Edwards lack of experience

I wonder, do you wonder the same things when Bush gains a 5% lead in one of these polls? ;-)

Seriously tho, a pollster worth his salt makes sure the respondents represent a representative selection of gender, age groups, cultural backgrounds, location of residence etc (as well as Dems, Reps and Independents)

And you are wrong.



LOL, my my, isn't Bush a busy man!

Meanwhile back in reality....



Oops, I take back what I said about back to reality!

No they don't, a good pollster knows all the tricks to slant a poll the direction the people who pay him want it slanted.

Polls can be as biased as they are structured to be ... and often they are. Recall if you will the recent flap about the LA Times oversampling of Democrats. Consider also the subject, phrasing, and even the order of questions can influence the outcome. The only way to draw meaningful conclusions from polls is to consider as broad a selection of similarly-themed polls as can be made, and to weigh not the individual single-results but rather the trending-over-time; nimh does some very valuable work for us in this regard. And, of course, bear in mind the only presidential preference poll that really counts is the one held on the first Tuesday in November every 4 years.

Just curious are you so fond of Bush that you emmulate him as far as your not reading newspapers or watching news programs? do you just let people like rush, Drudge, O'Reilly and the rest TELL you what you should know? because if not well....................it's just plain too scary to think about.

Redheat, if you would stop getting your news from michealmoore.com, MoveOn.org, and commondreams, you might realize Bush is not really the devil.

No, CHENEY is the devil, Redheat, get it straight...

Cycloptichorn

Well aren't we the presumptious little devil!

Instead of assuming (making an ass of u and me) why not ask me? I've posted a few links do you see any of them that came from any of the soruces you listed?

I don't know what michaelmoore.com consists of, Moveon.org isnt' really a news site but I do belong and commonedreams is a good source for news but I don't use them exclusively but get my news from various sources across the spectrum. If however I ever post anything as a "fact" and you dispute it you are free to refute that "fact" with actual proof of it's being unfactual. Until then I'll just chalk up your responses to the sourc from which they are being espoused. :wink:



I can't be sure but I could swear that last time I seen a pic of him there were what appeared to be horn stubs sprouting out from his head and I couldn't believe me eyes when they seemed to have words across their little nubbiness that said............now I'm not positive............but I could have sworn they said..........."Go F*** yourself"!

Kerry isn't the devil.
Wait he is.
No, now he's not.

Is there such a thing as a flip flop devil?

As a matter of fact I belive there is and what's his name................no wait don't tell me.................it's right there...................oh yeah!

BUSH

I'm against a Homeland Security office..........No I'm for it.

I'm against the 9.11 commission............No I'm for it

I'm against Nation building................No I'm for it

If you don't like where Kerry stands on an issue just wait around for a minute....

See folks, how far liberals will go to put their sins onto others.

Sad, isn't it.

None of these are flip flops, just quotes taken out of context, often not even by Bush himself.

To be fair, Karzak, that tactic is not specific to any particular ideologic bent. Its always worse when the other side does it, and, of course, the standard rebuttal runs along the lines of "You guys do it worse/more/first/whatever".

True, but I don't claim Kerry doesn't flip flop. The problem is that the Bush camp keeps calling Kerry a flip flopper making it an issue when the fact is Bush does it just as much. ALL politicans flip flop, what's happening is the Bushies are accusing the otherside of doing the same things they do and then they deny they do it.



You are truly a hoot! What am I taking out of context? Are you denying that Bush didn't want a Homeland security office? or the 9.11 commission? I mean do you read anything other then the righty planet gazette?

Or you could just go to his website and READ where he stands on issues.

nah then you couldn't bitch about it.

What does fairness have to do with polotics?

I've never seen a busier webmaster than Kerry's...

Every morning he gets the call... "John likes gays today and is soft on terror today."

Edwards Sets Self Apart on Foreign Policy
Terrorism Was Top Focus Before Sept. 11 Attacks By Robin Wright and Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 9, 2004; Page A01



In his Senate years and primary campaign, vice presidential candidate John Edwards has emerged as a politician willing to push beyond conventional foreign policy ideas and introduce imaginative proposals that often do not meet with swift approval.
In one typical case, Edwards in January called for the United States to draw up a "freedom list" that would identify dissidents jailed for political or religious expression in an attempt through "name and shame" to persuade other countries to free political prisoners. He also proposed linking U.S. aid to progress on human rights and democracy -- a practice that, if implemented, would almost certainly disqualify many key U.S. allies, such as Egypt and Pakistan.

In the summer of 2001, when much of the Republican and Democratic policy community was obsessed with missile defense, Edwards urged more attention to terrorism. The North Carolina senator had such limited luck pitching an OpEd article on terrorism to major newspapers that the piece, warning of poor cooperation among federal and local law enforcement, ended up in the weekly Littleton Observer, circulation 2,230 -- four weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Edwards's approach and style are in contrast to those of running mate John F. Kerry, who after years steeped in foreign policy has recently become more of a pragmatist whose positions shy away from bold ideas -- in some cases differing from Bush administration policy only by degrees.

Republicans are hoping to make Edwards's foreign policy positions, which have received little scrutiny until now, a key issue in the fall campaign. They charge that his credentials are relatively thin, with accomplishments limited to his position on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee and proposed legislation on counterterrorism.

Even some Democrats concede that he did not flesh out his own broad national security platform until the primaries -- and even then sometimes tried to dodge foreign policy questions or interviews or provide general answers in early debates.

For all the energy and voter appeal he may have added to the campaign, Republicans say Edwards will be particularly vulnerable when he goes head to head with Vice President Cheney, a former defense secretary and White House chief of staff. Some are already salivating over the prospects of the fall debates.

"If you liked the [1988] Quayle-Bentsen debate, you'll love the Cheney-Edwards debate," said Ed Rogers, Republican political consultant, referring to vice presidential candidates Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen. "The contrast with Cheney just couldn't be more stark on this issue. Who's going to be tougher on terrorists who want to kill you and your family? Cheney or Edwards? It is just going to be laughable."

But Democrats are coyly confident that Edwards, who consistently played well among voters during the primary debates, will surprise the electorate. "Bring it on," said Richard C. Holbrooke, U.N. ambassador during the Clinton administration and now a senior foreign policy adviser to the Kerry-Edwards campaign.

"I would say Vice President Cheney is a man of the Cold War generation who still thinks in Cold War terms. He is knowledgeable but rigid. He shows no ability to adjust to new 21st century realities," he said.

Over the past three years, Edwards has scrambled to organize crash tutorials, roundtable discussions with foreign policy analysts at his Georgetown home, trips to hot spots abroad and meetings with foreign leaders to prepare for his presidential campaign, aides and advisers said. Democrats note that Edwards's foreign policy experience matches or exceeds the credentials of Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter when they were nominees.

"He understood in the post-9/11 world his national security credentials would be challenged from the get-go," Holbrooke said, adding that Edwards tried to avoid being pulled too far left during the primaries. "He was very thoughtful in trying to find a balance in national security priorities and how to present them effectively" as former Vermont governor Howard Dean appeared to be running away with the nomination.

To gain first-hand foreign experience, Edwards toured Israel and Egypt in 2001. As part of a tour to South and Central Asia, Edwards traveled to Afghanistan in 2002 shortly after the U.S.-led war to oust the ruling Taliban and destroy Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda camps. He also visited Britain and twice visited NATO headquarters, in 2002 and 2004. He has met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, campaign aides said.

Edwards surprised participants in 2002 meetings with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana and European foreign policy experts, said William Drozdiak, executive director of the Transatlantic Center of the German Marshall Fund who helped organize the Brussels sessions.

Apart on Foreign Policy
"He was hungry for some foreign policy exposure and experience," Drozdiak said. "I was fairly skeptical. I expected a lightweight, but I came away with a favorable impression. He asked a lot of smart questions and actually listened, which is not a noteworthy quality of the Bush people.
On key national security issues, Edwards has increasingly staked out a centrist and occasionally hawkish policy, making terrorism his top focus well before Sept. 11, 2001, and pressing for a global push on democracy before Bush made it a cornerstone of his Middle East policy. Because he had been working on legislative proposals on counterterrorism, Edwards introduced a broad bill within a week of the Sept. 11 attacks to tighten seaport security, including provisions for special Coast Guard units, the use of sea marshals and inspection of high-interest vessels. A month later, he co-sponsored a bill with Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) to improve preparedness against chemical and biological terrorism. He also proposed legislation to hinder cyberterrorism. None of the three made it to the floor for a vote, but elements were included in subsequent legislation. In one of his more controversial ideas, Edwards introduced a bill to create a domestic intelligence agency, like Britain's MI5, on grounds that law enforcement and intelligence should not be in the same agency -- an idea that has met stiff resistance from the FBI. Campaign advisers predict Edwards may be ahead of his time, since the Sept. 11 commission report due out this month is certain to criticize the intelligence community -- and may even make recommendations on this issue, said Jeffrey H. Smith, a former CIA general counsel who has advised Edwards. "If there is another terrorism attack, the question will be brought to the fore: Why don't we have what everyone else like the Brits and Germans have? He's put out a thoughtful bill that should be the basis for discussions," Smith said. On the world's deadliest weapons, Edwards staked out "the most comprehensive and far-reaching" position of any other Democratic candidate, according to a survey by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. And on Iraq, the North Carolina senator was a staunch supporter of the Bush administration's argument that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, co-sponsoring the resolution authorizing the war against Iraq. "We know he has chemical and biological weapons. . . . We know that he's doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal," Edwards said on the Senate floor on Oct. 10, 2002. On Capitol Hill, Edwards won particular attention for his role in the Sept. 11 joint inquiry when he used his experience as a trial lawyer to press law enforcement officials to admit that their failure to understand the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act prevented them from issuing a warrant that could have gained access to information about two of the Sept. 11 hijackers and the Hamburg cell of al Qaeda that planned the attacks. He came off as a tough questioner who was occasionally hostile when he did not receive clear answers, congressional intelligence staff members said. In dealing with intelligence matters generally, Edwards brought a "healthy level of skepticism" to the job, a congressional staff member said. "What happens to new members is that they're like kids in a candy store. It's 007 whiz-bang stuff," he added. "But Edwards struck me as a member who's been in a lot of courtrooms and knows when he's being snowed. A lot of the members are lawyers but haven't seen the inside of courtrooms in decades and it shows. He asked tough questions." On one issue, Edwards and his running mate take strikingly different positions: how to promote democracy. While Edwards outlines ambitious programs and goals, Kerry has stuck largely to promoting free trade, public diplomacy and reinvigorating the Middle East peace process -- steps not far from the Bush administration formula. In contrast, Edwards outlined a "strategy for freedom" in January that included establishing a "democracy caucus" at the United Nations to punish nations that fail to embrace democratic reforms to exclude them from powerful positions. He also proposed an "organization for security and cooperation" in the Middle East, modeled on the former Helsinki process that pushed for freedom in Eastern Europe. The Bush administration later promoted a similar idea that was watered down after Arab protests. Edwards also suggested linking Russia's membership in the Group of Eight wealthy nations to improving democratic practices -- a position Kerry rejected during a recent interview with The Washington Post.

An amusing anecdote re Kerry's website: Earlier this spring, some wonk with time to spare, utilzing the website's own keyword search function, found the site to be liberally seasoned with what most charitably would be termed questionable language ... lotsa good-old-fashioned-anglo-saxonisms, mostly, and many of them from Kerry himself, as quoted by the likes of Rolling Stone, Time, The Washington Post, The Times of London, CNN, ABC/CBS/CNN/FNN/MSNBC/NBC, and others. The "Find" was broadly publicized on the 'net, though not played heavily by Mainstream Media. Kerry's website traffic, and use of the websites' keyword search feature, spiked dramatically as the curious verfied for themselves. Literally hundreds of impolite references would be returned. Today, however, typing the "F Word" into the search box brings up not instances of its occurrance (which numbered in the many dozens), but only references to such things as the FEC and farming.