OT Why will you vote for Kerry?

[bluej]

Since we have a thread on why people support (and I assume will vote for) Bush, I thought one on why people will vote for Kerry is in order. I'm not interested in reasons such as 'because he's not Bush' because to me that may be a reason to not vote for Bush but certainly not a reason to vote FOR Kerry. I'm also not interested in reasons why you aren't voting for Bush (I think that has been covered). I'm interested in solid reasons why Kerry will get your vote. I will be honest and say that I don't think there is anything anyone can say to change my vote, but I am open minded enough to want to know why you will be voting for Kerry.

[Calmegja2]

Largely because Kerry is a moderate (even his FBI files say so ;) ), and his positions seem to line up quite closely with my views on the world. He's not quite as liberal as I am, but he'll do quite nicely.

I like his strategy for the economy, and his plans to stop the tax incentives for outsourcing American jobs. The current administration has lost more jobs than we've lost since Herbert Hoover, and the government has actually expanded more under Bush II than it has under any administration in 50+ years. There is no smallering of government influence occurring. It's growing at an amazing rate. That needs to stop.

I like his realistic look at the tax situation as it stands right now, and his belief that we cannot successfully operate with such a huge deficit. A few tax breaks right now mean nothing down the line when our children, and our children's children, are dealing with a reduction in basic services, and dealing with increases in taxes in other areas to try and cover the huge deficit we've created (look at state and local governments right now, property tax rates, as they try and cover the loss). Trickle down economics has been proven, over and over again, to be a failed economic theory, but yet, that's the basis for Bush's policy. There are better, proven ways to do this.

(*disclaimer...as owners of a company, we have benefitted from some of the Bush taxcuts, but in the long run, we do believe that the way they are currently structured, they do not benefit us longterm)

I like his outlook on healthcare, on women's issues (quite in contrast to the current administration, where women's issues have eroded quite signifigantly), and I like his stance on the military. He is very supportive of veteran's rights and issues, and believes in taking care of our armed forces, not just when they are in harm's way, but long after.

He also has taken a realistic look at NCLB, and knows it isn't a realistic plan for America's education (Bush signed it, then left it drastically underfunded...it left a mandate for change, but no way to implement it). He has plans to help with college affordability (and it's not in the form of handouts), and plans to help families balance work and life more successfully.

I also like his plan for Iraq. I think it's sensible, smart, and will allow us to salvage the quagmire we've gotten ourselves into.

I like that he has a long and well respected career as a politician, and that despite claims to the contrary by the opposition, he is actually quite consistent on his views. He does not flip flop, he acts according to his longstanding views, and I respect that. It's a large part of why he voted for the first part of the Iraq war (based on the faulty intelligence given by the administration), and then voted no accordingly afterwards.

I like that he well respected on both sides of the aisle. I like that he and McCain are good friends (and McCain speaks so positively of him), as he is with Snowe, and even Bob Dole defended him against charges that his military service was inadequate. The Republicans that I trust are positive about him, and that helps me know that he can successfully bridge the aisle.

His positions on the issues are listed very, very clearly on http://www.johnkerry.com I just touched on the basics here, but the full details are there.

[candybomiller]

I agree with all the reasons that Jessica listed and want to add one more. The gay marriage issue. I strongly believe that people should have the right to marry whomever they want. Kerry supports that. I support Kerry.

[Marisa6826]

Once again, my girl Jessica said it perfectly!

And, yes, without a doubt, supporting gay marriage and same sex partnerships is key to me.

-m

[heytootsy]

Umm...because he is not Bush???

[farsk]

Hello Everyone!

The Republican Party has made issues out of at least three non-issues (guns, gays, and abortion), issues which do not impact the everyday lives of Americans like the economy, the environment, and civil liberties do. I will never vote to diminish civil liberties, and the current administration has made a door mat of the constitution. Additionally, I think the attached graphic fits the current administration to a "T":


http://www.windsorpeak.com/dc/user_files/6120.jpg

[Rachels]

Yowza. That about says it. I have many reasons for voting for Kerry over Bush, many of which Jessica outlined beautifully. Looking at what has happened to our economy, our healthcare, our safety, our school systems, etc. etc. etc. in four years of Dubya makes me absolutely terrified about what would happen in eight. Our international relationships are in the trash, and the situation in Iraq is an unmitigated disaster. I don't trust Bush for one hot second to get us out of all of that, since he is responsible for getting us into it.

And gay rights are extremely important to me. I just read my dad's book about the civil rights movement in Alabama, and the rhetoric that was used to deny basic civil rights to human beings because of their skin color is EXACTLY the same as the rhetoric being used to deny basic civil rights to human beings because of their sexual preferences. It was shocking to read, and to hear the same blabber on the news every night right now in 2004. Any time that one person thinks that he or she is better than someone else and more deserving of civil RIGHTS, I simply can't believe it. It's not the slightest bit different from racism; even the words are the same. Having a president who would seek to deny civil rights to a minority group in this country is a shameful outrage.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[parkersmama]

Unbelievable! I believe it to be true.

I thank Jessica for summing up so well many of the reasons that I will vote for Kerry. I do have to say that I would vote for practically anyone against Bush and his cronies.

Our country has experienced some of the "as bad as it gets" since he took office. We are in desperate need of someone to pull us out of this mess. The economy is a disaster. The education system is a wreck. We are in WAY over our heads in Iraq without the support of our former allies. We have circumvented the UN which we have always forced other countries to support. I can hardly bare to watch the news anymore: gas prices are rising, jobs are falling away, the situation in Iraq is worse every day, there are military scandals every way you turn, and we find out every day some way in which the current administration has pulled the wool over our eyes.

I believe that Kerry has solid plans to help put an end to the bleeding. Of the issues that are important to me, women's issues, civil rights, the environment, education, and the economy, Kerry's views line up most closely with my own. He would not necessarily been my first choice among the Democrats running but now that he's the lead man, I'm backing him 100%.

For any of you of like mind who aren't already involved, there's a terrific organization my brother and SIL introduced me to: www.moveon.org . They have solid info and ways to take action on many of the issues that have been raised in this thread.

[MelissaTC]

I think Jessica pretty much summed it up. I also agree with the others that posted about gay marriage. I think people should be allowed to marry who they want. I also want a President who respects my rights to my body. I am pro-choice and believe that women should be allowed to make their own decision. Just because it is something I may not do does not give me the right to tell others what is best for them. I believe Kerry is a good man and I hope he is elected. He deserves a chance....at least I think so! :)

[starrynight]

Jessica summed it up for me! I really hope we get a fair election this time and Kerry gets a chance :).

[caffeinedreams]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Kerry is AGAINST gay marriage, not for it. As I understand it, he is for gay civil unions, but is not in favor of marriage for gays and has said he would sign an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage in favor of only civil unions.

I understand that if you are in favor of gay marriage, you would probably find this to be a good move, but since many people in this thread refer to gay marriage specifically, I thought I would try to discover the facts of this.

I guess to my mind this also begs the question that if you find a ban on gay marriage to be discriminatory, why do you find Kerry acceptable? Is "lesser than" close enough for you? Is that still giving gay people less civil rights than heterosexual people, or not?

I have voted both Democrat and Republican, as well as voted for a 3rd party candidate in a presidential election, and at this point am not sure how I will vote, so I am trying to start learning all I can.

[Calmegja2]

He is against Bush's proposed amendment calling for a ban, in favor of civil unions with full rights for partners. His lifetime voting record score with GLTB is 96%, his score since 1995 with the Human Rights Campaign is 100%. He is clearly highly regarded as being aware and on top of this issue.

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/glbt/

He says:

Civil Unions &
Bush's Constitutional Amendment

John Kerry supports same-sex civil unions so that gay couples can no longer be denied the health benefits, inheritance rights, or Social Security survivor benefits that are guaranteed for heterosexual couples.

On the Bush Amendment:
"I will vote against such an amendment if it comes to the Senate floor."
--John Kerry

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/glbt/glbt2.html

Here, from his site:

Protecting Gay and Lesbian Families: John Kerry believes that same-sex couples should be granted rights, including access to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, and other basic legal protections that all families and children need. He has supported legislation to provide domestic partners of federal employees the benefits available to spouses of federal employees. He was one of 14 Senators -- and the only one up for reelection in 1996 -- to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

And:

Ending Discrimination: One of John Kerry’s first acts as a U.S. Senator was to introduce a bill prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He supports passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and has adopted a nondiscrimination policy for his Congressional offices based on sexual orientation and gender identity.


He also wants to drop the "don't ask don't tell" policy from the military, and let sexuality not be an issue in military service at all.

[kristine_elen]

Because I don't believe he would have invaded Iraq (at least not the way Bush did, with almost no international support).

Because he's pro-choice.

Because he will be proactive on environmental issues.

Because he is able to form complete and intelligent sentences and thoughts even when there's not a teleprompter present.

ETA: It's a good thing you didn't ask, "Why will you vote against George W. Bush?" because I probably would have gotten carpal tunnel syndrome while writing my reply.

[Rachels]

>Because he is able to form complete and intelligent sentences
>and thoughts even when there's not a teleprompter present.

Amen to that!

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[Calmegja2]

Yeah, the Bushisms are killing the English major in me.

I know Karl Rove is against being highly educated (he said “As people do better, they start voting like Republicans -- unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing...”), but this is too much to bear.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

Some of the latest:

"Like you, I have been disgraced about what I've seen on TV that took place in prison." —George W. Bush, Parkersburg, West Virginia, May 13, 2004

"My job is to, like, think beyond the immediate." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 21, 2004

"Coalition forces have encountered serious violence in some areas of Iraq. Our military commanders report that this violence is being insticated by three groups." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 13, 2004

"Obviously, I pray every day there's less casualty." —George W. Bush, Fort Hood, Texas, April 11, 2004

"Earlier today, the Libyan government released Fathi Jahmi. She's a local government official who was imprisoned in 2002 for advocating free speech and democracy." —George W. Bush, citing Jahmi, who is a man, in a speech paying tribute to women reformers during International Women's Week, Washington, D.C., March 12, 2004

"The march to war hurt the economy. Laura reminded me a while ago that remember what was on the TV screens — she calls me, 'George W.' — 'George W.' I call her, 'First Lady.' No, anyway — she said, we said, march to war on our TV screen." —George W. Bush, Bay Shore, New York, Mar. 11, 2004

"God loves you, and I love you. And you can count on both of us as a powerful message that people who wonder about their future can hear." —George W. Bush, Los Angeles, Calif., March 3, 2004

"Recession means that people's incomes, at the employer level, are going down, basically, relative to costs, people are getting laid off." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Feb. 19, 2004

"The march to war affected the people's confidence. It's hard to make investment. See, if you're a small business owner or a large business owner and you're thinking about investing, you've got to be optimistic when you invest. Except when you're marching to war, it's not a very optimistic thought, is it? In other words, it's the opposite of optimistic when you're thinking you're going to war." —George W. Bush, Springfield, Mo., Feb. 9, 2004

"But the true strength of America is found in the hearts and souls of people like Travis, people who are willing to love their neighbor, just like they would like to love themselves." —George W. Bush, Springfield, Mo., Feb. 9, 2004

"In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences, and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences." —George W. Bush, Meet the Press, Feb. 8, 2004

"There is no such thing necessarily in a dictatorial regime of iron-clad absolutely solid evidence. The evidence I had was the best possible evidence that he had a weapon." —George W. Bush, Meet the Press, Feb. 8, 2004

"The recession started upon my arrival. It could have been — some say February, some say March, some speculate maybe earlier it started — but nevertheless, it happened as we showed up here. The attacks on our country affected our economy. Corporate scandals affected the confidence of people and therefore affected the economy. My decision on Iraq, this kind of march to war, affected the economy." —George W. Bush, Meet the Press, Feb. 8, 2004

"My views are one that speaks to freedom." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2004

"See, one of the interesting things in the Oval Office — I love to bring people into the Oval Office — right around the corner from here — and say, this is where I office, but I want you to know the office is always bigger than the person." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2004

"More Muslims have died at the hands of killers than — I say more Muslims — a lot of Muslims have died — I don't know the exact count — at Istanbul. Look at these different places around the world where there's been tremendous death and destruction because killers kill." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2004

"Then you wake up at the high school level and find out that the illiteracy level of our children are appalling." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

"Just remember it's the birds that's supposed to suffer, not the hunter." —George W. Bush, advising quail hunter and New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici, Roswell, N.M., Jan. 22, 2004

"I want to thank the astronauts who are with us, the courageous spacial entrepreneurs who set such a wonderful example for the young of our country." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C. Jan. 14, 2004

"I was a prisoner too, but for bad reasons." —George W. Bush, to Argentine President Nestor Kirchner, on being told that all but one of the Argentine delegates to a summit meeting were imprisoned during the military dictatorship, Monterrey, Mexico, Jan. 13, 2004

"One of the most meaningful things that's happened to me since I've been the governor — the president — governor — president. Oops. Ex-governor. I went to Bethesda Naval Hospital to give a fellow a Purple Heart, and at the same moment I watched him—get a Purple Heart for action in Iraq — and at that same — right after I gave him the Purple Heart, he was sworn in as a citizen of the United States — a Mexican citizen, now a United States citizen." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 9, 2004

"And if you're interested in the quality of education and you're paying attention to what you hear at Laclede, why don't you volunteer? Why don't you mentor a child how to read?" —George W. Bush, St. Louis, Mo., Jan. 5, 2004

"So thank you for reminding me about the importance of being a good mom and a great volunteer as well." —George W. Bush, St. Louis, Mos., Jan. 5, 2004

"I want to remind you all that in order to fight and win the war, it requires an expenditure of money that is commiserate with keeping a promise to our troops to make sure that they're well-paid, well-trained, well-equipped." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 15, 2003

"See, without the tax relief package, there would have been a deficit, but there wouldn't have been the commiserate — not 'commiserate' — the kick to our economy that occurred as a result of the tax relief." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 15, 2003

"[T]he Iraqis need to be very much involved. They were the people that was brutalized by this man." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 15, 2003

"[T]he best way to find these terrorists who hide in holes is to get people coming forth to describe the location of the hole, is to give clues and data." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 15, 2003

[ddmarsh]

I'm late to this but wanted to say hear, hear to all of the above. I also would like to add that for an incredible reading on the history and evolution of taxation the book "Perfectly Legal" is amazing. Also there is a terrific article in Vanity Fair this month about the current administration that is an excellent read - if anyone would like it I'd be glad to fax it to you.

Denise I too am a member of Move On and find it to be an amazing organization.

Oops, also forgot to recommend a great site I've discovered recently -
www.commondream.org.

[kristine_elen]

Oh, thanks for the reminder. I do want to read "Perfectly Legal." I heard the author on NPR (Diane Rehm or Terry Gross, I forget) and my blood was boiling.

[mamicka]

I haven't had a chance to really check out www.commondream.org but it redirects to www.plannedchildhood.org. Is this the one you're recommending?

Allison

[momathome]

As the daughter of a gay mother, we have had this discussion about Bush's proposed amendment along with Kerry's views on civil unions and my mother seems to believe that even if John Kerry personally believed that gay marriages should be legal, he would nhever state that while running for office because that line of thinking is still too liberal for most people and civil unions accomplish pretty much the same thing as a marriage without the marriage title. It is more important that he actually gets elected so I think it is to his benefit to take a more middle ground on a controversial issue such as this. Combined with the fact that he is pro choice, which I am very much so, he will defintely be getting my vote on election day.
-Lauren

[JLiebCamm]

Because his views are very much in sync with mine, reiterating Jessica's post above (although my number one match on the quiz posted a few months ago was Dennis Kucinich- yikes!). I consider myself to be moderately religious but also feel stongly about the separation of church and state, so my vote may not always reflect my personal moral beliefs.

But I can't skirt the "anyone but Bush" issue. I have alot of Republican friends and co-workers and can't figure out why some of them still defend him. I want a president who I think is smarter and more articulate than me (and I'm not Einstein). I also want a president who appears to be in charge (I feel like Bush is just the puppet for the stronger presences in his administration). I doubt I would vote for any Republican candidate this election year, but I can tell you that I had much more respect for George HW Bush and did not feel as passionately about getting a Democrat back in the White House in the 1992 elections. I feel like our country is a mess and change is needed ASAP.

[bluej]

The reason I asked for reasons other than 'anyone but Bush' is b/c I hear that a lot and the people who say that (not ones on this board, but IRL) couldn't tell you why they would/will vote for Kerry. And that scares me. I'm all for not voting for someone b/c you don't agree with them, but then turning around and voting for the opposition just b/c they aren't the other guy and not knowing what they stand for is irresponsible, IMO (I'm not saying that is what anyone here is doing).

As for smarter and more articulate....well I think I fall into the category of being rather smart, however I do have a hard time articulating and my grammar is atrocious so I certainly can't make judgements in that area :)

[pritchettzoo]

I am voting for Kerry largely because Bush scares me. I just don't understand the seemingly blind Republican support of Bush--I could understand a Republican saying, "I'm voting for him because he's the Republican candidate." I just cannot fathom how anyone could choose HIM in particular.

Bush's ignorance (or what comes across as ignorance) frightens me. I really, truly wonder who is running our country.

On the subject of Bushisms... I enjoyed this Slate.com article:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2100064/

The Misunderestimated Man
How Bush chose stupidity.
By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Friday, May 7, 2004, at 6:54 AM PT

The question I am most frequently asked about Bushisms is, "Do you really think the president of the United States is dumb?"

The short answer is yes.

The long answer is yes and no.

Quotations collected over the years in Slate may leave the impression that George W. Bush is a dimwit. Let's face it: A man who cannot talk about education without making a humiliating grammatical mistake ("The illiteracy level of our children are appalling"); who cannot keep straight the three branches of government ("It's the executive branch's job to interpret law"); who coins ridiculous words("Hispanos," "arbolist," "subliminable," "resignate," "transformationed"); who habitually says the opposite of what he intends ("the death tax is good for people from all walks of life!") sounds like a grade-A imbecile.

And if you don't care to pursue the matter any further, that view will suffice. George W. Bush has governed, for the most part, the way any airhead might, undermining the fiscal condition of the nation, squandering the goodwill of the world after Sept. 11, and allowing huge problems (global warming, entitlement spending, AIDS) to metastasize toward catastrophe through a combination of ideology, incomprehension, and indifference. If Bush isn't exactly the moron he sounds, his synaptic misfirings offer a plausible proxy for the idiocy of his presidency.


In reality, however, there's more to it. Bush's assorted malapropisms, solecisms, gaffes, spoonerisms, and truisms tend to imply that his lack of fluency in English is tantamount to an absence of intelligence. But as we all know, the inarticulate can be shrewd, the fluent fatuous. In Bush's case, the symptoms point to a specific malady—some kind of linguistic deficit akin to dyslexia—that does not indicate a lack of mental capacity per se.

Bush also compensates with his non-verbal acumen. As he notes, "Smart comes in all kinds of different ways." The president's way is an aptitude for connecting to people through banter and physicality. He has a powerful memory for names, details, and figures that truly matter to him, such as batting averages from the 1950s. Bush also has a keen political sense, sharpened under the tutelage of Karl Rove.

What's more, calling the president a cretin absolves him of responsibility. Like Reagan, Bush avoids blame for all manner of contradictions, implausible assertions, and outright lies by appearing an amiable dunce. If he knows not what he does, blame goes to the three puppeteers, Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld. It also breeds sympathy. We wouldn't laugh at FDR because he couldn't walk. Is it less cruel to laugh at GWB because he can't talk? The soft bigotry of low expectations means Bush is seen to outperform by merely getting by. Finally, elitist condescension, however merited, helps cement Bush's bond to the masses.

But if "numskull" is an imprecise description of the president, it is not altogether inaccurate. Bush may not have been born stupid, but he has achieved stupidity, and now he wears it as a badge of honor. What makes mocking this president fair as well as funny is that Bush is, or at least once was, capable of learning, reading, and thinking. We know he has discipline and can work hard (at least when the goal is reducing his time for a three-mile run). Instead he chose to coast, for most of his life, on name, charm, good looks, and the easy access to capital afforded by family connections.

The most obvious expression of Bush's choice of ignorance is that, at the age of 57, he knows nothing about policy or history. After years of working as his dad's spear-chucker in Washington, he didn't understand the difference between Medicare and Medicaid, the second- and third-largest federal programs. Well into his plans for invading Iraq, Bush still couldn't get down the distinction between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, the key religious divide in a country he was about to occupy. Though he sometimes carries books for show, he either does not read them or doesn't absorb anything from them. Bush's ignorance is so transparent that many of his intimates do not bother to dispute it even in public. Consider the testimony of several who know him well.

Richard Perle, foreign policy adviser: "The first time I met Bush 43 … two things became clear. One, he didn't know very much. The other was that he had the confidence to ask questions that revealed he didn't know very much."

David Frum, former speechwriter: "Bush had a poor memory for facts and figures. … Fire a question at him about the specifics of his administration's policies, and he often appeared uncertain. Nobody would ever enroll him in a quiz show."

Laura Bush, spouse: "George is not an overly introspective person. He has good instincts, and he goes with them. He doesn't need to evaluate and reevaluate a decision. He doesn't try to overthink. He likes action."

Paul O'Neill, former treasury secretary: "The only way I can describe it is that, well, the President is like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection."

A second, more damning aspect of Bush's mind-set is that he doesn't want to know anything in detail, however important. Since college, he has spilled with contempt for knowledge, equating learning with snobbery and making a joke of his own anti-intellectualism. ("[William F. Buckley] wrote a book at Yale; I read one," he quipped at a black-tie event.) By O'Neill's account, Bush could sit through an hourlong presentation about the state of the economy without asking a single question. ("I was bored as hell," the president shot back, ostensibly in jest.)

Closely related to this aggressive ignorance is a third feature of Bush's mentality: laziness. Again, this is a lifelong trait. Bush's college grades were mostly Cs (including a 73 in Introduction to the American Political System). At the start of one term, the star of the Yale football team spotted him in the back row during the shopping period for courses. "Hey! George Bush is in this class!" Calvin Hill shouted to his teammates. "This is the one for us!" As governor of Texas, Bush would take a long break in the middle of his short workday for a run followed by a stretch of video golf or computer solitaire.

A fourth and final quality of Bush's mind is that it does not think. The president can't tolerate debate about issues. Offered an option, he makes up his mind quickly and never reconsiders. At an elementary school, a child once asked him whether it was hard to make decisions as president. "Most of the decisions come pretty easily for me, to be frank with you." By leaping to conclusions based on what he "believes," Bush avoids contemplating even the most obvious basic contradictions: between his policy of tax cuts and reducing the deficit; between his call for a humble foreign policy based on alliances and his unilateral assertion of American power; between his support for in-vitro fertilization (which destroys embryos) and his opposition to fetal stem-cell research (because it destroys embryos).

Why would someone capable of being smart choose to be stupid? To understand, you have to look at W.'s relationship with father. This filial bond involves more tension than meets the eye. Dad was away for much of his oldest son's childhood. Little George grew up closer to his acid-tongued mother and acted out against the absent parent—through adolescent misbehavior, academic failure, dissipation, and basically not accomplishing anything at all until well into his 40s.

Dubya's youthful screw-ups and smart-aleck attitude reflect some combination of protest, plea for attention, and flailing attempt to compete. Until a decade ago, his résumé read like a send-up of his dad's. Bush senior was a star student at Andover and Phi Beta Kappa at Yale, where he was also captain of the baseball team; Junior struggled through with gentleman's C's and, though he loved baseball, couldn't make the college lineup. Père was a bomber pilot in the Pacific; fils sat out 'Nam in the Texas Air National Guard, where he lost flying privileges by not showing up. Dad drove to Texas in 1947 to get rich in the oil business and actually did; Son tried the same in 1975 and drilled dry holes for a decade. Bush the elder got elected to Congress in 1966; Shrub ran in 1978, didn't know what he was talking about, and got clobbered.

Through all this incompetent emulation runs an undercurrent of hostility. In an oft-told anecdote circa 1973, GWB—after getting wasted at a party and driving over a neighbor's trash can in Houston—challenged his dad. "I hear you're lookin' for me," W. told the chairman of the Republican National Committee. "You want to go mano a mano right here?" Some years later at a state dinner, he told the Queen of England he was being seated far away because he was the black sheep of the family.

After half a lifetime of this kind of frustration, Bush decided to straighten up. Nursing a hangover at a 40th-birthday weekend, he gave up Wild Turkey, cold turkey. With the help of Billy Graham, he put himself in the hands of a higher power and began going to church. He became obsessed with punctuality and developed a rigid routine. Thus did Prince Hal molt into an evangelical King Henry. And it worked! Putting together a deal to buy the Texas Rangers, the ne'er-do-well finally tasted success. With success, he grew closer to his father, taking on the role of family avenger. This culminated in his 1994 challenge to Texas Gov. Ann Richards, who had twitted dad at the 1988 Democratic convention*.

Curiously, this late arrival at adulthood did not involve Bush becoming in any way thoughtful. Having chosen stupidity as rebellion, he stuck with it out of conformity. The promise-keeper, reformed-alkie path he chose not only drastically curtailed personal choices he no longer wanted, it also supplied an all-encompassing order, offered guidance on policy, and prevented the need for much actual information. Bush's old answer to hard questions was, "I don't know and, who cares." His new answer was, "Wait a second while I check with Jesus."

A remaining bit of poignancy was his unresolved struggle with his father. "All I ask," he implored a reporter while running for governor in 1994, "is that for once you guys stop seeing me as the son of George Bush." In his campaigns, W. has kept his dad offstage. (In an exceptional appearance on the eve of the 2000 New Hampshire primary, 41 came onstage and called his son "this boy.") While some describe the second Bush presidency as a restoration, it is in at least equal measure a repudiation. The son's harder-edged conservatism explicitly rejects the old man's approach to such issues as abortion, taxes, and relations with Israel.

This Oedipally induced ignorance expresses itself most dangerously in Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. Dubya polished off his old man's greatest enemy, Saddam, but only by lampooning 41's accomplishment of coalition-building in the first Gulf War. Bush led the country to war on false pretenses and neglected to plan the occupation that would inevitably follow. A more knowledgeable and engaged president might have questioned the quality of the evidence about Iraq's supposed weapons programs. One who preferred to be intelligent might have asked about the possibility of an unfriendly reception. Instead, Bush rolled the dice. His budget-busting tax cuts exemplify a similar phenomenon, driven by an alternate set of ideologues.

As the president says, we misunderestimate him. He was not born stupid. He chose stupidity. Bush may look like a well-meaning dolt. On consideration, he's something far more dangerous: a dedicated fool.


Anna
Mama to Gracie (9/16/03)

[MommytoDylan]

I think it challenging for most to be articulate every second of the day. When I taught in the classroom, I was regarded by peers and parents as an articulate educator but my words would get turned around on occasion. I know this would have happened much more often if there were cameras all around and people were waiting to jump all over any mistake I made.

Meredith

[Rachels]

Definitely true, but we're not talking about the occasional slip-up. This is a man who is the leader of our country and the face for Americans as viewed by the rest of the world, and he regularly has trouble putting words together. He doesn't seem to understand enough about his job to be able to answer questions and to explain his positions. The ONLY time he sounds predictably organized is when he's reading somebody else's words off a teleprompter. Democrat or Republican, I can't identify any other president in the last hundred years who has been so explicitly baffled by language and communication. And he has a fundamental unwillingness to learn about things, to reflect, etc. that even his wife has talked about with the news media. It's a stupid, dangerous combination, and it reflects badly on the whole country. This is the guy we have speaking for us, and he can't speak. It's a pretty big deal.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[kristine_elen]

Exactly, Rachel. Maybe we're not all as articulate as we'd like to be all the time, but then again, is it really unfair to hold our presidents to a higher standard? I can't believe all the people I heard interviewed during the 2000 election who said they were going to vote for Bush b/c he seems like a regular guy -- a guy you might like to have over for a cookout. I mean, is THAT our standard these days?

[ddmarsh]

>Definitely true, but we're not talking about the occasional slip-up

Precisely. This brings up another point which I find continually perplexing. Why is it that in the encounters *in general* I have had with Republicans as well as things I read and see in the media there is such a lack of inability to criticize anything about him? Honestly when Clinton was in office there were many things I was critical of and many other democrats were as well. Even now you see many of us citing issues with Kerry with which we may not wholeheartedly be thrilled about. With Dubya, no matter what he does, never a word. It's as if there is this blind following that is just willing to take whatever issues arise with him and completely overlook them - the old elephant in the living room.

BTW, I had that site incorrect it is www.commondreams.org (I didn't have the plural in there).

[jubilee]

I was hoping to read people's "sales pitch" for Kerry, and was disappointed to read most have simply been slams against Bush. And a comparison of NAZIs to Republicans is horrifying and offensive. Please be sensitive...

[lisaE]

Because he is pro-choice.

[Calmegja2]

Julie,

Please be fair. The majority of the responses are not slams against Bush. There are many, many positives listed about Kerry and his proposed policies as well as his record.

It is fair to criticize the current administration in contrast. It is fair to say he's had the worst record against women in recent history, that the environment has suffered under his watch, that the economy is screwed up (you know you're in trouble when the administration asks to reclassify flipping hamburgers as manufacturing for economic data), and that the government has expanded at an unprecedented rate that we can't support. And the deficit....

As for the slams, I'm assuming you mean because many of us have a problem with Bush's articulation/speech patterns. I think it's fair to criticize a person representative of the US on the world stage as being inarticulate and jumbled when he speaks. He's supposed to speak for us, and at times, he's painful to watch. I end up reading most of what he says in transcript form, because I have such a hard time following him.

It's a fair reason not to vote for someone, because of the image it presents.

[JLiebCamm]

I do think that being unhappy with the current president is a fair reason to vote for someone else, even if one can't cite a "sales pitch" for Kerry. To limit the question solely to points about Kerry doesn't show the whole picture for some voters who are ready for a change in leadership. Like it or not, any election in which an incumbent runs tends to be more of a referendum on the incumbent than the other candidate (unless you are a hard core one party voter). To avoid criticisms of Bush, maybe a better way to ask the question is, "If you are not voting for Bush in November, who are you voting for and why?" That way it becomes about the differences between the challengers.

[hobey]

Jessica summarized the majority of my reasons beautifully and I wanted to add that his views on the environment and abortion are in-line with my own.

Raquel
Nathan's Mom 12/19/03

[kristine_elen]

I think I missed this Nazi comparison, although I just scanned the posts. Where is it?

[llcoddington]

#5

Lana
mommy to Lauren 12/5/03

[Calmegja2]

As for the Nazi comparison, I don't see how Shannon was calling the current administration Nazis.

She was pointing out, that at an earlier point in time, a different ruling party, in a different area, said things and took actions that are similiar to what's been going on right now, with disastrous results.

Read the Patriot Act. Really read it, and look at the implications it has on our liberties. Read about the appropriations that were used by the administration prior to the start of the war that weren't properly accounted for, to the tune of $750M (they were classed as funds designated for Afghanistan, but used them for Iraq war preparations, without congressional approval). Read about how Bush wants billions of dollars to use at his own discretion in a slush fund that he has to account to no one for, in the name of fighting terror.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22562-2004May12.html

I'm sorry to speak for you, Shannon, but I had to say something.

[peanut4us]

deleting post. I apologize to Joanne and other Kerry supporters for in any way hijacking your thread. You showed great respect and restraint on the Bush thread and I should show you the same courtesy.

[Rachels]

We've had lots of long threads here, and I've never seen any comparison to Hitler before. I understand that that's supposed to be a joke, but what it really is is a way to dismiss any argument that is concerned with the return of something like Naziism. I don't think that's wise-- those who forget history are condemned to repeat it and all that.

Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[bluej]

I believe most candidates try to give the impression that they are a regular guy. Most people want to vote for someone who at least appears to be able to understand what everyday life for the typical American is like.

As for holding our President to a higher standard....I believe this was a huge issue during Clinton's term (in other areas, not articulation) and many people didn't think that was neccesary. So which higher standards do Presidents have to meet? And who determines these standards?

[kristine_elen]

Is it the attachment? I couldn't open.

[peanut4us]

deleting post. I apologize to Joanne and other Kerry supporters for in any way hijacking your thread. You showed great respect and restraint on the Bush thread and I should show you the same courtesy.

[peanut4us]

deleting post. I apologize to Joanne and other Kerry supporters for in any way hijacking your thread. You showed great respect and restraint on the Bush thread and I should show you the same courtesy.

[Calmegja2]

John Kerry tried to be a normal guy last week, but I think when he used the phrase "have a beer and hack about town"...it became a little forced. ;-)

So what if Kerry is not the most relaxed have a beer with guy around town? His political head is on straight, and that's good enough for me.

We can talk about higher standards, but that is subjective, I completely agree. Clinton was not the first president to have a sexual affair while in office, nor will he, I'm sure be the last. It was apparently, fair to talk about that until our ears were bleeding, as a measure of personal responsibility, but not fair to talk about the fact that Bush has quite a hard time with the English language, has a disdain for being informed (he doesn't watch TV or read the papers, he seems absolutely incurious about the world he's running).

And Clinton is not the one up for discussion right now, as he is not up for election ( and he was the slickest speaker ever, so no comparison there). He was elected twice, which was a referendum on how people thought he handled his job. It's now time for Bush to face that referendum, and if a potential voter has trouble with his abuse of language, then that's okay. He's the one sitting in the hotseat. Clinton sat there, and got through it.

Bush used to be an alcoholic. He evaded military service. He had an OWI arrest. He has an SEC infraction relating to insider stock trading on an oil company he ran into the ground. He's been known to make jokes about inmates on death row (Karla Faye, and he made the joke to Tucker Carlson, a conservative pundit who was horrified).

So, who, indeed sets the standards? If picking on Bush for his lack of language skills is a terrible offense, just think about all the other fodder being skipped over? ;-)

[peanut4us]

deleting post. I apologize to Joanne and other Kerry supporters for in any way hijacking your thread. You showed great respect and restraint on the Bush thread and I should show you the same courtesy.

[Calmegja2]

So, then really, it's a question of what, morally, is most important to you.

Soemone's sex life was more important, in the morality scale, than a person's business ethics (SEC violation, funeral home scnadal in TX, oil contracts/profits for Harkin, for starters), regard for the law (drunk driving and evasion of military service- with his unaccounted for whereabouts during NG service), in your book.

My book looks a little different, which is why it's fair to discuss.

You can keep bringing up Clinton, if you'd like, to deflect criticism of Bush, but I don't particularly see how it's helpful in determining the next election, since Clinton isn't a candidate, and isn't Kerry or Bush. For the record, though, regardless of his fly, Clinton was much more highly regarded in the world community than Bush is, if that's a standard of measure.

My larger point was that while you (general you, Bush supporter) may not like someone critiquing Bush's speech patterns, it's a valid criteria, just as Clinton's sex life may have been a valid criteria for you at the time.

I don't understand what Clinton's sex life has to do with this election, but if it's a point you'd like to use, somehow, okay. ;-) Can we talk about his superior handling of the economy, foreign relations, women's issues and the environment, and health care/welfare, as well? ;-) ;-)

[llcoddington]

I thought your link was funny.

Lana
mommy to Lauren 12/5/03

[ddmarsh]

I also fail to see the relevance of Clinton but as a recent bumper sticker highlights "When Clinton Lied No One Died."

The distinction for many liberals is that lying about one's personal sex life is largely a tangential issue. Bush's "Bushisms" however speaks to his command of not only the English language but of his general grasp knowledge and ability to practice critical thinking. Many from the other POV seem to characterize this issue as one of mere slip-ups or something that is somehow charming. I know I personally and other liberals that I know see it in a much broader context.

As for the Nazi reference I don't think anyone is suggesting that as a direct comparison. I think it is brought up (here and elsewhere) to highlight it as a cautionary tale. To be fair however the administration set themselves up for this one by their complete attack on anyone who dared question what was happening in the post-9/11 era.

[bluej]

I wasn't bringing up Clinton to talk about his Presidency or his rights and wrongs vs Bush's rights and wrongs but to point out that people often talk about wanting higher standards for politicians (and it seemed to me that he was one where not everyone agreed on what the standard, if any, should be, or if it was even relevent to being President) but everytime they talk about it (or depending on WHO they are talking about) the standards become different. As you said (and I tried to say) standards are subjective and there is no way everyone could agree on what those standards should be. Each person has their checklist of what they want in a President and you look for the person who best meets your criteria. Everyone looks for something different and has different standards.

[peanut4us]

deleting post. I apologize to Joanne and other Kerry supporters for in any way hijacking your thread. You showed great respect and restraint on the Bush thread and I should show you the same courtesy.

[Calmegja2]

>For the record that was my first mention of Clinton, I was
>just responding. And yeah, morality is a big deal to me....
>and I'm not saying Georgie is perfect, but I am not going to
>debate with you about those points because i don't need to.
>
>And also for the record, in my post, I said that I don't mind
>the bushisms... I'm entertained by them. I do know that some
>other bush supporters dont feel that wya... but that is not
>what I said.

***********

Morality is a big deal to me, too, and what I'm suggesting is that we have it ordered differently, in terms of what is the more serious infraction.

I don't understand not wanting to debate those points, because I wasn't trying to. I was simply saying that some people (like you) were morally offended by Clinton's sex life. I am morally offended by many of Bush's actions (like I listed above).

We just have those offenses, apparently ranked differently.

[peanut4us]

deleting post. I apologize to Joanne and other Kerry supporters for in any way hijacking your thread. You showed great respect and restraint on the Bush thread and I should show you the same courtesy.

[kristine_elen]

Sorry, I meant I never saw a Nazi reference in anyone's post.

[jojo2324]

I cannot vote, but if I could, it would be for Kerry. (I am not a US citizen.) Because I think abortion is a woman's right. Because I think there needs to be tougher gun control legislation. (This from a woman who married into a family of hunters.) Because I think gays have the right to be married. Because I think there is lots of cronyism (?) in this current administration.

Because I am tired of living in a world ruled by greed and money. But this is more the American way than anything, and not specific to just this administration, though I don't doubt it fuels many of its actions.

And in regards to the comment for those who don't support this country and its current government to get our collectives asses out of the US - gladly. If only there were countries willing to embrace us at this point.

And I also have to say more people who oppose Kerry weighed in on this thread than did people who oppose Bush in the other thread. (Is that a really bad sentence?)

[ddmarsh]

>And I also have to say more people who oppose Kerry weighed in on this >thread than did people who oppose Bush in the other thread

This is too true. For all of the cautioning non-believers to stay out of the thread there has been no similar restraint here. I also find it curious that while there have been accusations of name calling it is from those accusing that have inferred that we are somehow a/immoral.

[mamicka]

Joanne,

Are you serious? What scientific skill! I'm amazed. You should definitely talk to Zogby if you're looking for work.

Allison

The Bible--our only foundation;
Christ--our only hope;
Grace--our only gospel;
Faith--our only instrument;
God's glory--our only goal;
the priesthood of all believers--our only ministry
- Horton

[ddmarsh]

Was this in reference to my post? I'm not following you if it was.


Ah, apparantly a direct response to my query was not in order. Thank you for the clarification.

[jojo2324]

LOL Allison, you got me. I am no mathmetician/scientist. My viewpoint is very basic and not entirely based on anything other than what I feel. And I have two jobs already, thank you.

[Rachels]

Careful, please. Let's not let this stray into personal attacks.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[Calmegja2]

See, Mamicka, you just did what you complained about elsewhere. Why?

[mamicka]

Its sarcasm. I haven't complained about that anywhere.

Estimating that half of the US population would leave & choose to live elswhere if given the opportunity?

Allison (Mamicka to Lawrence 6/17/03)

The Bible--our only foundation;
Christ--our only hope;
Grace--our only gospel;
Faith--our only instrument;
God's glory--our only goal;
the priesthood of all believers--our only ministry
- Horton

[mamicka]

I'm only trying to limit the number of posts since its getting long & the longer it is, the harder it is to read & follow. No offense was meant. I would have typed the name in the first place only you & I apparently posted at the same time.

Allison

The Bible--our only foundation;
Christ--our only hope;
Grace--our only gospel;
Faith--our only instrument;
God's glory--our only goal;
the priesthood of all believers--our only ministry
- Horton

[mamicka]

Joanne,

I'm not attacking you personally. I'm just using sarcasm to disagree with you. I apologize.

Allison
The Bible--our only foundation;
Christ--our only hope;
Grace--our only gospel;
Faith--our only instrument;
God's glory--our only goal;
the priesthood of all believers--our only ministry
- Horton

[Rachels]

Okay, what I'm saying is, please be careful. Sarcasm directed at one specific member starts to cross the line of what's allowable here. We can have this discussion without slinging mud at one another, I think.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[jojo2324]

Estimating that the country is pretty well divided by this election. So, 50/50. And partly based on the last election count and recent poll numbers.

And I was only referencing another post about getting our collective asses out of the country.

[Calmegja2]

Yup, we were told on a different thread to leave if we don't like Bush.

[ddmarsh]

Once again I fail to understand why criticizing the President and/or his actions it somehow viewed as anti-American sentiment.

Those who attack our criticisms in this manner don't seem to find those statements in any way inconsistent with the ideals upon which our country was founded.

[flagger]

>Once again I fail to understand why criticizing the President
>and/or his actions it somehow viewed as anti-American
>sentiment.

For once Debbie, I agree with you on this statement.

[jojo2324]

LOL, thank you!! This just made my day! :)

I am off to fashion dandelion headbands for everyone...:P

[Rachels]

LOL. I agree with you both. We're protected in the right to criticize. It's part of the freedom that many are so proud of here.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[ddmarsh]

LMBO with the three of you :).

Isn't it also interesting to note that any criticism of Clinton either here or elsewhere is never met with the same sentiment from the liberal POV?

[mamicka]

I also agree. I don't agree that just because you are of the ~50% that didn't vote for Bush, that you would willingly leave this country if given the opportunity.

Allison
The Bible--our only foundation;
Christ--our only hope;
Grace--our only gospel;
Faith--our only instrument;
God's glory--our only goal;
the priesthood of all believers--our only ministry
- Horton

[jojo2324]

Again, I was referencing another post in another thread. And Barbra Streisand and Alec Baldwin have threatened to leave the country in such a situation. :) They are still here. (I know I would miss them horribly.)

[parkersmama]

Yeah, I got redirected there, too. I'm pretty sure that it's actually www.commondreams.org that Debbie was mentioning. The 's' was left off dreams (and makes quite a difference! ;) ).

[parkersmama]

So true. It's the American Way to *disagree* with the President and the current administration. It's a fundamental freedom of choice in our great nation.

And for someone who earlier wondered why Clinton is being brought up...I have a theory: many Bush supporters (that I know IRL) cannot find a true reason to justify their lemming-like support of him and therefore bring up Clinton (same old argument, new day) to redirect the discussion to something they can gripe about endlessly. ;)

[bluej]

Well I'm the one who brought up Clinton and my reason wasn't to gripe about Clinton as a President or as a person, but to use him as an example b/c he was the first person that came to mind (other than Bush and couldn't use him since he was the one we were talking about) that I could recall there being discussions about holding our politicians to a higher standard. My point (which apparently wasn't made) was that everyone has different standards and it's impossible to set what higher standards politicians should be held to, if at all. I apologize for using Clinton, I wasn't trying to redirect the conversation on to some other Presidency. I should have thought of someone else as an example, but I honestly didn't think of Clinton as still being a hot issue, just a somewhat recent issue that most people here could remember.

[parkersmama]

I agree that it's hard to define what higher standard to use to hold a President (or minister or whatever, for that matter) accountable. We all have our own moral fabric that is made up of upbringing, experience, environment, etc. Who's to say whose standard should be used. Interestingly, this same argument can be used to explain why I do not want gay marriage or abortion banned. I have my own moral code that decides for me whether or not I believe these things are 'right' but I do not want to impose my moral code on every other person living in this nation. President Bush and many (but not all) Republicans seem to think that we should all live by their moral code regardless of what we as individuals think is right. I know this gets into the old argument about drawing the line somewhere, and I agree that a line should exist but who gets to draw it?

On the topic of Clinton, I don't know if it's still a hot topic elsewhere but around here (where I live), his name gets brought up in practically every political discussion! I agree that his behavior with Monica was reprehensible but I still feel that overall he was a good President. I personally don't look to the President as my moral example. And if one wants to argue that a good leader is one that is morally right, you only have to look to the Bible to find shining examples of leaders (chosen by God) who were not morally right but were still good leaders (David? Jacob? the list goes on...).

Anyway, I digress. I just wanted to point out that when people start in on Clinton, it's hard for us Dems to not be a bit bristly since we look back at the better times under his Presidency and compare them with the disaster of the current one and shudder over what's been lost and possibly destroyed forever.

[bluej]

I guess in my parts Clinton isn't mentioned much (unless it's Hillary), that's why I didn't think it would break off into any other comments other than what standards (morals, ethics, intellect, what-have-you), if any, should and could be set and that the whole issue had been discussed before (not here, but with the public way back when).

Edited to remove a comment that wasn't relevent. No, it wasn't an attack and it wasn't juicy, it just simply had nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

[parkersmama]

:) Was it a comment about our adorable children? Maybe we should head back to discussing that stuff! It sure would make the butterflies in my stomach go away. Political discussions make me so jumpy. I hate offending anyone even though my opinions are strong and I can get quite opinionated at times. :)

[bluej]

Oh I'm rarely offended, so don't worry about that! And yes, I'm quite fond of our adorable children and am more than ready to talk about them :) See you in the other topics!

[firstbaby]

Rachel - I had noticed that in the Nick Berg thread you responded to flaggers post with a one word response "Gag". I think it's fair to caution posters as a moderator but I actually stopped reading the thread there as the reply coupled with the unexpected direction of the thread made me uncomfortable. Just wanted to give MHO.

[Rachels]

Very fair. I don't think I was attacking Flagger-- I was giving my opinion on the notion that Bush will win in a landslide. The thought does make me gag. :) I didn't think it merited a long commentary. As a mod, I do have to caution when things seem to be tilting out of what's allowable, but I'm glad to be cautioned as well. My apologies if that came off as directed at Flagger rather than Bush. :)

Many thanks to everyone in this thread for keeping things civil.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[babys mama]

Because Bush's "No Child Left Behind" program is hurting public education everywhere. He has cut funding for Title 1 schools- these schools are lower-income, and frequently near military bases. Nothing like sending parents off to war, extending their deployments for months, and taking away students' access to art, music, and special classes. Kerry has pledged to get rid of "No child left behind" if elected.
Kerry also has insight about the environment- we won't catch him lobbying for oil wells in Alaska or the Gulf of Mexico.

[JenCA]

>I just don't understand the seemingly blind Republican support of
>Bush

I agree, it is rather startling. Although, I have to say that my DH, who is a registered Republican, suprised the heck out of me last night. We were driving home from dinner and I said, "Well, I guess our presidential votes will cancel each other out again this election" (alluding to the fact that I'll be voting for Kerry, and I assumed DH would be voting for Bush, as he did in 2000). DH replied, "Just because I'm a Republican does not mean that I'll vote for Bush. Come hell or high water, I will NOT vote for Bush this year. I don't know who I'm going to vote for yet, but it won't be Bush." I was so happy to hear him say those words that I very literally started to cry. :)

[suribear]

Because his views mesh with mine, IRT gay unions, abortion rights, environmental issues, and so on. I always vote based on these issues, not on a candiate's personality. And I do think it's relevant to mention that the thought of four more years of Bush doesn't settle well with me, his inability to articulate just being one of many issues. I think the U.S. deserves more respect in the international community, and I don't see that happening under the current administration. I also think it's ridiculous to say if you don't like things the way they are, get out (major paraphrasing here). I think it's only healthy to question the administration, no matter WHO is in charge!

Kris