i hope you guys have been watching a bit of this convention. mike barnacle (boston globe) said tonight, after kerry’s acceptance speech, that even after 20 years of observing and covering kerry, he’s never seen THIS kerry before.
i saw THIS kerry 15 years ago, as he chaired the senate foreign relations committee hearings on iran contra. i was certain then he’d run for president someday, and that he’d win.
nice to know that thing i saw 15 years ago wasn’t a mirage.
I just saw some coverage on the news here in Oz and the bits of his speech they showed were very good. I liked the bit about who he’d appoint:
“a Secretary of Defence who will listen to the military,
an Attorney General who will uphold the Constitution”
also
“Saying Iraq has weapons of mass destruction does not make it so,
saying we can fight a war on the cheap doesn’t make it so,
and proclaiming ‘mission accomplished’ does not make it so”
Good stuff. Fingers crossed…
I thought it was a great speech. I also liked Barack Obama and thought having him speak was a great decision. I’m now curious to see if the other side will rise to the occasion or just put out more anti Kerry rehtoric. First time in a while I listened to a political speech without falling asleep.
“I had to laugh when he mentioned overhauling our intelligence services. While I agree that changes need to be made, he barely attends senate intelligence briefings. When he said in his speech, “present and accounted for…” I again laughed…He’s missed more votes on the Senate floor than he’s attended. Where was he then?”
How does one run for President without being able to spend significant time campaigning across the country? Can we compare Sen. McCain voting record during 1999-2000 with that of Sen. Kerry’s? It might not be right - but that is the way it is done.
michael
“Saying Iraq has weapons of mass destruction does not make it so…”
Odd position, coming from a man who gave a passionate speech in the Senate saying that WMD DID exist, and that we had to squash the threat.
I guess now that Franken and Garafulo say we shouldn’t have gone in, Kerry is flip-flopping yet again. Except that his vote IN FAVOR of military action is a matter of record.
“This is prior to his heavy campaigning schedule for President.”
Provide the data - should be easy enough…
michael
“Odd position, coming from a man who gave a passionate speech in the Senate saying that WMD DID exist, and that we had to squash the threat.”
If you want to know what he really said (instead of Cousin Elwood’s interpretation), you can read the full text of his speech here:
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html
“Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.”
Bush did not allow the “tough weapons inspections”…
michael
if he was the only world leader who have made that “tough decision”, isn’t that a little bit indicative that it wasn’t the correct one?
that’s a bit arrogant. and also where our opinions diverge.
“I guess now that Franken and Garafulo say we shouldn’t have gone in, Kerry is flip-flopping yet again. Except that his vote IN FAVOR of military action is a matter of record.”
Here is a flip-flop just for you Cousin Elwood:
“When the new Department is established, employees represented by unions will continue to be represented; their bargaining units will move with them.”
“In late 2002, Bush pushed for and won legislation that allows the new Department of Homeland Security Department to strip its workers of collective bargaining rights.”
michael
Moreover, I enjoyed his bit about, “We won’t go to war because we want to, we’ll go to war because we have to.” What did that mean. . .this and other ambiguous statements have been why he is a hard candidate to get behind. So much of what he said last night was either vague or idealistic. It appears that to get the DNC nod you have to just “appear” to be saying something.
I found he was very passionate and was even articulate but I felt like I had stepped into a political vacuum after his speech. Good marks for charisma, poise, and pinache but overall failure to communicate his agenda.
Now Obama on the other hand, if he was running for president, it would be all over as that dude kicks bum!
Still, all I know is that he thinks that Bush is bad…and he is good…
Did he say ANYTHING about “I would do X” and “I would change Y”…and “THIS IS HOW”?
His speach was like a party line pep rally with a bunch of confused lunitics jumping about and yelling “yeah…what he said! Bush sucks!”
Fact is Kerry said nothing…nothing…told a few lies…made a few “suggestions” about Bush being a meanie.
Can this guy possibly be elected with no stump to stand on other than “I dont like Bush”?
I get so disenchanted with society and how STUPID it seem that the liberals are to follow this guy like lemmings.
Thanks dan e. for creating this liittle room. I think that was a good gesture. It’s your tri site and obviously you can do what you want with it. I probably would have deleted a lot of the liberal posts if it were mine!
The endless debate. Nobody is going to change anyones mind on the election on this forum but after watching very little of the Dems convention with the oddball speakers and various sympathetic celebrity political experts, I wouldn’t support anyone on that ticket or that party.
Anyone read Ann Coulter’s column that got her sacked fron the USA Today gig? I thought that was pretty good. www.anncoulter.com
Normally, each party attempts to paint the other as either extreme left or extreme right. Candidates when running in the primaries try to appeal to these extremes because that’s what gets them the nominiation. Then, when they run for President (if they are smart) they move back to the center. Then, if they are REALLY smart, they govern from the center.
My bet is they will now move to the center with their rhetoric…but I feel they will govern from the left. The extreme left. Unless they are going to suddenly turn their backs on their principles. They wouldnt’ do that would they?
I like her last paragraph:
The issues on which the parties differ are: pre-emptive attacks on terror-producing nations, gay marriage, gun control, partial-birth abortion, taxes, letting non-citizens and felons vote. But the Democrats won’t talk about those issues. This is the Democrats’ week to make-believe they are Republicans for the folks watching at home on TV. In the lingo of the delegates, this is “story time.”
Kind of hard to argue with. I didn’t hear anyone talking about issues.
She got sacked for this? Wow. What happened to free speech?
Why would you have deleted the liberal posts?
“I don’t know how the heck he’s going to pay for all of the programs he promised to increase.”
i can tell you how i’d pay for them.
as to that latter issue, our gas is too cheap. even at $2.20 per gallon, that’s half what europeans pay. i’d add a $.25 per gallon tax at the pump–in which case our gas would still be comparatively cheap–and perhaps americans would stop driving everywhere at the drop of a hat.
then i’d take a nickel of that quarter and plow it directly into a government-sponsored lab, in partnership with car makers and oil companies, and commingle these government funds with matching corporate funds (as was the case with a corporate/government lab in the 80s and 90s that brought back our microchip industry). if we exhibited a bit of national will, we’d be building, buying and exporting 90mpg cars to the rest of the world within 5 years.
that’s how you:
this is what we ought to do. it’s what we will eventually do. it’s obvious this was the outline of our future, and it was obvious 4 years ago. we could be 4 years into a program like this, and only 2 years away from a fleet of cars rolling off GM’s assy line that would be the envy of the rest of the world. but we have only taken tepid steps in this direction, not a go-to-the-moon kennedy-style program of the 60s, or a WWII military ramp-up of the 40s. we have no leader who can challenge us as a nation, hence we have no such robust program today.
instead, we’re destined to fight a war in the middle east every 5 or 10 years to protect our oil supply. if this were not the case, and if we were ONLY going to war to protect the downtrodden around the world, we’d have fought no wars in iraq and 3 or 4 in africa. try to tell me with a straight face that anything the iraqis went through compares to rwanda in the 90s, or the sudan right now.
if we keep doing what we’re doing, we’ll keep getting what we’re getting.
If you want to know what he really said (instead of Cousin Elwood’s interpretation), you can read the full text of his speech here:
I have said publicly for years that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein pose a real and grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. Saddam Hussein’s record bears this out.
I have talked about that record. Iraq never fully accounted for the major gaps and inconsistencies in declarations provided to the inspectors of the pre-Gulf war weapons of mass destruction program, nor did the Iraq regime provide credible proof that it had completely destroyed its weapons and production infrastructure.
*According to the CIA’s report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons. The more difficult question to answer is when Iraq could actually achieve this goal. That depends on is its ability to acquire weapons-grade fissile material. If Iraq could acquire this material from abroad, **the CIA estimates that it could have a nuclear weapon within 1 year. ***
*Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war–particularly unilaterally–unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction pursuant to the United Nations resolution. *
*If the President arbitrarily walks away from this course of action–without good cause or reason–the legitimacy of any subsequent action by the United States against Iraq will be challenged by the American people and the international community. And I would vigorously oppose the President doing so. *
***When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security **and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. *
This speech was given on October 9, and Kerry says Bush didn’t give Saddam enough time and that tougher weapons inspections could have solved the problem. That’s laughable. Bush gave Hussein over five months from the Senate vote, which was more than enough time. Kerry and nearly all of his colleagues voted Bush the authority to use force. So why bitch now?
“or just put out more anti Kerry rehtoric”
Huh??
I’ve been listening to Kerry for months, and his whole campaign is “Bush Sucks, vote for me because I’m not Bush…”
I haven’t heard much Kerry bashing from the Bush camp, unless you consider it bashing to notice that he got 3 purple hearts and a xfer home in four months in Nam.
This speech was given on October 9, and Kerry says Bush didn’t give Saddam enough time and that tougher weapons inspections could have solved the problem."
No, I said Bush didn’t give enough time for inspections. It’s kind of hard for inspections to work though when no WMDs exist.
michael