PDA

View Full Version : Kerry scores rousing victory!!!!!!!



hondo
10-01-2004, 05:04 AM
Kerry was charming, personable, and insightful.
He answered his critics, challenged George to admit
his mistakes, and coasted to an easy win. Every
Republican I've talked to said they've changed
their mind and are now voting for Kerry. Congratulations
Senator Kerry.

Wally_in_Cincy
10-01-2004, 05:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr>
...Every
Republican I've talked to said they've changed
their mind and are now voting for Kerry. .... <hr /></blockquote>

Uh... OK /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Wally &lt;~~ doubts that hondo even talks to Republicans /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

highsea
10-01-2004, 06:22 AM
I think Kerry did a very good job overall in the debate, considering he doesn't really have a plan on what to do with Iraq. What he did well was to continue to criticize Bush without really offering up any new ideas.

Bush scored a couple points on Iran and North Korea though. Kerry's plan for bilateral talks is not a good idea, imo, and Bush was clear on that point. Kerry came off as petulant when he criticized the US sanctions on Iran, something that was put in place in 1979 by Carter. Bush could have hit back a little harder on that point, but at least he mentioned that that was something that he inherited, not his creation. North Korea was about the about the only place where Kerry actually showed a difference to Bush in policy.

When asked what the #1 threat to the security of the US, I think Bush answered better. Kerry snapped back "nuclear proliferation", without even a pause. You could tell it was a canned response. Bush better qualified his reply with "WMD's in the hands of terrorist groups" as the biggest threat.

Overall, Kerry came off as cool and collected and more articulate, whereas Bush stumbled a couple of times in his responses. Kerry is definitely the better speaker, but suffered by using the debate to just criticize, rather than offering up any new ideas.

So I will score the debate as a Kerry win, but I don't think it will translate to much in the way of votes for Kerry.

-CM

Qtec
10-01-2004, 07:06 AM
Well done mate. there,s hope for you yet. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Kerry knows that the US cant do the job in Iraq on their own. GW stubbornly refuses to accept this fact. Kerry is diplomatic, GW is a bull in a China shop. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
Q

pooltchr
10-01-2004, 07:20 AM
I would agree that Kerry out performed W on the stage. I think calling it a "rousing victory" is quite a stretch.

stickman
10-01-2004, 08:20 AM
I felt that Kerry won on style. He should. He was prepared for a style show with his liquid tan and his pedicure. I wasn't sure if he dyed his hair or not. He didn't seem to be as gray as I thought I had seen him previously. As Arnold might so elquently say, don't be a girly man. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif On substance, I gave it to Bush. The rousing victory will be determined in Nov.

eg8r
10-01-2004, 09:06 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Kerry was charming, personable, and insightful.
He answered his critics, challenged George to admit
his mistakes, and coasted to an easy win. Every
Republican I've talked to said they've changed
their mind and are now voting for Kerry. Congratulations
Senator Kerry. <hr /></blockquote> I have not read any news on this today, however you are the very first person I have seen that believes Kerry scored a "rousing" victory. He might have handled himself well, however he still flip flopped on some issues. He continues to call this the wrong war, wrong time, etc however he is ignoring his admission that given all the data we have to date he would still approve the war. This statement stunned the Dems a few months ago, and he has since changed his view. Now it is back to this all being wrong and we were misled by Bush, however he came to his own conclusions (approval for war) after reading the same documentation as Bush. He was not swayed at all by Bush yet he still approved the war.

Every Republican that you have talked to has changed their minds after watching one "debate". These are the most fickle human beings on the planet. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I would be wary of their quick switch to the dark side, if only because there are a couple more debates and with them shifting so quickly you might not have time to get out of their way.

The one thing I liked about the debate was when W made it clear that Kerry continues to say he would re-build our alliances and add new integrity to the White House, yet he continues to denigrate foreign leaders. If Kerry was really honest about improving foreign relations, especially in working with Iraq, he would not be referring to them as puppets.

eg8r

hondo
10-01-2004, 09:07 AM
[My wife, mother-in-law, favorite uncle and car pooling buddy are republicans.



quote=Wally_in_Cincy] <blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr>
...Every
Republican I've talked to said they've changed
their mind and are now voting for Kerry. .... <hr /></blockquote>

Uh... OK /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Wally &lt;~~ doubts that hondo even talks to Republicans /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif <hr /></blockquote>

SpiderMan
10-01-2004, 09:11 AM
Although I do not like Kerry's ideas, ideals, plans, or motives, and do not want him in the White House, I agree that he turned in a much better performance.

I listed to the radio broadcast of the debate (no TV access), and I thought that Bush sounded "whining" in much of his oratory. He also had lapses in his speaking that made it seem as if he were struggling to organize his response.

Voters straddling the fence, if able to be swayed by characteristics such as perceived organization and composure, would tend to be drawn closer to Kerry.

SpiderMan

hondo
10-01-2004, 09:13 AM
YOU're right, eg. They're flip-floppers.

Every Republican that you have talked to has changed their minds after watching one "debate". These are the most fickle human beings on the planet. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I would be wary of their quick switch to the dark side, if only because there are a couple more debates and with them shifting so quickly you might not have time to get out of their way.

The one thing I liked about the debate was when W made it clear that Kerry continues to say he would re-build our alliances and add new integrity to the White House, yet he continues to denigrate foreign leaders. If Kerry was really honest about improving foreign relations, especially in working with Iraq, he would not be referring to them as puppets.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
10-01-2004, 09:22 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Kerry knows that the US cant do the job in Iraq on their own. GW stubbornly refuses to accept this fact. Kerry is diplomatic, GW is a bull in a China shop. <hr /></blockquote> Did you even pay attention to the debate. There plenty of references to other countries helping in Iraq. It is obvious that you just don't understand the difference between Kerry and Bush. Both are asking for help from the rest of the world. The difference between the two is that Kerry beleives the UN should govern the US and Bush believes the US should govern the US. Kerry wants the UN to take control of the rebuilding effort, Bush does not want to give control to an entity that had nothing to do with the successful trouncing of Saddam. Kerry would like the UN to be able to try US citizens in International court of law, Bush does not agree. US citizens should be tried by US courts, not an international court.

We have a commercial running in our area in which Kerry is stating an actual bold faced lie. This is not even a dirty trick, he is blatantly lying. His statement in the commercial is that Bush decided to "go it alone" in reference to Iraq. This could not be further from the truth. Last night Bush mentioned 3 other countries that were right along side of us. The libs have unsuccessfully tried to paint our attack as unilateral and that could not be further from the truth. When Kerry makes these lies, he is telling Tony Blair that he does not recognize Britain as another country and surely he does not recognize them as an ally. Kerry's reference to quantity of troops is his way of telling them that they are insignificant. This is not very diplomatic, and he loses credibility with every attack.

Another bit of contrasting arguments from Kerry is that he feels we should have had other countries, allies, help us with Iraq, however in the Korea situation, Kerry is wanting to toss the others by the wayside and let the US handle it alone. Kerry wants bilateral negotiations, and Bush says that is the wrong thing. There is no reason to remove the other 4or 5 countries from the negotiations but that is exactly what this "diplomat" is suggesting we do. This is another example of Kerry stepping on other countries with complete disregard.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
10-01-2004, 09:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote stickman:</font><hr> I felt that Kerry won on style. ....

On substance, I gave it to Bush. .... <hr /></blockquote>

Bingo !

Cueless Joey
10-01-2004, 09:59 AM
Well, the poll shows 51% of the voters are going to vote for Bush. 47% for Kerry.
Kerry needs to win the next two.
Btw, was he really taking notes?

Qtec
10-01-2004, 10:22 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Did you even pay attention to the debate. <font color="blue">Yes I did. Did you? </font color> There plenty of references to other countries helping in Iraq. <font color="blue"> Oh yes. GB, Poland, Bonga Bonga etc /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif</font color> It is obvious that you just don't understand the difference between Kerry and Bush. <font color="blue"> I think I do. </font color> Both are asking for help from the rest of the world. The difference between the two is that Kerry beleives the UN should govern the US <font color="blue"> No he doesnt. </font color> and Bush believes the US should govern the US. <font color="blue"> You might be right. </font color> Kerry wants the UN to take control of the rebuilding effort, Bush does not want to give control to an entity that had nothing to do with the successful trouncing of Saddam. <font color="blue"> So you think Iraq is a prize and the bounty should go to supporters of the present Admin?ie Haliburton. </font color> Kerry would like the UN to be able to try US citizens in International court of law, Bush does not agree. US citizens should be tried by US courts, not an international court. <font color="blue"> The idea of the Int.Court is that no matter where you are, what country you live in, anyone who commits crimes against humanity,[ie Genocide,mass murder etc] you will be brought to justice before a court of Law. GW says 75% of the top of Al Q have been brought to justice? How many have been brought before a court , tried and convicted? Have a guess? Its probably close to ZERO! GW doesnt like Laws, thats obvious.</font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

Q

hondo
10-01-2004, 10:55 AM
[Nah, he was drawing caricatures of GW making all
those funny faces.

quote=Cueless Joey] Well, the poll shows 51% of the voters are going to vote for Bush. 47% for Kerry.
Kerry needs to win the next two.
Btw, was he really taking notes? <hr /></blockquote>

Cueless Joey
10-01-2004, 11:20 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Nah, he was drawing caricatures of GW making all
those funny faces <hr /></blockquote>
LOL. Bush people need to tell him to stop looking like a dope. The Kerry people need to tell him to stop pretending like he's taking notes and bobbing his head.
Kerry needs to stop nagging as well.
Bush needs to stop " American People" in every other sentence. He needs to stop smirking as well. I know he thinks Kerry is a clown. But, Kerry thinks he's a clown as well.
Kerry frowns too much. Bush has that half-azz smile look too often.
Bush did not go for the kill at the end. He was tired or just not too smart.
Kerry needs to be more specific not wishy-washy.
Gawd these two are awful. They need to stop campaigning at the podium.

dg-in-centralpa
10-01-2004, 01:30 PM
I wouldn't call it a rousing victory. Kerry should do better at a debate since he was on the debate team in college. Does that make him a better leader? Not to me. I wasn't overly impressed with either and I only listened to 15 minutes. All Kerry did was criticize GW, but didn't offer any solutions. GW seemed like he was lost for words a few times. It's ok to criticize the leader and point out all he's doing wrong, but then tell me what you'll do different. Kerry was complaining about not using more sanctions. How long does he want this to go on? Carter started the sanctions back in '79, not Bush 1 or 2.

DG

landshark77
10-01-2004, 01:44 PM
hondo-

Your statement is now invalid. I am a registered Republican, and I watched the debate last night (the first presidential debate that I have ever watched, BTW). I am still for Bush and I feel Kerry was FAR from a "rousing victory". The man can not even tell us what his plan is. How is he going to do all that stuff he was talking about. Don't you want to know what you are voting for? If he is going to increase funding for first responders then I wanna know where the money is coming from. Is he going to increase taxes or is he going to cut funding from other programs and if he is going to cut funding then how will he determine which funding gets cut. If he were serious about this election then he would tell us. The absence of informing the public equals the absence of a plan, IMO. Heck, I can get up on stage a rattle off what I do not like about certain people and ideas and I bet I can capture a following, but with out a plan to solve the woos that I find unappealing my following will not increase.If Kerry wants to win he best start telling us what's up instead of keeping the people in the dark. I agree 100% with Bush when he was asked if Kerry wins can he protect us from terror. "That's not going to happen. I don't think he is going to win."

Fair_Play
10-01-2004, 01:57 PM
Q, please do not read. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif (only cause he is better at posting than me)

As a debater Catsup John won hands down. The real problem, as I see it, is that GW didn't have the presence of mind to tell Heinz that the Treblinka subways were not shut down. (Lubyanka/RNC Convention).

Kerry is smarter, better groomed, better educated, taller, and has more money (wifeys) than GW. And he will make a "witty" leader, because no matter which way people want to go, he will be right center rear left, depending on the polls.. and as for insulting foreign leaders? He has never insulted Kofi Anan, has he?

This guy is a bad joke in a dimly lit pool hall, and the table is tilted. Now, I have said before that I have problems with GW - and it would be nice to have a realistic third party candidate - but how in the world anyone can believe that Kerry is not the sum total of all of his past and present actions I do not know. That is the mystery of it all. The guy has steamer trunks full of personal and heartfelt values to suit any audience. Yes, he is sharp, a regular straight razor held in the hand of a surreal madman. /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif

All the Best!

rukiddingme
10-01-2004, 02:09 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Did you even pay attention to the debate. <font color="blue">Yes I did. Did you? </font color> There plenty of references to other countries helping in Iraq. <font color="blue"> Oh yes. GB, Poland, Bonga Bonga etc /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif</font color> It is obvious that you just don't understand the difference between Kerry and Bush. <font color="blue"> I think I do. </font color> Both are asking for help from the rest of the world. The difference between the two is that Kerry beleives the UN should govern the US <font color="blue"> No he doesnt. </font color> and Bush believes the US should govern the US. <font color="blue"> You might be right. </font color> Kerry wants the UN to take control of the rebuilding effort, Bush does not want to give control to an entity that had nothing to do with the successful trouncing of Saddam. <font color="blue"> So you think Iraq is a prize and the bounty should go to supporters of the present Admin?ie Haliburton. </font color> Kerry would like the UN to be able to try US citizens in International court of law, Bush does not agree. US citizens should be tried by US courts, not an international court. <font color="blue"> The idea of the Int.Court is that no matter where you are, what country you live in, anyone who commits crimes against humanity,[ie Genocide,mass murder etc] you will be brought to justice before a court of Law. GW says 75% of the top of Al Q have been brought to justice? How many have been brought before a court , tried and convicted? Have a guess? Its probably close to ZERO! GW doesnt like Laws, thats obvious.</font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

Q <hr /></blockquote>
Q...I must agree with your responses...not to plagerize others but you are right on the money.
B I N G O !!!

Deeman2
10-01-2004, 02:16 PM
Sadly, a lot of Americans are looking for just what they saw last night, whom is the most appealing speaker, not on substance and issues. If we elect a leader for his hair, height and intonation skills we all deserve what we get. Maybe we should just have a reality based TV election where the prettiest gets a rose and the other does not.

I will scurry my butt back to the pool related forum and wait for the next Mr. America contest to see who had the tallest stature and what facial expressions exclude them from being the leader of the free world. That is, if it's o.k. with the Global Court of Popular Opinion. France can just call it in for us.

Yes, it's about oil and security for a region that hates us, has hated us through many generations and will hate us for many more. Let the oil dry up and become a political weapon and none of you will care how we get it or what we have to do to keep it coming. That, my friends is a cold, hard fact.

Deeman

highsea
10-01-2004, 02:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>Another bit of contrasting arguments from Kerry is that he feels we should have had other countries, allies, help us with Iraq, however in the Korea situation, Kerry is wanting to toss the others by the wayside and let the US handle it alone. Kerry wants bilateral negotiations, and Bush says that is the wrong thing. There is no reason to remove the other 4or 5 countries from the negotiations but that is exactly what this "diplomat" is suggesting we do. eg8r<hr /></blockquote>That is a good point, Ed. Basically, Kerry wants to go back to the Clinton policy on North Korea, which was a dismal failure. The 1994 Agreed Framework just pushed NK's weapons program into the closet where we couldn't see what they were doing. It was a simple matter for NK to go to Pakistan and get the centrifuge technology. Now they have at least 2 nukes, and they have weaponised enough uranium for 6 more. And they have the delivery systems to hit Japan and the west coast of the US.

And Kerry wants to cancel the missile defense program, so the US would have no counter to an attack. Kerry is living in fantasyland if he thinks NK is just going to give up their nukes because he asks them to. The only country that can force NK to do that is China, and the only way they will do that is in self-defense, i.e. if the US agrees to keep nukes out of Japan.

GW was dead on when he said China would be happy to bow out. Nothing would please Beijing more than to walk away from the NK crisis. It's only the US pressure in the UNSC that keeps them at the table. China knows that if they continue to support Pyongyan's nuclear weapons program that the US will end up putting nukes in Japan. This is our only real leverage against NK, and if China is allowed to walk away from the negotiations, it will make the US look like the bad guys when push comes to shove.

Kerry makes a big deal of his so-called diplomacy, as if he could ever get France or Germany to pony up support for the US in Iraq. Hell, there are only 1300 NATO troops in Afghanistan out of the 3000 or so promised, and I hope Karzai isn't counting on any more to show up, cause it ain't going to happen.

eg8r
10-02-2004, 08:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Did you even pay attention to the debate. <font color="blue">Yes I did. Did you? </font color> There plenty of references to other countries helping in Iraq. <font color="blue"> Oh yes. GB, Poland, Bonga Bonga etc /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif</font color> It is obvious that you just don't understand the difference between Kerry and Bush. <font color="blue"> I think I do. </font color> Both are asking for help from the rest of the world. The difference between the two is that Kerry beleives the UN should govern the US <font color="blue"> No he doesnt. </font color> and Bush believes the US should govern the US. <font color="blue"> You might be right. </font color> Kerry wants the UN to take control of the rebuilding effort, Bush does not want to give control to an entity that had nothing to do with the successful trouncing of Saddam. <font color="blue"> So you think Iraq is a prize and the bounty should go to supporters of the present Admin?ie Haliburton. </font color> Kerry would like the UN to be able to try US citizens in International court of law, Bush does not agree. US citizens should be tried by US courts, not an international court. <font color="blue"> The idea of the Int.Court is that no matter where you are, what country you live in, anyone who commits crimes against humanity,[ie Genocide,mass murder etc] you will be brought to justice before a court of Law. GW says 75% of the top of Al Q have been brought to justice? How many have been brought before a court , tried and convicted? Have a guess? Its probably close to ZERO! GW doesnt like Laws, thats obvious.</font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

Q <hr /></blockquote> Judging from your response it is obvious you did not pay attention.

Thank goodness Bush has the guts to stand up for the American people and let the American people judge themselves. We do not need to be judged by any other country, especially when we are defending ourselves.

eg8r

Fair_Play
10-02-2004, 09:07 AM
Interesting times... the Candidates words:

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

"What I've always said is - and I defended Bill Clinton's position, and I would defend the president's choice with respect to going into the Guard. I've never made any judgments about any choice somebody made about avoiding the draft, about going to Canada, going to jail, being a conscientious objector, going into the National Guard."

"I'm fascinated by rap and by hip-hop. I think there's a lot of poetry in it. There's a lot of anger, a lot of social energy in it. And I think you'd better listen to it pretty carefully, 'cause it's important."

"President Clinton was often known as the first black president. I wouldn't be upset if I could earn the right to be the second."

"I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

"We need a new approach to national security - a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush Administration."

"I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy, they look at you and say, you've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy, things like that."

All the Best,

Fair Play

sliprock
10-03-2004, 12:34 PM
He made an impressive showing if you can dis-regard the "flip-flops" from some of his earlier speeches along with the "un-truths" concerning the other topics.

I guess it doesn't matter with the anti-Bush crowd. Kerry changes his position more than his underwear. His actions in the Senate contradict nearly everthing he says.

He votes against supplemental funding for Iraq, and then says that the troops are doing without Body armour. He's a joke.

Qtec
10-03-2004, 12:51 PM
Wrong on all counts! Do some checking. Find the truth.

Q

Fair_Play
10-03-2004, 01:43 PM
Q, you are right, you know.

Seems to me just a simple and fundamental difference of opinion.. as to the vote, Q, you are right (should I have said left?) /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

What is wrong with peace, AND a weak military? Tongue in cheek on that one, of course. However, 20 years of Kerry's voting down any and every military weapons program is absolutely not wrong, just his point of view.

We would not be a threat to world harmony if our troops were naked, and armed with rocks. Then we would be loved. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Best Regards,

Fair Play

sliprock
10-03-2004, 02:26 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Wrong on all counts! Do some checking. Find the truth.

Q <hr /></blockquote>

You're right Q. I should research the facts before spouting my mouth off..

Kerry's Claim: Instead Of Using U.S. Forces To Capture Osama Bin Laden, The President Outsourced The Job To Afghan Warlords, Who Let Bin Laden Slip Away.

Fact:Tommy Franks Says It's "Absolutely Incorrect" That Resources Were Diverted From Afghanistan. GEN. FRANKS: "I caught just a part of a news conference that [Kerry] gave wherein he talked about how bad it was that the Commander-in-Chief had taken troops away from me and put those out of Afghanistan and put those troops to work in Iraq. Sean, that's absolutely incorrect. You know, hey, my name's Tommy Franks, and I don't lie. Reading my book the way you have, I would refer you to page 386 of my book where we go ahead and we talk about the fact that the President used to stress to me every day his concern that we should not distract from Afghanistan and the fight there while we were conducting Iraq. We entered Iraq with 9,500 troopers in Afghanistan. And by the time we finished major combat in Afghanistan-or in Iraq-we had 10,000 troops in Afghanistan." (ABC Radio's "The Sean Hannity Show," 9/21/04)

Kerry's Claim: Iraqi Reconstruction Is Too Expensive, The $200 Billion Should Be Spent In America.

Flip-Flop:Kerry Previously Said We Should Increase Funding To Iraq "By Whatever Number Of Billions Of Dollars It Takes To Win." MR. RUSSERT: "Do you believe that we should reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?" SEN. KERRY: "No. I think we should increase it." MR. RUSSERT: "Increase funding?" SEN. KERRY: "Yes." MR. RUSSERT: "By how much?" SEN. KERRY: "By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq, Tim...." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 8/31/03)

Kerry's Claim: President Bush Went To War Without Fully Equipping Our Troops With Body Armor.

Fact:Every Solider And Marine In Iraq Had Body Armor, But Only Some Had Brand New Interceptor Body Armor, While Others Had Older Model. JOINT CHIEFS VICE CHAIRMAN PETER PACE: "Every soldier and Marine on the ground over had body armor. The difference is, is that our industry has produced an even better body armor than what we have, so what the folks went over to the war with is what we've been wearing for several years, which is body armor that's very, very good against a certain caliber of munition. The new body armor is better against large caliber munition, industry produced it and Congress funded it and industries producing as fast as they can and as fast as they're making it we're getting it to Iraq. The projection is that by December of this year [2003] everybody in Iraq will have the new armor, so everybody has armor it's the difference between whether they have the most recent capacity armor or the armor that we've been wearing body armor that we've been wearing for a couple years." (U.S. Department Of Defense Website, "Secretary Rumsfeld And Gen. Pace Stakeout At The House Of Representatives," http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20031021-secdef0805.html, 10/21/03)

Fact:Kerry Said He Was "Proud" That He And Edwards Voted Against $87 Billion In Funding For U.S. Soldiers, Then Said His Vote Against Body Armor And Supplies For Troops Was "Complicated." (John Kerry, Remarks At "Women's Voices: A Luncheon With John Kerry," Boston, MA, 7/12/04; MSNBC's "Imus In The Morning," 7/15/04)

Kerry's Claim: Kerry Claims He Has Only One Position On Iraq.

Postion#1:
October 2002: Kerry Voted For Use Of Force Resolution Against Iraq.
Position #2:
April 2003: Kerry Promised Not To Attack President When War Began, But Weeks Later, With Troops Just Miles From Baghdad, Kerry Broke His Pledge And Called For "Regime Change In The United States."
Position #3:
May 2003: In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President's Action In Iraq.
Position #4:
September 2003: Kerry Said Voting Against The $87 Billion Supplemental Would Be "Irresponsible."
Position #5:
October 2003: Kerry Voted Against The $87 Billion Supplemental Supporting Our Troops.
Position #6:
January 2004: After Voting For War And Trailing Candidate Howard Dean In The Democrat Primaries, Kerry Says He Is Anti-War Candidate.
Position #7:
August 2004: In Response To President's Question About How He Would Have Voted If He Knew Then What He Knows Now, Kerry Confirmed That He Would Still Have Voted For Use Of Force Resolution.
Position #8:
September 2004: Kerry: Iraq Is "The Wrong War In The Wrong Place At The Wrong Time."

Kerry's Claim: Just 5,000 Iraqi Soldiers Have Been Fully Trained, And Of The 35,000 Police Now In Uniform, Not One Has Completed A 24-Week Field-Training Program.

Truth:The U.S. Army General In Charge Of Training Effort In Iraq Says There Are "164,000 Iraqi Police And Soldiers (Of Which About 100,000 Are Trained And Equipped) And An Additional 74,000 Facility Protection Forces." "Today approximately 164,000 Iraqi police and soldiers (of which about 100,000 are trained and equipped) and an additional 74,000 facility protection forces are performing a wide variety of security missions. Equipment is being delivered. Training is on track and increasing in capacity. Infrastructure is being repaired. Command and control structures and institutions are being reestablished." (Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, US Army, "Battling for Iraq," Washington Post, 9/26/04)

Thanks Again Q. By challenging me to do a little research, I have found that my opinions on Kerry being an Idiot were dead on. Not to mention the feeling I get knowing my views are based on facts and not emotion. Have a great day.

Chris Cass
10-03-2004, 09:15 PM
Hi Highseas,

I'm not the political pro as most are that talk polotics. I'm very weak in this area. I do have a question for you that maybe you can help me out with. I was under the understanding that the man in charge of the debate was also the only one that made up the questions. Also, that noone would know what the questions would be on.

I was impressed that he could hold the students down from clapping or cheering any answers by the canadates. I thought he had a staff of people coming up with the questions. I also know they'll be 3 such people asking questions too. Out of the 3 I've heard that all 3 were libirals. Now, why would Bush agree to that? Don't they have a choice in the matter? Also, why would the man say he thought of all the questions when isn't it clear he had a team of his own?

Well, two questions. lol

C.C.

highsea
10-03-2004, 11:55 PM
Hey CC,

The formats and rules change from debate to debate. The Commission on Presidential Debates is the governing entity. The rules and formats are agreed on by the parties in advance, and submitted to the CPD, who is responsible for the actual production. IIRC the agreement was a 37 page document that covered everything from the temperature in the room to the spacing of the podiums, etc.

In the first and third debates, the moderator selects all topics and questions. I imagine Jim Lehrer had a staff that helped him prepare, but the choice of topics and questions was his alone. Lehrer is experienced at this, and I didn't think he was partisan in his questions.

The focus of the debates is decided in advance, so both candidates knew the questions were to be on Foreign Policy, but they were not given the questions in advance. But it's a given that certain questions will be asked, like "What's the biggest threat to America today?" Lol. You can be sure both candidates knew that one was coming.

The moderator has complete leeway in asking follow-up questions and encouraging direct exchanges between the candidates. He really can do whatever he wants as long as he stays within the broad guidelines of the topic, and enforces the time restrictions.

As far as crowd control, I'm sure it was pretty strictly enforced. But the kids were well behaved, I agree. There were probably only about 300 Secret Service agents in the room, lol.

The second debate will be a town hall style debate. The participants will be chosen by the Gallup Organization from undecided voters in the St. Louis area. They will ask their questions directly, but they have to review their questions with the moderator in advance to insure no duplication of questions. The moderator will be allowed to ask follow up questions, but he is not supposed to influence the participant's choice of questions. About all he can say is "Someone else is asking that one, ask something else." The moderator will be Charles Gibson from ABC (Good Morning America).

The third debate will be moderated by Bob Shiffer from CBS (Face the Nation). The rules will be the same as the first debate, but the focus will be on Domestic Policy.

As far as the politics of the moderators, I suppose they could slant their questions, but I think they try hard not to. The CPD is pretty strict about being non-partisan, and if the mods went overboard, they would probably never do another Presidential Debate. It's a pretty prestigous thing for a newsman, and they don't want to screw up.

But the next debate could be a free-for-all, because it's just "Average Joes" coming up with the questions, and there is no defined focus of the debate. Should be interesting to watch.

-CM

Wally_in_Cincy
10-04-2004, 05:51 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>

...The second debate will be a town hall style debate. The participants will be chosen by the Gallup Organization from undecided voters in the St. Louis area.... <hr /></blockquote>

Oh God.

Oh the inanity !!!

I wonder if Pony-tail Boy from 1992 will be there.

quote Pony-tail Boy: <font color="red">President Bush, I regard the American people as your children. What are you going to do to help your children? </font color>

If I was Bush 41 I would have said "Your a grown man fer chrissakes. Take care of your own damn self" /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif