soz said--
I think it's quite the opposite, Sofia -- that Kerry's convictions are arrived at after careful deliberation and are from his own mind.
----------
Depending on what day it is, Kerry has straddled, and been on every side of each issue. He voted against the 87 million, because Dean was giving him a run for his money in the debates. He was pandering to the anti-war contingent of the Dem party in the primaries. This is a matter of record. One of his campaign workers spilled this delicious can of beans...Kerry votes for his own political expediency--and has been doing it so long, he doesn't know what he believes.
When you pin down such a politician, he has nowhere to turn....except accusing his opponent of smears... It works in the news cycle, but not in a debate.
Sofia wrote:He voted against the 87 million, because Dean was giving him a run for his money in the debates.
He's on record as saying that he voted against it because it was unfunded -- meaning it was 87 million in debt with no plan to pay for it.
Quote:When you pin down such a politician, he has nowhere to turn....except accusing his opponent of smears... It works in the news cycle, but not in a debate.
But, you see, this is where the whole ABB thing gets started at.
EVEN CONSIDERING what you have said, Kerry is STILL miles better than Bush, who has a long and well-documented record of saying one thing and doing another.
Quote:Depending on what day it is, Kerry has straddled, and been on every side of each issue.
Sofia, can you explain to me how Kerry is on every side of each issue, and yet is the most consistently liberal-voting senator? How can he be both?
Cycloptichorn
Because appearing to be that liberal to the more conservatives Indies and swing voters, he has come out with dubious reasons why he didn't mean to vote the way he appears to have voted.
He won't stand behind his voting record, and seems toprefer milking the swiftvet fiasco, rather than talk about his voting record.
Wouldn't you think a 20 year Senator would have spent more time--at least SOME time-- touting his record in the Senate, rather than reach back to his 35 year old 4month Vietnam service record?
Doesn't that tell you he is ashamed of it, at most, and concerned about it, in the least?
No. He doesn't have to harp on his record. What is he going to do, list off everything individually? The fact he was re-elected to the senate several times says everything he needs to say right there.
The GOP tried their best to paint him as being too soft to win the war on terror (a phrase that I think is bullsh*t, by the way). Kerry fired back with real examples of military service, not playing in the national guard.... Now Republicans are accusing him of focusing only on his military experience.
Which one is it??!!?!? Is he too soft to fight, or does he lack experience as a statesman? The reason the criticism switches back and forth is that frankly he beats Bush in both categories, so when he focuses on one, you attack the other....
You would find something to criticize no matter what he was focusing on, Sofia....
Cycloptichorn
Things we know about Kerry:
-He is a Yale graduate.
-He served valiantly in Vietnam making his country proud.
-He protested the war in Vietnam and threw his medals away.
-He married twice, to very wealthy women.
-He has an extremely liberal voting record.
-He likes to wind surf.
-He cares enough about his hair to fly his stylist out to do his hair.
-He has been in the Senate for 20 years.
-He is not George W. Bush.
That's about it. No wonder people want to know more about him.
Can you post one about Bush?
Things we know about Bush:
-He is a Yale graduate.
-He served in the National guard during Vietnam.
-He grduated Harvard with an MBA.
-He owned the Texas rangers for awhile.
-He was elected Governor of Texas twice.
-He like to work on his ranch in Crawford, Texas.
-He was elected president of the United States
-He has led the country in a war against fanatical Muslim terrorists and effectively destroyed much od al qaeda's infrastructure, funding, and leadership.
-He has done a whole lot of other things as president that I do not have time or desire to cover here.
You were doing great until you got to the last two. You left off Kerry's graduation from law school and work as a prosecutor. Isn't this fun?
I didn't know that. It certainly hasn't been spoken of much.
Isn't it fun to learn new things?
Certainly. That's why I am Able to Know. :wink:
I'm not sure one has to be a "great" orator to do well in a debate. My biggest worry is that the right questiions won't be asked or that President Bush won't go after Kerry.
Unlike many (here), I think President Bush is intelligent and has received a bad rap by some here. I think he's a man of integrity, honesty and a man of faith who is not afraid of admitting it. I wish he was a better communicator, but ultimately I think those other attibutes will shine through and we'll come away with no doubts that he does indeed put America first.
Kerry, to me, and this is only my own personal feelings about him, comes off as an elitist, as arrogant, as dishonest. No, I haven't met him, but have read until my eyes are red and I still don't care for him. He called the secret service man who was protecting him a son of a bitch for supposedly making him fall while skiing. He arrogantly proclaimed "I never fall". Baloney. Everyone falls, except maybe the Olympic skiers LOL.
I think his arrogance will show in any debate.
So, McG, you should have added those to your list on Kerry...
-Elitist
-Arrogant
-Mean
You're right.
He is mean, though.
ehBeth wrote:Can you pay someone to just show that Irish interview?
When an interviewer asks a question, and interrupts, trying to elicit a sound bite, rather than a full answer, I applaud when the subject of the interview doesn't allow them to get away with it.
Do you want his answer, or do you prefer him to be interrupted, and not allowed to give his answer?
Condi did the same thing, when the Dems on the 911 Commission tried to cut off her answers.
Sozobe wrote: "I think it's quite the opposite, Sofia -- that Kerry's convictions are arrived at after careful deliberation and are from his own mind. Bush, on the other hand, has several very strongly held GENERAL convictions, but has little patience or mind for the details, and so is the one who needs to have someone with large cue cards telling him what to say if there is anything beyond general platitudes heavy on "faith" and "strength"."
Ditto.
I have changed my mind on several political issues over the years; I like to think it's a form of growth.
re Sofia's comment on "doing the same thing but differently".
Could it be that Kerry was suggesting he would also fight the war on terrorism, with every fiber of his being, but differently ? Perhaps he would use respectful diplomacy to garner multinational support (as the elder Bush did) before he took military action, in Iraq or elsewhere. Perhaps he would use our leverage as a superpower to inspire and negotiate, rather than to insult, demean, and intimidate. Perhaps he would use his brain to generate a truly effective strategy against terrorism, using both overt and covert multinational cooperation, rather than a pseudo-macho, simplistic, "cowboy" gut reaction in complex situations that might actually require careful thought.
Wouldn't THAT be "doing the same thing, but differently"?
Thoughtful as opposed to rash. Reasonable as opposed to stubborn. Respectful as opposed to arrogant. Heroic as opposed to ....well... .
Someone who would stress our commonality as Americans and as human beings rather than use our differences to divide us. Someone whose bravery and wisdom would make us truly safer against terrorism, rather than someone whose arrogance and shortsightedness have fueled the ranks of our enemies.
Bush ran as a moderate "regular guy" type. His record has shown that he is neither, prefering to align himself with extremists economically, militarily, and socially.
Fool me once ........
