Kerry v Bush: The Facts, the Campaigns and the Spin...

So, BrandX, how do you make them capable? How is this proactive? How does this HELP?

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

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.

As a senator Kerry had access to the National Intelligence Estimate that was skeptical on Iraq's capabilities, given that you'd think he would have voted 'no' if he felt that strongly about avoiding military action.

He also wasn't in the presidents position ultimately so he can sey he would have never struck Iraq if he wants to, but we will never know what he might have done

0 Replies

But does it matter?

This seems to be a bit of a strawman.

Here's what Kerry says:

BUSH, our current leader, who wants another term in office, handled this way badly. WAY badly. These are the ways in which it was handled badly... (see excerpts from NYT article, above, for some aspects.)

Not

I, Kerry, would have...

That's not the point.

Bush messed up. In a lot of ways. We want this from a leader? Much less the leader of the world's only superpower?

It's a valid criticism, and one that I hope he follows up with his plans for how to handle Iraq from now on.

0 Replies

Again we're using hindsight.

0 Replies

Again that's debatable. More and more evidence seems to be pointing to something rotten happening right then.

0 Replies

Brand X, We're using hind-sight, because we didn't know what info the president had to make the case for urgency the primary message to the American People and the world. The administration even claimed they knew the location of said weapons. If we had pre-knowledge, NOBODY would have approved the aggression against Iraq, because 1) we had inspectors in Iraq, and 2) we controlled the "No Fly Zone."

0 Replies

Re: Kerry v Bush: The Facts, the Campaigns and the Spin...

Sofia wrote:

How does the Dem nominee (presupposing Kerry is it) argue Iraq, when he voted for it?

I'd say he argues that he voted for it based on informations that turned out to be overhyped. And that the lies, foibles and misrepresentations of the Bush administration were responsible for the overhyping.

Sofia wrote:

The Patriot Act, also... Seems they've picked a guy who can't really make these arguments.

The candidate can credibly say that the Bush administration submitted the PATRIOT act in a national emergency, when all good Americans stand behind their president. The candidate, you see, is a good American. He is also a uniter, not a divider; contrast this to Bush and his men in contrast, who abused the candidate's loyalty for pushing through a partisan and un-American piece of legislation.

Sofia wrote:

Kerry has amassed a pretty hefty history of taking plenty of special interest PAC money. And, he's the richest Senator in history...

I'm not aware of that history, which is no evidence against its existence of course. Can you give me any pointers to places where I can learn more? As for "the richest Senator in History", I don't care how rich a candidate is, as long as he didn't get his money through insider dealings and corruption -- which is what Bush did. I don't think the RNC wants to go there.

Sophia wrote:

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?

In my opinion, Kerry's best move woudn't address Bush's military records per se, but in an effort to deflate the hero vibe Bush is trying to build up. "Unlike the presidents, I know something about flight suits and aircraft carriers for real", or something like that. This move would also work for Clark -- not sure about Edwards.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

What does anyone think about NAFTA and US joblessness?

Economic theory predicts, and econometric evidence confirms, that trade has an impact on the structure of employment, but not on its overall level. Unemployment is limited by people's willingness to spend, which can be stimulated by lowering interest rates or running a deficit through spending increases, or tax cuts, or both. The current problem for the American job market is that interest rates are down to one percent so have nowhere to go but up, that the Bush administration has passed the wrong kind of tax cuts (too heavily tilted towards savers not spenders), and that it's running the wrong kind of deficits. Technical progress adds to the problem and is actually the main story. But nobody wants to campaign against technical progress because most voters think it's a good thing.

Back in Paul Krugman's pre-pundid days, when he still debunked leftist foolishness, he wrote three informative and comprehensible articles about these questions: The Accidental theorist (my personal favorite), In praise of cheap Labor, and Vulgar Keynesians. I believe his assessment is correct -- after all, it's the assessment you get from standard, textbook economics. But with an electorate that chooses the world's most powerful man based on his hair cut, his size and the sonority of his voice, reality matters only up to a point. As it happens, this electorate splits about 50-50 on free trade in both parties, and politicians have to cater to the protectionist 50 percent. I hated Bush's steel, lumber and textile tariffs when he imposed them, but now it almost looks as if he actually did the least wrong thing he could get away with.

Sofia wrote:

Bush was convinced by the same information.

That's not how I remember it. As I remember it, Bush was convinced, but not by this information. He wanted to attack Iraq as early as in his 2000 presidental campaign. (I think my memory of C-Span's campaign coverage is correct here, but I may well be wrong.)

PS: I soooo should have read the whole thread before answering. Sozobe has this nasty habit of thinking my copyrighted thoughts before I get the chance.

-- Thomas

0 Replies

John Forbes Kerry
http://www.bpnews.net/bpfeature.asp?ID=1275

http://www.votewithavengeance.com/kerry.html

This election will come down to how much The Neo Fascists will sink their own boat more so that what the Dems do.

0 Replies

One of Thomas' responses

Quote:

Sofia wrote:
The Patriot Act, also... Seems they've picked a guy who can't really make these arguments.

Quote:

The candidate can credibly say that the Bush administration submitted the PATRIOT act in a national emergency, when all good Americans stand behind their president. The candidate, you see, is a good American. He is also a uniter, not a divider; contrast this to Bush and his men in contrast, who abused the candidate's loyalty for pushing through a partisan and un-American piece of legislation

I do think this excuse would add to the growing evidence that Kerry will vote for any reason other than conviction.

Though the Bush team hasn't sailed through the past couple of weeks--The footage of Kerry saying he voted for the financing of the war before he voted against it-- I wonder if he knew what he'd done to himself as the words came out of his mouth.

What insider dealings and corruption made GWB wealthy, Thomas? I thought the Bush fortune was made by his grandfather,or some older codger--you know, like the Kennedys.
Have there been formal charges that Bush has cheated campaign finance? You probably know there have been charges against Kerry on this score.

Appreciated your opinion on NAFTA.

Looks like an extremely ugly race this year.

0 Replies

the spin-fiction on the part of both sides of the aisle have pretty much settled in the silt of rio puerco. none are truthful when all are politikin'

0 Replies

Somebody dust off Gary Cooper...

REVOLUTION!

0 Replies

Sofia goth sweetie pie, so nice to see you here again!!!

0 Replies

Very pleasant being seen.
How are you?
Recouperating? Recouperated?

I hope well.
You look great. Very Happy

0 Replies

Wow, a Bush/Kerry thread with no name-calling. Impressive.

The Kerry campaign seems weak to me, and not just from the standpoint of what a conservative would say. First, he's on the defensive, saying "Oh no I'm not going to spend 800 billion dollars." Next he's trying to say that health care and jobs are the only thing he wants to address in his advertisements. I think the quote was "those are the issues." Now he may have meant that to say "my opponent refuses to discuss the important issues," but to me it says "I don't want to talk about foreign policy or the war on terrorism or anything other than these two issues." And recently when the employment figures came out, showing a great increase in jobs, all he could say was that Bush still had 200,000 lost jobs on his record. Something like that. It seemed weak to me.

It seems to me that the Kerry campaign needs to dig up some real dirt on the Bush administration to make them look bad. There have been plenty of random allegations of "Bush knew" and "Bush lied" and things of that sort, but they need hard evidence of corruption or violation of the law or lies to make points. I think by this time in the Clinton administration, several of his staff members were already in jail or prison. Not so with the "Bushies." So I'm not sure that will work.

Conservative discussion groups tend to portray John Kerry as the most liberal Senator in the country. They say he is unelectable, since he's too liberal even for moderate Democrats. It doesn't help that he's the richest Senator in the country, either. And he didn't help himself on MTV by claiming that he was "fascinated" by rap and hip hop music. That was just...bizarre. I doubt anyone believes that claim.

I just don't see any way Kerry can win.

0 Replies

Here's more campaign info.

Quote:

Bush's attack machine

Robert Novak

April 3, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Democratic political operatives are worried about the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign's ability to quickly transform gaffes by presidential candidate John Kerry into effective television ads.

Sen. Kerry committed his first serious mistake since clinching the nomination on a Tuesday. His words were part of a Republican ad in the hands of cable networks and other television stations by Thursday morning.

At a town hall meeting March 16 in Huntington, W.Va., Kerry said: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion (to finance the war in Iraq) before I voted against it." At Bush-Cheney headquarters in suburban northern Virginia, this was immediately spotted by Bush ad-maker Mark McKinnon as he monitored the senator's speech. "Put it in the loop!" McKinnon shouted, ordering Kerry's taped comments for a quick TV ad.

Townhall.com

0 Replies

I hope: Kerry for president.

He is a good politican.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Very pleasant being seen.

Hey, Pumpkin! Likewise.

You've got some more friends here since you last posted.

It should be fun knocking heads the next seven months.

0 Replies

If I may reply in my usual simplistic way.......instead of wondering if Kerry can do the job, any elected official is a turkey shoot in that respect, why not take a look at what has happened since bush took office.

We are screwed up like no point in history.That's a blanket statement I realize but all I have time for, and besides most of the posters here can site the examples point for point.

Why would you vote for this guy? Because he talks tough and likes to deploy troops? Ooh Rah. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

PDid-- HEY!

It is interesting to see who is here now, and get a handle on their mojo.

I'm not your average conservative, and have been weighing the possibility of a switch to anarchy...so I don't know if they'll consider themselves my friends... but the more the merrier.

<smile>

0 Replies

Kerry v Bush: The Facts, the Campaigns and the Spin...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know