I can't start at the beginning in regards to Kerry's character, but to hear man in a professional environment go on the record to the world and say, "Did I expect George Bush to fuck it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did." is a sad testimony to his character.  What is worse is that our modern society not only tolerates this behavior from such an important government position (no media outlet cried foul over this in the least either), our society apparently accepts it. Well, some don't.

In early May 2004 John Kerry fell off his bike, literally. George Bush made no comment.  Why should he?

In mid May 2004 George Bush fell off his bike. Kerry told reporters in front of cameras, 'Did the training wheels fall off?'

I've heard ABC, NBC and CBS are liberal media outlets, but I'm somewhat forgiving in how I treat those news sources.  I've been watching them all my life and I try to believe that they would be above slanting news to serve political favor. My point is  I did not find any mention of Kerry's remark on any of those news sites.  It was only mentioned on Drudge. I think a mans character is important.  I judge our President on his decisions.  I don't agree with all of them, but I know where I stand with him.  With Kerry, remarks such as these are common place.

There was Kerry's "off the record" remarks on Bush and his administration, calling it the most "lying and crooked" of any group he had ever known. ABC did televise that episode which was revealing of the man's true colors.

Yet another was in February when Kerry fell while skiing and cursed about a Secret Service Agent that Kerry alleged got in his way and caused his fall.  Wow... You fell man, admit it.  And that is my point, the guy can't just accept things he was a part of.  I see zero accountability here.  He reminds me of a wife that refuses to ever say they made a mistake in an argument and changes the subject so they can steer the conversation away from the original point.

Kerry's campaign states they have NOT YET run a negative ad.. A quick search on the Internet found this Republican run site with list of documented instances of scores of negative ads. It's almost funny.

Then there is the issue of him not really standing for anything.  I agree that people can change their mind about issues in life.  I have. But if you do change your mind, admit to it.  Is it that hard to say I've changed my mind since then?  With Kerry his immediate response to anyone asking him about flip-flopping (or waffling) he changes the subject and talks about Bushes failings rather than answer the question.  Lame.  What? Does he think all of us Americans are brain dead?  When someone insults my intelligence, I don't find them very appealing.  Here are some documented instances of Kerry's flip-flopped positions.  Because I also believe in put up or shut up.

Issue	Kerry's Original Position	Kerry's Revised Position
Welfare Reform	In 1988, Sen. Kerry voted against a proposal to require at least one parent in any two-parent welfare family to work a mere 16 hours a week, declaring the work requirement "troublesome to me."	During his 1996 re-election campaign, when his Republican challenger, Gov. William Weld, was calling him soft on welfare, Kerry voted for the much stricter welfare reform law that Clinton signed into law.
Mandatory Minimums	In 1993 and 1994, the senator from liberal Massachusetts voted against mandatory minimum sentences for gang activity, gun crimes, drug trafficking, and drug sales to minors, explaining in an impassioned speech that long sentences for some dealers who sell to minors would be "enormous injustices" and that some convicted drug offenders were "so barely culpable it is sad." He also said congressionally imposed mandatory minimums made no sense and would just create turf battles between federal and local prosecutors.	Today, presidential candidate Kerry strongly supports mandatory minimum sentences for federal crimes, including the sale of drugs to minors.
Affirmative Action	In 1992, Kerry created a huge stir among liberals and civil rights groups with a major policy address arguing that affirmative action has "kept America thinking in racial terms" and helped promote a "culture of dependency."	Today, Kerry's campaign Web site vows to "Preserve Affirmative Action," noting that he "consistently opposed efforts in the Senate to undermine or eliminate affirmative action programs, and supports programs that seeks to enhance diversity." It doesn't mention any downside.
Death Penalty	During one of his debates with Weld in 1996, Kerry ridiculed the idea of capital punishment for terrorists as a "terrorist protection policy," predicting that it would just discourage other nations from extraditing captured terrorists to the United States.	Kerry still opposes capital punishment, but he now makes an exception for terrorists.
Education Reform	In a 1998 policy speech the Boston Globe described as "a dramatic break from Democratic dogma," Kerry challenged teachers unions by proposing to gut their tenure and seniority systems, giving principals far more power to hire and fire unqualified or unmotivated teachers.	Today, Kerry once again espouses pure Democratic dogma on education. His Web site pledges to "stop blaming and start supporting public school educators," vowing to give them "better training and better pay, with more career opportunities, more empowerment and more mentors." It doesn't mention seniority or tenure.
Double Taxation	In December 2002, Kerry broke with Democratic dogma yet again in a Cleveland speech, calling for the abolition of the unfair "double taxation" of stock dividends in order to promote more investment and more accurate valuations of companies.	Five weeks later, after President Bush proposed a second round of tax cuts that included an end to this double taxation, Kerry changed his tune. He voted against the dividend tax cuts that were ultimately enacted by Congress and now hopes to roll them back as president, along with Bush's other tax cuts for upper-income Americans.
Gas Taxation	In 1994, when the Concord Coalition gave Kerry a failing rating for his deficit reduction votes, he complained that he should have gotten credit for supporting a 50-cent increase in the gas tax.	Today he no longer supports any increase in the gas tax.
Social Security	During the 1996 campaign, when I was a Globe reporter, Kerry told me the Social Security system should be overhauled. He said Congress should consider raising the retirement age and means-testing benefits and called it "wacky" that payroll taxes did not apply to income over $62,700. "I know it's all going to be unpopular," he said. "But this program has serious problems, and we have a generational responsibility to fix them."	Kerry no longer wants to mess with Social Security. "John Kerry will never balance the budget on the backs of America's seniors," his Web site promises.
Trade	Kerry has been a consistent supporter of free trade deals, and as late as December, when reporters asked if there was any issue on which he was prepared to disagree with Democratic interest groups, Kerry replied: "Trade." Slate editor Jacob Weisberg came away impressed by the depth of Kerry's commitment to the issue: "Unlike Edwards, he supports international trade agreements without qualification."	But that was three months ago! In recent weeks, when Kerry has talked trade, he has talked nothing but qualification, calling for "fair trade" rather than "free trade," claiming to agree completely with the protectionist Edwards on trade issues, and vowing to "put teeth" into environmental and labor restrictions in agreements like NAFTA.

Some folks found so many waffles on Kerry's part they have enough content to support a web site on it.  KerryWaffles.com is a classic example. They say truth is funnier than fiction.

My last point on character is the issue of hate. Democrats love to play both sides of an issue.  When it serves them, them call it facts, when it doesn't serve them they call it an attack.  Again, I find this really sad and quite sickening for folks to think I'm so dumb as to not be able to tell the difference between a hateful attack and statement of facts.  If Bush outlines Kerry's voting record, Democrats are quick to respond with cries of how the Republicans are attacking their boy.  Well, sorry guys.  If you boy was not the most liberal Democrat in our time he would not be such an easy target for constructive criticism. Source: National Journal vote ranking of Congress (Kerry was the most liberal senator in 2003, with a composite liberal score of 96.5.)

I don't ever remember Republicans holding a meeting, party or function of any sort for the sake of bashing an opponent. Democrats have done it about 6 times I can count since last November.  The most recent was Wednesday March 31st 2004 in Hollywood.  As a Republican I don't view the title of Republican as conservative. I see it a brand of intellectual thinking.  I equate Republicans with rational thinking.  I have non-conservative views and when I argue those points I never try and convince my adversary in conversation that they are wrong.  These are values that people either feel one way about or they don't.  For instance, abortion.  My position is it is a woman's choice flat out. I give most human beings the credit for making prudent decisions about the life inside them. This issue is deeply technical but the fact is I have my position and that is the end of it. Why get angry over it. I can see being passionate, but not angry. 

Democrats want Bush out of office, that's obvious.  Some Republicans are upset with Bush and will vote for Kerry as a statement in less confidence or protest over one or two issues, but it does not mean they actually feel Kerry is the man. When Kerry does win the election, and I do think he will because of this fact, it won't mean that Republicans will be proud of their vote.  Sadly most will mention regret later.  But that is America.  There are a lot of short sighted folks here.

Even the Kerry for President Blog is loaded with hate.  I hate to provide them a web link. LOL (rimshot) badump bump. Therefore I'm glad to give MoveOnLies.org a link too. :)

Why do I talk about others surrounding Kerry and hate in this same article about Kerry's character?  To sum it up, he believes in this as much as they do.  He embraces hate.  I think my point is validated by his recent hire of a far-LEFT activist type named Zach Exly... from where? The ultra angry organization named MoveOn.org.  The are the ones that took ads equating pictures of Hitler to Bush.  Wow... This is America folks, have some sense of sanity please. MoveOn.org is so full of hate they have material on the site such as: “Bush is a Punk Ass Chump”, “Capitalism: It’s Great in Theory, It Just Didn’t Work in Practice" and “Imperialism. A Way of Life Worth Bombing For”.  Does any of these statements offer a solution?  Zero.  They are just cheap shots driven from hate.  And the man responsible for them now heads up the Kerry campaign.  The fact that Kerry is the most liberal Senator makes perfect sense as to HOW easy it is for him to make this hiring decision.  It is in keeping with his character.

There are scores of things that call Kerry's character in to question.  A man that wants to be King no matter how he gets there is pretty lame and it is telling of what would do to his own people if he gets the power.

Now right now some Democrat is taking pen to paper in protest and will follow up with everything they think Bush is guilty of.  My answer is, in advance; You know where Bush stands.  You knew he wanted to invade Iraq and we should not have had  to justify it to the world when it comes to protecting our interest after Terrorist flew THREE JUMBO JETS into buildings with thousands upon thousands of innocent people.  They woke up the gentle giant.  Now we have an ax to grind. More importantly, we will protect our country and understand that the enemy doesn't have a face making this harder for us to fight against, but we will.

Outsiders will never understand this and that is OK.  Having fellow Americans cry over our will to fight is sad.

This is a grown up situation and we are taking our national interest dead serious.  It is sad that American has to be made to look like a bully but if this is unpopular with the world, then fine.  We don't expect the world to understand.  We were always the most powerful nation, we just didn't abuse it.  If we are abusing it now, so be it.  I personally am glad my children are safer today then they would have been if we had not had the backbone to do something that had to be done.  Please don't ague the point that we went in for weapons of mass destruction and Bush lied... Tell it to someone who doesn't have the mental capacity to understand that we had to justify to the UN why we were doing what were doing.  If that is the reason we used to get the ball rolling then that is what we had to do.  Only a liberal would run around crying bloody murder when we didnt' find WMD's. 

And by the way, they had WMD's.  We may never find them for tons of reasons now, such as every Iraqi was set free last year to loot the country when we booted Sadamm. They could have moved many to Syria etc... The guy was no idiot. 

So I'm set in my ways and I agree that hard decisions are not always popular.  Kerry doesn't have that skill or ability.  He blows with the wind, and hardly does that. 

I completely understand that many friends of mine whom are embracing web sites such as moveon.org have liberal viewpoints.  I don't like it, but I understand that they have a right to their opinion.  What I would hope for however is that if they don't like Bush because of his policy's then they state their hate as such.  Instead I find them going off on Bush as the leader of some secret organization to destroy the world and do the bidding of polution oriented big business.  Just call a spade a spade.  If you don't like him, you don't like him.  Don't try to tie one issue to another.