse.

Well, I'm one of those who has wrestled with this issue first-hand. The danger in being too careful, of showing too little, is that war looks clean and easy. Those pictures of smart-bombs going in the window of a building in grainy black-and-white make war look like a poor-quality video game. Clean it up too much and I think it makes war too easy to accept. And it's not. It's the worst thing on earth. But we have stories to tell, and if we include the worst of the images, then we know that no one will stick around to watch. We shoot those images. I know for a fact that more often than I like to remember, my camera crew and I have been the last thing that dying people have seen. I fully expect to be held accountable for that in some way. And many of those images were never shown. One very experienced cameraman was with us in Rwanda. He was filming two little boys who were minutes from death. In the end, he rolled back over the pictures. He couldn't bear, as a human being, to record their final moments. We are, after all, people as well as journalists.

And what do you all want to see? In Iraq today, videos of beheadings and the bodies of American soldiers being dragged through the streets of Somalia, are very popular. Before we get outraged however, we should remember that not too many years ago there was a video series in this country called Faces of Death, which was a compilation of pictures of people dying violent deaths. Sold a whole lot of copies. Do you need to see the worst to truly understand? Has terrorism changed all this; is it important to see the details of the worst of the terrorist acts? Most outlets still don't show the pictures of people jumping from the burning World Trade Towers on 9/11. Do you need to see those to truly experience the horror that those people must have faced in making that horrible choice?

We'll tackle all of this tonight. John Donvan will report and Chris Bury will anchor. And we're still trying to figure out just what we should, and shouldn't show tonight. It's not easy.

Leroy Sievers and the Nightline Staff
Nightline Offices
ABC News Washington Bureau "

[sq764]

Sec, I don't have the strength or time to comment on your ratings, but I do wonder how you rate Kerry an 8 on trust..

What is this based on exactly?

[Tom]

I am tron between two replies to Sec:


1. I just cannot find the energy to comment of such utter nonsense. It scares me that Sec is allowed to walk the streets with normal people. I gotta talk to Ashcroft about this guy. Something needs to me done.:rolleyes:

2. Is LSD back????:eek:

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by sq764
Sec, I don't have the strength or time to comment on your ratings, but I do wonder how you rate Kerry an 8 on trust..

What is this based on exactly?

The trust is based on two things.

1. His men on his boat stand by him. Rasmussen, a Republican, knows he can be trusted. His search in Iran Contra and BCCI scandal for the truth at great poltical risk to himself, and his ability to confront his fellow Dems about balancing the budget and his comittment to confront strong dem resistance to not bring the troops home immediately as Dean and Kuccinich suggest show leadership and not playing to the mass Dem base which wants the troops home and views the war as a diversion form the real war on terror. He could play the cut and run game, a nd beleive me it would play well to Dems, but he chose not to do that.

He inspires me SQ. I know you don't agree, but again it is my opinion from his speeches, and his service.

[ElKabong]

Originally posted by Secretariat
The trust is based on two things.

1. His men on his boat stand by him.

Really? Steve Gardner served under Kerry longer than any other crewman. Gardner says Kerry is a liar, was indecisive in battle, was a medal seeker and wasn't one to be trusted.