Reply
Fri 6 Feb, 2004 09:28 pm
Belly up, prognosticators.
How does the Dem nominee (presupposing Kerry is it) argue Iraq, when he voted for it? The Patriot Act, also... Seems they've picked a guy who can't really make these arguments.
Kerry has amassed a pretty hefty history of taking plenty of special interest PAC money. And, he's the richest Senator in history...
Certainly, Kerry's military history seems unassailable--and I'm sure he'll get credit where it is due--but does Kerry point a finger in a debate, criticising Bush's lesser (perhaps questionable) military history? Who gets a worse thump from such an attack? Bush, or Kerry?
How would you advise Kerry? What does he say about his votes, which doesn't make him look like either Bush Lite, or someone who doesn't vote his conscience on important matters?
Hi Sofia, No candidate is going to ever meet your personal wishes or needs. That would be unrealisitic, yes? We must find a candidate that has political experience and savvy, but also an individual that we can trust to do the right thing for the right reasons - and not keep changing their justifications for what they did. What I'm certain at this point in Bush's term is that I don't want him for another term. I'm postive on that score.
Iraq seems pretty simple -- a lot of good people bought it, at the time, and the justification ("mushroom cloud" et al) has since evaporated.
One senator voted against Patriot -- Russ Feingold. I'd vote for him in a millisecond, but I don't think that's a glaring weakness for Kerry.
I think the strength of the military aspect is not that he would go on the offensive, but that he has a strong and silent defense which is much in his favor. Flight suit boy will be trying to paint his opponents as being weaker, not strong enough or willing enough to do what is necessary militarily, and a lot of that will be nipped in the bud, or effectively countered. Taking that out of the equation, defensively -- i.e., not allowing Bush to make an issue out of that -- will be much in Kerry's favor for electability, IMO.
I think career politician can go either way. He has experience. He sees shades of gray. He isn't an ideologue, he's a pragmatist. (I'm not necessarily claiming truth for these statements, I'm addressing your question about Bush Lite vs. someone who doesn't vote his conscience.) He understands diplomacy, how government actually works, how to keep people satisfied and working together. (As the GOP spends a week giving Karl Rove an earful...)
Thanks for playing, soz. My responses are next you yours in red to facilitate how Bushies may respond to your proffered Dem retorts.
sozobe wrote:Iraq seems pretty simple -- a lot of good people bought it, at the time, and the justification ("mushroom cloud" et al) has since evaporated.
And, Kerry, you did the right thing. You acted on the same intelligence Bush acted on. Bush thought it was the right thing to do with the information he had, and your vote, Kerry, shows you agreed with him.
One senator voted against Patriot -- Russ Feingold. I'd vote for him in a millisecond, but I don't think that's a glaring weakness for Kerry.
Bush: Did you agree with the Patriot Act? Why did you vote for it?
I think the strength of the military aspect is not that he would go on the offensive, but that he has a strong and silent defense which is much in his favor. Flight suit boy will be trying to paint his opponents as being weaker, not strong enough or willing enough to do what is necessary militarily, and a lot of that will be nipped in the bud, or effectively countered. Taking that out of the equation, defensively -- i.e., not allowing Bush to make an issue out of that -- will be much in Kerry's favor for electability, IMO.
If it doesn't come up, it won't hurt Bush...and it won't help Kerry.
I consider it will be very difficult to bash Bush over things one voted for himself. If Bush had intentionally misled about the intel, Kerry could have a heyday, but it has practically been established that the intel was at fault, and not Bush. The Patriot Act, however, was in black and white.
Practically been established?
Hmmm.
I think that's a bit debatable. (And has in fact been debated here ad naus... a lot.
)
I don't think stuff like Patriot Act and support for the war back then will actually be serious issues. Maybe that's just me. But I think what voters will be looking at is more like rampant spending, broken promises, "No Child Left Behind" turning into a travesty, etc., etc. I think there is a whole lot to criticize on what Bush has and hasn't done, and proactive proposals on what should be done instead.
Went to get
Paul Krugman's editorial today from the NYT for examples of what material Kerry has to work with, ("Right now America is going through an Orwellian moment. On both the foreign policy and the fiscal fronts, the Bush administration is trying to rewrite history, to explain away its current embarrassments.") and found this:
Administration's Message on Iraq Now Strikes Discordant Notes
Excerpt:
Maybe Bush had faulty intel, but isn't it ultimately his responsibility to figure this stuff out, know the provenance, know how trustworthy it is? If not himself, to make sure that trustworthy people were doing so? Is he just a giant dupe? How good is that?
Kerry's responsibility was not to verify the info -- he couldn't. He trusted his president -- a shame that that seems to have been a foolhardy thing to do.
You may have a couple of points. "No child"--what happened there? It started as a Kennedy bill, and they say Bush hasn't funded it appropriately--but then, how can they argue about the spending/deficit? What is the Dem argument about "No child?"
The things to criticise Bush about are really why I started the thread. I think it would be fun to presuppose some of the issues and how each party will (or should) respond.
The arguments that thrive here, however, wouldn't play on the national stage. I don't imagine Kerry will accuse Bush of 'sexing up' info in the debate. I am interested in how these issues will be framed.
But, the majority of voters are very interested in what is going on in Iraq and terrorism. I will say the economy may get equal billing. Jobs. But, NAFTA is an equal opportunity political liability.
To be honest, I don't know about NAFTA. You don't want protectionism, but this agreement is killing our manufacturing sector. What does anyone think about NAFTA and US joblessness?
Saw your Krugman.
Your point may resonate with some. However, most people don't hold a President responsible for gathering intel, just listening to it and acting on it.
Yep, I think the economy will be way big.
Dunno about NAFTA, either.
The immigration thing seems to be ticking off Republicans.
My take on "No Child" is that it needed money to work, and such money was promised but was not forthcoming. It's arguable whether it would work even with money, but to just not provide it is dooming it. It's not something that works as mere ideology. OK, so this school isn't performing... AND?? Can we get some help, here? Especially when SO SO SO SO many of them are not meeting standards.
My elementary school, which I've talked about here, it rocked, and I am still in contact with teachers there, one of my former classmates became a teacher there, etc. -- lost 20% of it's budget the last 3 years. Like, 20%, then 20% more, then 20% more. It serves a very diverse population, lots of new immigrants, lots of kids who have to serve as inetrpreters and cultural mediators for their parents, etc., etc. GREAT school. My graduating class seem to be disproportionately wildly successful types. Doctors, lawyers, successful filmmakers, etc. But, ya know, those testing standards gotta be met...
Anyway, that could be a lengthly diversion, something I feel strongly about.
But, Ted Kennedy came up with it.
That doesn't mean I'd like it.
WITH appropriate funding to FIX things, instead of just oops it failed oh well, which is how it originally passed (with the promise of funding), it's a different story if still one I don't like much. Without funding, pah. (There is some amount of funding, not nearly enough, and not what was promised. This comes up often in the "broken promises" category.)
Kerry is going to have to stop spinning reasons for voting like he did, it isn't working. It's just more blankety-blank hindsight.
Oh and the intel/ accountability thing is that Bush has more responsibility for the accuracy than Kerry. If the intel was wrong, that is at Bush's feet more than Kerry's -- it is not equivalent.
What's wrong with "I was convinced. Bush and Powell convinced me. Turned out that the substance of what convinced me was seriously flawed."?
Not asking to be snotty, seriously seems pretty commonsensical to me. I know a lot of people in real life who have said similar things.
sozobe, "Leave no" was never deemed a realistic plan. All children have different abilities, skills and learning ability. That the experts in the education field didn't question this initiative shows how stupid most of them are. What is happening in California is that many school districts are closing schools for lack of funding. I'm sure this is true all across the country. It's no longer, "Leave no," but "Leave no schools behind." You should see the condtion of many of our schools in California. It's deplorable from lack of maintenance.
Some of the schools around here are that way to, ci, but I've been in the Board of Education's office buildings and they are very plush and well kept.
The state of public education in this country is deplorable. We are far too wealthy to have such a disaster.
We'll have to find out what Kennedy and co. suggested for adequate funding, and how much money Bush put into it.
Something drastic had to be done (nonpartisan now)--I was glad Bush tried something outside the box. Requiring teachers to meet standards is important-- Children of differing abilities being forced or expected to test on the same level is ludicrous....but again...this was Ted's idea. How does Bush get blamed for the content? (Funding, yes, if it is indeed lower than what was needed, but not content.)
sozobe wrote:What's wrong with "I was convinced. Bush and Powell convinced me. Turned out that the substance of what convinced me was seriously flawed."?
Not asking to be snotty, seriously seems pretty commonsensical to me. I know a lot of people in real life who have said similar things.
I'm not trying to be snotty, either. Bush was convinced by the same information.
I assure you funding isn't the problem, it's the incapable in charge.
That's what I find somewhat debatable. That he was convinced rather than had already decided to invade and was seeking justification. But, again, that debate rages elsewhere on A2K.
At any rate, the central point is that I don't think they are equivalent. The rhetoric at that time was "we have highly classified information that we can't share with you, but trust us, it's bad." Bush, by definition, knew more than Kerry. Kerry did not look at all of the same intel Bush did -- he looked at what intel Bush referred to in convincing those who needed to be convinced to go to war.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace