Regardless of whether you are right or not, do you think Democrats are really better. You are complaining about homosexual marriages, which are the result of Democrats being led by their special interests. After reading the articles on Kerry in this thread and then taking into account the increased power he would have as President versus Senator do you really believe that Kerry would not be just as beholden to special interests as you claim Bush is. How can you amen a statement starting with "Of course it matters." that was in response to "Does it really matter? So Kerry can take all the special interest money he wants as long as it is less than Bush." Besides the fact that Kerry has taken more money than any other Senator , Rep. or Dem., over that last 15 years and has blocked legislation based on this, do agree with Kerry's actions being ok up until the time he actually accepts more than you believe Bush is taking.
On the homosexual marriage issue, I think the Democrats would do the exact same thing as the Republicans have done. Only difference would be the Dems would be open about it and vett their judicial nominees better than the Republicans. It was a Republican nominee who authored the decision finding in the Constitution an absolute right to bugger. Not a Democrat nominee. On social issues, the Republican insiders talk a great game, but result-wise they are impotent. Oh they will deliver for Halliburton or any other major contributor. But when it comes to social conservatives, they are all talk. I'm no John Kerry fan. He is what he is. A social liberal. On economic issues, I don't believe he has defined himself. or at least I haven't heard enough to determine what to classify him as. I feel pretty sure Halliburton won't benefit from his Presidency.
So for you again it is about Halliburton but it is ok for the companies mentioned in these articles to benefit from paying Kerry. It was ok for Democrats to take money from Chinese operatives. It is ok for Gore to funnel money through Buddhist Monks. It was ok for Clinton to pardon big donors. It is ok for Democrats to bow down to mighty Hollywood on social issues. It was ok for Clinton to sell time for sleep overs in the White House. It is ok for Democrats to take marching orders from the Trial Lawyers special interest group. You really did not answer the question in regards to do you think Democrats are better by just saying Halliburton would not benefit? A Republican from Mass. is not that far from being a liberal Democrat and almost dead on with social issues, but they are not representative of the Republican Party in general on social issues unlike Democrats.
I don't doubt that a President Kerry will have an entirely new set of friends to take care of. At the national level, I don't believe there is a dimes worth of difference between the Dems and Repubs on social issues. The Dems are honest about their loyalties, the Republicans do a song and dance. Do you really think Clinton would have appointed a conservative version of David Souter? He would not have. That says one of two things. Either Clinton is alot smarter than the Bush's. He is/was. Or Clinton was honest about his social viewpoints and the Bush's are not. He was. The Bush's strategy is/was to talk a great game about social conservatism and act the exact opposite and claim dismay. But you can bet, he'll deliver for Halliburton and friends.
Bush also appointed Thomas who besides Scalia is the most conservative justice. After the Clarence Thomas bashing by the media and the Senate Bush did pick the more moderate justice in Souter. Souter went more left when he got on the Supreme Court. This happens, but I did not like Souter at the time. Eisenhower appointed one the most liberal justices in history in Brennan while White was appointed by Kennedy. Clinton was in no way smarter than Bush #1. Clinton was much more political and willing to say anything to get someone's vote, but he was not smarter.
