Talk:John Kerry 2004 presidential campaign

United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).

Health Care Plan[edit]

Kerry's Health Care plan is a big part of his election campaign, and there should be at least some information up under "issue stances", probably under a separate section.

VP post-selection[edit]

Given that Kerry's selected Edwards for his running mate, I've made a few edits to the VP section reflecting that. However, I'm unsure how to proceed with the section in general - how do we want to archive the VP selection process? --Goobergunch 13:24, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Most of the section is now irrelevant. It is automatically "archived" in the history. Reread the article from the point of view of what we now know. Almost all the speculation should go because it's only of passing interest. All the bullets should go. Who cares now who Clinton considered for VP before choosing Gore? We might want to mention the most prominent speculations. Side issues such as candidates who were considered but ineligible are almost silly now (after all, they were ineligible Duh!). We might keep a line like "Some even thought Kerry might pick Bill Clinton, despite the fact he was ineligible for the job." -- Cecropia | Talk 14:36, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia, by your argument, any alternative in all of history that was contemplated but wasn't picked would be irrelevant. Isn't that a bit extreme?Rich 00:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death penalty[edit]

"Kerry opposes the death penalty, but has recently stated that he would support it in the case of convicted terrorists."

Surely that means he supports it? Markalexander100 09:27, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you're in favor of Kerry, it's called "nuance." If you're opposed it's called "covering your bases" if you're polite. This kind of thing will be an ongoing problem for Kerry. Today he complained that Bush was short-changing the troops in Iraq, but he voted against the $87 billion post-war appropriatiation to pay for them after voting in favor of the war. Yes, I know he has an excuse for each, but there is a limit to how long you can manage your press. Cecropia 18:50, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That limit is called the campaign fund balance. - Anonymous foreigner. ;)

It's clear he's against 100% of current death penalty cases that exist in America today. I don't really think that's nuance. Ask yourself how much use of the death penalty Kerry would like to see compared to how much there is now, and you see that it would be less, and that's what he says he wants. What's unclear about this? Are you demanding that a stance be absolute zero-tolerance to qualify as being "against"? -- Fleacircus 00:27, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

He voted for a version of the $87 billion appropriations bill that required spending cuts in other areas in order to offset the huge cost, but that version never made it onto the floor of the full Senate. The Bushies are absolutely fanatical about driving the nation further and further into debt, to the point where they won't even consider rolling back their precious tax cuts or cutting some of the fat off bloated defense spending bills. SS451 23:30, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Well, he certainly was happy to deal out the death penalty to a fleeing Viet Cong, in the back, so I suppose he would have no problem with the American Death Penalty.

"Kerry has long stated his opposition to the death penalty, but has recently stated that he would support it in the case of convicted terrorists."

Surely this shouldn't say "recently" any more. What should it say? What date is appropriate? -- Kevin Saff (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page title[edit]

I moved this article from Presidential campaign of John Kerry to 2004 presidential campaign of John Kerry to be parallel to the W. page. (2004 presidential campaign of George W. Bush -- Seth Ilys 03:45, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Moved back. John Kerry has one and only one Presidential campaign to date. The 2004 Bush does not need to be compared to Kerry, but to the 2000 presidential campaign of George W. Bush. jengod 04:42, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Articles in a set (and presidential campaign articles qualify as a set, IMHO) should be consistently titled. Besides, if Kerry wins, there will presumably be a 2008 presidential campaign of John Kerry, so why not makes the article titles consistent now? -- Seth Ilys 04:46, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's sooo ugly. Ugly bad. Bad! :) But that aside, if Arnold Schwarzenegger wins the 2020 election, there will presumably be a 2024 presidential campaign of Arnold Schwarzenegger article, but that doesn't mean we should go around inventing naming conventions based on the possibility. And that said, if we're running around unifying the universe, per the existing U.S. presidential election, 1856 style, it should really be George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2004. But mostly I'm just against a.) Ugly b.) Unnecessary, redundant, repetitive (see?!) information. jengod 04:52, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

Ugly is a subjective aesthetic judgement. I personally meet that 2004 presidential campaign of John Kerry looks better than Presidential campaign of John Kerry.

Besides, what happens when we go back and create articles on various presidential campaigns parallel to these. We'll have 1992 presidential campaign of George H. W. Bush and 1988 presidential campaign of George H. W. Bush but only one Presidential campaign of Walter Mondale which should be 1984 presidential campaign of Walter Mondale. The year is a vital and informative part of the title, no matter who or when the campaign was. Besides, I favor consistency over redundancy. Redunancy never made things difficult; inconsistency does.

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. -- Seth Ilys 06:02, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Maybe I'm too tired, but I don't get the Schwarzenegger joke. Enlighten me? Cecropia 05:46, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There's speculation that the U.S. consitution may be amended to allow foreign-born naturalized US citizens to run for president. This possible scenario was mentioned (with Schwarzenegger in particular becoming president) in the sci-fi movie Demolition Man. Even scarier is the fact that Ahhnold is fairly popular at the moment as Governor of California, and that he hasn't disclaimed interest in a possible presidential run, should the constitution be amended. -- Seth Ilys 13:51, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay, okay, I'm willing to date the campaigns, but I feel strongly the style should match U.S. presidential election, 2004-U.S. Democratic Party presidential nomination, 2004 style i.e. George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2004, George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2000, Al Gore presidential campagin, 1988, Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000, John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004. Whadja think? jengod 06:51, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

Prefer your way, Jengod. Subject should go first, then year. Cecropia 06:59, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's reasonable, too. -- Seth Ilys 13:51, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For the sake of grammarians everywhere, please change the title to 2004 presidential campaign of John Kerry. Or, at the very least, change it to John Kerry's presidential campaign of 2004 (which sounds worse, but at least is grammatically correct). The current title does not sound like the creation of a native English speaker. Moncrief 05:23, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

The name is the way it is because it follows the pattern set by U.S. presidential election, 2004 jengod 22:02, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

Vote![edit]

I seek your input at Wikipedia:WikiProject POTUS Campaigns. Please come weigh in on what to name articles about presidential campaigns. jengod 23:09, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

Could Bill Clinton be Kerry's Veep[edit]

Of course, this is an issue which would surely have to be decided by the Supreme Court if it became a reality, but here are a few observations, strictly FYI and for the entertainment value.

This has been argued back and forth, including a recent Op-Ed in the New York Times by a professor (with rebuttals by other worthies). The intent of the Constitutional amendment limiting the President's term was clearly intended to do just that, especially since it provides for a longer term for the special circumstances of a President finishing out another's term, in which the President can only be elected one time if he has finished out more than two years of a predecessor's term (so limiting that person to no more than 10 years total as President.) To argue that the amendment only covers elections invites one to facetiously suggest that it wouldn't be OK for Clinton to run for President again, but it would be OK if he regained the Presidency in a coup d'etat.

Governor George Wallace of Alabama effectively evaded term limits by having his wife Lurleen (sp?) succeed him and he acted fairly openly as shadow governor. In the case of the Presidency, you could imagine a popular president then running as Vice President to a dummy President, who would resign in his behalf. Clearly this is not what the Congress intended—the origin of the amendment was anger at Roosevelt for breaking the tradition intentionally set by George Washington that a President of a democracy should serve only two terms and then stand aside instead of attempting to rule as elected royalty.

On a legal basis, I would contend that when the 12th amendment says that someone ineligible to serve as president he cannot be vice president, that the fact that someone is barred from running for president assumes that the person is thus ineligible for president, rather than becoming president by a semantic reading of the Constitution.

On a practical basis, it certainly would not help Kerry to nominate a man for Veep whose presence on the ticket would certainly spark a Constitutional Crisis and another visit to the Supreme Court. And it would be too much grist for the Republican mill to have the man who defined "the meaning of is" reinterpreting the Constiution in such a way.

Why?

He is ineligible because of the 12th ammendment which overrides the original election of the president. The electors are prohibited from electing him. But besides that, the party wouldn't have him. He would be an immediate lame duck president. He would be a lightning rod for criticism and he would always overshadow the main candidate. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Kerry-Forbes family drug-trafficking ties to Opium trade and views[edit]

Insert this paragraph in drug section or

Kerry's grandfather James Grant Forbes was born in Shanghai into the Forbes family of opium traders, but ironically, Sen. Kerry has not publicly repudiated his own family legacy in drug dealing in this campaign, although he has used his Forbes family inheritance to extend his campaign against Gov. Dean in 2003.

Essentially - the opium wealth that has financed Kerry will become a campaign issue just like the accused-ill-gotten bootleg wealth of Kennedys made it a campaign issue in the earlier JFK race. Kerry's 2002 trust inheritance and offshore estates (France; ties to trust that owns Cape Cod islands; etc) will become issues. Is Forbes Kerry tougher on drug dealers than on his own grandfather's fortune? What are his feelings toward Chinese (trade) and vice versa (will they like an Opium dealer scion to head U.S.? Why did he personally attack Bush for vague Noriega connections, and are his own ties to drug trafficking acceptable topic for reporters? All good questions.

A note here, just reading the article on the Forbes family it becomes obvious that the family was primarily fur traders who dabbled in Opium smuggling during the Opium Wars. I think it would be horribly POV to try to retro-actively project our modern disapproval of Opium to the actions of the family and company at the time. I think that, if pertinent, the source of the Forbes family wealth should be included in the main article text. If included, it should perhaps include a blurb ABOUT the Opium Wars to put actions in an historical perspective, something I would expect from any reasonably well-written and balanced article. --ABQCat 19:09, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We seen the same thing with Bush. His grandfather had Nazi connections, and just about every Democrat has used this to their own political advantage against Bush. But with Kerry, these same Democrats say nothing.

The main thing is that both Democrats and Republicans reek of enough hypocrisy it makes me sick. It reminds me of what Jesus Christ said about the Phairsees of old:

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

So much of the above verses in the bible could be applied in so many ways to not only Bush, but to John Kerry as well.

JesseG 02:25, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

God, country and Kerry[edit]

(was: Kerry thinks I'm not married??)

This is in the "Gay Rights" entry:

He claims that "marriage" should only be between a man and a woman, and should only be performed in a religious setting. He disagrees with the use of the term "marriage" to refer to any civil ceremony, heterosexual or homosexual.

What? Is that true? Is there a citation for that? Legal marriage in the U.S. is a function of the States, not of relgious institutions. Only the State where you are married confers the right to marry--the State sets the requirements and issues the license. The relgious ceremony is optional, and the priest or minister can only marry by the power vested in him by the State.

My wife and I were married in a civil ceremony by our own choice. Wait until I tell my kids we've only been domestic partners for the last 20 years. -- Cecropia 21:54, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Isn't "God" invoked in civil ceremonies? Mdchachi|Talk 19:12, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Not by law. It is not illegal to mention "God" in a civil ceremony, but it is not necessary. If any state law required it, I'm sure secularist groups would get after it. -- Cecropia | Talk 05:54, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, God is mentioned in civil ceremonies in Snohomish County, Washington, the only place I've witnessed one. And if I may quibble, Cecropia, priests and ministers may only perform legal marriage ceremonies by the power vested in them by the state. I think most ministers and priests would consider that, when performing the religious rite, the power vested in them is not one handed down from the secular authorities. :-) Just a thought that's probably irrelevant, but which I thought I'd mention. Jwrosenzweig 19:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Not a quibble. Not irrelevant. You're right that (in the U.S. at least) only the state has the right to legally bind you to a marriage contract. This was emphasized when an ordained minister in a Greenwich Village church was asked about ceremonies in which he "married" gay couples. He said that he was performing a service for religious gays who felt that they wanted their union blessed in the eyes of God, but that when he performed the ceremony he would say "by the power vested in me by God" whereas when he performed a marriage where there was a marriage license (i.e., man-woman) he says "by the power vested in me by God and the State of New York."

As a broader issue, I do not intend to vote for Kerry as of now, but he may become President and I'm frankly concerned by some of his issue stands like this. Does he really believe that marriage is a church thing? Now he says that life begins at conception and he is personally opposed to abortion. As a purely scientific point, life does not "begin" at conception, nor at some point during pregnancy, nor at birth; life is a continuum. The sperm is alive, the ovum is alive, and the resulting zygote in alive. To say otherwise is to go back to pre-scientific concepts of spontaneous generation. The moral question is "when is a human life ensouled." That may sound like a religious question, but it isn't necessarily. As an ethical point, I would say it asks when a human life acquires the ability to have any kind of consciousness, even if that is just the ability to experience pain or comfort.

Now surely he doesn't really believe I'm not married. And if he honestly thinks "life begins at conception" than he should have real moral qualms that couldn't be cast off by simply saying he respects other people's religions, especially when it comes to late-term abortion.

The unpleasant conclusion is that he is trying to play both sides of the street. He wants to argue that he is against same-sex marriage (to please the centrist who thinks to goes to far) but he then turns around and says civil unions are OK (which seems moderate) but that the only difference between a civil union and marriage is that one happens in a church and the other doesn't. By that logic, a civil-union is a marriage if you want to it be. This is really amazing fence-straddling.

As to the abortion issue, you could interpret that as a principled stand, but once again he looks like he's saying what both sides want to hear. The concept that he stands for everything, but really stands for nothing, is a great trick, if he can put it across. -- Cecropia | Talk 05:54, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Today I made a change to some of the wording in this section, based on the notion that a "right" is inherent/inalienable and is thus not something which can be conferred, rather only acknowledged and protected, at least when talking about law, social contracts and a political candidate's position in regard to such matters. In particular, phrases like "Kerry wants to grant rights to homosexuals" (which I removed altogether) I find to be somewhat sub-NPOV. The position of the GLBT community is not unlike that of women and minorities in previous eras: that they have rights that are not being recognized or equally protected. I suppose a truly neutral phrasing would acknowledge that some people feel that such rights do not exist and thus do not deserve broad legal protections or social recognition. I opted to just remove the most contentious phrase, which was redundant anyway, and to add qualifiers to another phrase to reflect the Jeffersonian POV w.r.t. inalienable rights. - mjb 21:02, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The other day, Kerry was featured in an interview in the Dubuque, Iowa Telegraph Herald newspaper. On abortion, he said, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception." "I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist," he continued in the interview. "We have separation of church and state in the United States of America." It sounds to me like a bunch of rationalization, that he only said that to mollify the concerns from local Catholics. Wait until he's before a pro-choice group. Then he'll be making it sound like abortion was the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel.

I have said it before, and I will yet say it again. I don't like Bush. I don't like his policies. Bush has flushed this country down the toilet. The economy has been shot to hell. The enviornment is going to hell in a handbasket. We have every Islamic extremist and his brother and sister wishing for the death of every last American on the face of this Earth. That is why I will not vote for Bush in November. But I seriously doubt I could bring myself to vote Kerry either. I'll probably write in my uncle. My uncle has no political experience, and calls em as he sees em. But he would be one million times better for this country than either Bush or Kerry.

JesseG 03:16, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And this opinion is relevant to this article because why exactly? Moncrief 06:52, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Exactly because this article is about Kerry's campaign and this identifies Kerry's greatest weakness. I've met people who think the U.S. needs Bush to be reelected; I've met people who think the U.S. needs anybody BUT Bush to be elected; I've met people who aren't sure whether or not Bush should be reelected; and I've met people who will probably hide under their beds on Election Day. But so far I haven't personally met one person who says "I WANT Kerry to be my President!" With Kerry you get the feeling "there's no there there." -- Cecropia | Talk 07:46, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And that's a major problem here in the United States. As much as many people dislike Bush and want him out, what kind of choice would Kerry be? I remember during the last election, one of my friends could not bring herself to vote either for Bush or Gore, she seen them as two bad choices. And I think it'll be the same this year too.

JesseG 02:15, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reminds me of that joke. Q. George Bush and John Kerry are on a raft. The raft drowns. Who is saved? A. The country.

Other candidates?[edit]

Hmm... should there at least be a mention that Kerry is also facing competition from independent Ralph Nader and libertarian Aaron Russo? Rei 17:45, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

See U.S. presidential election, 2004

Kerry's status (True or false??)[edit]

True or false: there is a lot of evidence as of July 2004 that Bush will defeat Kerry. 66.245.120.243 13:25, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it's a toss-up at this point. However, Wikipedia is not a political analysis report, it's an encyclopedia and should not IMHO be making predictions as to who will win the Presidential election. --Goobergunch 15:13, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Quite right. Kerry seems to be ahead by a hair right now, but that could change at any moment. Even if one candidate was ahead by a landslide, to say that there is "evidence" that a particular outcome of the election will occur would be specious to me. --Timbo 20:10, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nader has a right to run and his name should be on every state ballet.

Stuff[edit]

so why when Clinton did not serve in any miltary the Dems said that was no big deal, but now that Kerry was in Vietnam it is a huge plus for their pov over Bush who was in the nat guards

This is relevant to the article how? Also, learn how to sign your name. Here's a hint: It's 5 letters, starts with "T", and ends with two "l"s. - mjb 05:03, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Republicans sure as hell thought it was a big deal that Clinton didn't serve, so if Clinton wasn't fit for the Presidency on those terms Bush isn't. Yes, I know, he served in the National Guard (in some form) but that doesn't compare with Kerry's service in Vietnam - as Clinton remind the DNC Kerry came from a privileged background but still went to war while he, Bush and Cheney dodged the draft.Mark 23:34, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) just like Clinton dodge the draft. Kerry's 4 months in Vietnam as a war criminal (he has admitted to being a war criminal)

Obviously there is a ton of emphasis on Kerry's "heroic" military service, and many are questioning exactly how herioc it actually was (perhaps with good reason). However, Bush's National Guard service (or lack thereof) seems as vulnerable, if not more so, on attendance and service. --Timbo 20:15, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

IIRC the Dems were pretty hot and bother back in 92 and 96 any time the Gop or anyone else tried to compare Clinton um "service" during Vietnam I believe he was defending Oxford in England to GHW Bush and B Dole's service in WW2. Now they have no problem pointing out Kerry served in Nam for 4 months to Bush's N G duty. Bush has ackowledge that Kerry served his country. I just wish the Dem party be a bit more consistent is serving in the miltary important to becoming president they did not think so in 92 and 96 but now sure seem to belive it is

Heathcare[edit]

Can we get further information on the views of John Kerry and the plans of his campaign on healthcare? --Liberlogos 01:56, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gun Control[edit]

That section is a living contradiction. He's for guns, but he voted for bills that are against them?! — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 06:02, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No. It's not. Senators are supposed to represent their state, and the people's wishes within that state. Not their own personal views. A senator's vote is not his own - it is the vote of his people. Thus, it is conceivable that he could vote for gun control, but still be personally against it. StellarFury 15:05, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Then why the hell would you even vote for a senator? Get a guy with a clipboard from no party! — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:10, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hey, chill out. That's the way the system is supposed to work - the United States is a Democratic-Republic, not just a Republic. However, the system has been abused for decades, leading to this sort of misconception. The "guy with a clipboard from no party" would be the ideal - I quote the "Politics of the United States" page -

"Many of America's Founding Fathers hated the thought of political parties, quarreling factions they were sure would be more interested in contending with each other than in working for the common good."

Anyway. I am not saying the John Kerry is the ideal of a senator, just that that is a possible interpretation. Note the word "conceivable."

In any case, the fact that he has voted for gun control, but been personally against it exists, whether you like it or not. This is an encyclopedia - a collection of facts, not opinions. Before you attempt to continue this argument, please refer to this page - Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. StellarFury 17:07, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Campaign Spending[edit]

I deleted a purely partisan statement with a false link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CapAp (talk • contribs) 08:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Logo[edit]

Its defintely a side issue, but i've uploaded a logo that I think is more used (the photos that we have both feature this logo heavily). Its not a big deal to me really, feel free to disagree. - Aaron Hill 08:47, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Preliminary arbitration ruling[edit]

Effective 24 August 2004:

User:Rex071404 is banned from editing the below listed pages while his arbitration case is ongoing:

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404.

--mav 05:44, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The title of this article[edit]

isnt the ,2004 a tad unneeded, i don't think he's had many... -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:16, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

See also #Page title - at any rate, we'll need the year if Kerry wins and runs for re-election in 2008. --Goobergunch 22:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

POV[edit]

This bit sounds very POV in the Iraq section

He changed his position on WMDS by saying they were not enough to go to war with Iraq. (Kerry's post-attack view on Iraq) This has harmed Kerry's campaign in the eyes of some because they believe it has made him seem like a "flip-flopper", changing his position to better suit what is popular.

Some would argue that Kerry did not change his position at all, but merely that he shifted the focus of his critisism due to a changing situation with Iraq. Can anyone recommend a rewording? --Berger 14:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be included with a reference to the bush campaign article, as this was something that was emphasized (hypocritically and in an extreme in my opinion). --gatoatigrado 19:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there more words dedicated to "PenGate" than there are to the actual first debate? Does that "incident" really matter? I'm not sure if Kerry's pen or the protrusion from Bush's jacket really deserve much discussion. 68.55.18.42 18:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

links in headers[edit]

don't do it. --gatoatigrado 19:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion[edit]

Why on earth is this page flagged for deletion, with the reason given as "no longer relevant?" While needing cleanup, I don't see how an article related to something as historically important as the most recent presidential campaign can be no longer relevant. Jrwagner 06:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)jrwagner[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Unfitforcommand.jpg[edit]

Image:Unfitforcommand.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:JohnKerrylogo.png[edit]

Image:JohnKerrylogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Kerry edwards new pic.png[edit]

Image:Kerry edwards new pic.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Kerryad.jpg[edit]

Image:Kerryad.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merged. --BDD (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry policy on Iraq is a stubby article without great potential for expansion without creating undue coverage. The subject could be better covered in the Iraq section of this article, so I propose a merge here. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proceeding after a week of silence. I notice another editor expressed support for this move four years ago at Talk:Kerry policy on Iraq. --BDD (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513125829/http://www.lewin.com/SpotlightPages/Bush+and+Kerry+Health+Plan+Analysis.htm to http://www.lewin.com/SpotlightPages/Bush+and+Kerry+Health+Plan+Analysis.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]