What does Kerry need to do to win?
 

The campaign is rounding second base right now. We're not quite to the home stretch just yet, but we're certainly over the hump. The conventions are over, and the money is even and limited. Current polling trends indicate a move back towards the incumbent. How large that move is depends on who you ask, and on what direction you lean.

Consider that an introduction. Here's what I think about the question at hand.

Kerry's campaign has been plagued by two main problems. One, they have been continually distracted by small battles over news stories and issues, and have neglected the overall war to get into the White House. The Swift Boat Vet fiasco is only one extreme example of this. Two, the campaign has been spoiled by having too many chiefs, and not enough indians at the top. This is a byproduct of the wide field in the primary, and of the transition from a divided party to a unified party.

So, what does Kerry need to DO? He's already shaken up his campaign leadership. I don't think it would be wise for him to do it again before the election, so may or may not have already solved problem number 2. We'll find out soon enough. Two, he needs to get a message, or a line of attack, and hammer it home every day until the election. The message needs to be simple, political, and endlessly repeated. It must be short, free of nuance, and sharp. Three, he needs to get his message out through surrogates. John Edwards needs to start going on television. Every loyal democratic official, pundit, candidate, etc. needs to be out there spouting that simple message.

Kerry needs to tie Bush to the deteriorating situation in Iraq. That seems to be his strategy for the home stretch. Hopefully, he'll refine that message and stick with it.

Well, since I belong to the ABB party, it pains me greatly to say this.

But Kerry is finished.

Kerry has sunk his own boat really.

The only thing that will kill Bush right now is a major sex scandal. Bush needs to have his version of the blue dress come forward.

Other than that, I can't see Kerry overcoming this. Some polls have him on the wrong end of 54 / 40 percent.

God, 4 more years of that moron.

Wrong.

That message appeals to the Kerry core, and not everyone believes it. (I, for one, think the Iraq situation is ok.) He needs to appeal to the undecided voter and to the marginal Bush voter. Once message will do that. John Edwards has pushed it a little:

"Let me say this in the simplest possible terms: When John Kerry is President of the United States, we will find al-Qaida where they are and crush them before they can do damage to the American people," Edwards said.

I would modify that to "terrorists." That message will appeal to everyone (except the guys who think Afghanastan was wrong. There's no hope for them.)

Kerry is in a tough, tough position.
To beat a President who led the country through a hostile foreign attack of the magnitude of 9/11 is probably not likely to happen. It is a Democratic candidate's worst nightmare, I would think.

In saying that, I think Kerry's only choice will be to keep on doing what he's been doing and continue to characterize the Iraq War - Bush's strongest platform - as a fiasco, quagmire, needless, costly, ie., every buzzword they can think of. He's been speaking to domestic issues some, such as health care, economy, etc. but not too much. His overriding attention has been on US foreign policy. The Repubs have home-court advantage in this election.

Bush has sex?
Oh yeah, those daughters...
(Adopted?)

I agree completely. I watched his daughter (Vanessa - the med student) speak several weeks ago and wish she was running instead of her dad. She gave a powerful speech and came straight out and accused Bush of wrongdoing. Much more passionate than her dad, and much more willing to fight.

Kerry's been avoiding a fight for far too long. Even if he adopts a good campaign strategy (um. . fight BACK for chrissakes!) now, I don't think he can catch up to the momentum Bush has gained with his attacks on Kerry.

Yeah, Kerry comes off as a huge puss. He never seems to really go on the offensive or fight back.

Maybe if he does rather well in the debates, he could pull it off. I just don't see him winning though.

Every poll about Iraq recently is the question "Who do you think can handle the situation in Iraq Better?" A lot of the talk on CNN is about who can fix the situation in Iraq. Things like "Bush caused this mess" or "This is Bush's Problem" or "Kerry would inherit the war and have to deal with it" are said all the time, every day.
How can anyone think the situation in Iraq is ok. The report came out saying the BEST outcome by 2005 is a tenuous stability, worst is civil war. HOW IS THAT GOOD?! 1000 americans dead, many times more wounded. Forces stretched thin, reservists over there. American civilian decapitated earlier today. HOW IS THIS GOOD?

A poll on Paula Zhan Now a half hour or so ago on CNN showed 78% people think that Kerry can handle the war in Iraq better than Bush. I think this is a direct result of Kerry's speach midday today. Kerry finally laid down his plan for Iraq, and a lot of people have responded. I'll be very interested to see a more diverse poll result in the coming week.

I think you guys are doing two things. One, you're forgetting how quickly things are going to happen in the final weeks of the race, and two, the question wasn't "can he win?" it was "what does he need to do in order to win?"

Sure, some polls have Kerry down 14 points. They're called "outliers." There are other polls that have Bush up by only 3-4 points (Zogby, Investors Daily/CSM, Pew, Harris). There have been questions about Gallup's methodology, which seems to greatly overstate possible Republican voter turnout. So, perhaps the polls are more of a wash, though they do show a trend.

So, Bush has some momentum, and the polls are moving his way. The same thing happened to Kerry two weeks ago. Like I said: we've got quite a ways to go yet, and things are going to happen fast.

For those reasons, I don't think Bush is home free just yet. Iraq is looking worse and worse by the day (and anyone who denies it needs a reality check). When Robert Novak speculates that Bush plans a unilateral withdrawl after the election, you know things are pretty grim.

So that brings us back to Kerry. On the premise that he can still win (which is quite plausible, no matter how easy it is to imagine a Bush landslide at this point in time), what mix of rhetoric, strategy, and tactics will give a victory in November?

On this very same day 4 years ago, Gallup said that Al Gore was leading George Bush by 10 points. A little over a month later, a couple weeks before the election, they claimed that Bush was leading Gore by 13 points. In the end, Gore won by a small percentage. It's not over til it's over.

As far as the stuff about Kerry not going on the offensive, I'm guessing you didn't see his speech today. Read it hear:
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=36502

I think Kerry could do a better job of utilizing the media. He needs to settle on a talking point or attack and repeat it until it sticks. There are so many ways to attack this president, its easy to get into the trap of just listing all his mistakes. This doesn't play well in the media though.

I think the debates are where Kerry can really do some damage to Bush. This is when he can force President Bush to answer the questions that the media doesn't want to ask.

If only that were true. The way the debates are currently, they are carefully crafted so that each candidate knows every question ahead of time and so that there is little more than opportunities for sound bites for each of them.

I think that Kerry needs to destroy Bush in the debates to have a chance. And I don't think he has that ability. Bush will be ready to go, and isn't a slouch when it comes to debates from all accounts.

If that doesn't happen, then some sort of major defeat in Iraq on the order of being pushed out of Baghdad and other places by militants. Basically, a disaster for our military.

Finally, some internal scandal, such as discovering he really didn't serve in the ANG, or knew 9-11 was coming, something like that would be needed.

Outside of those, I can't see Kerry coming back like he needs to in order to win.

what doesw kerry need to do to win:

Show up...
seriously, this race is giong to be too close to call when the time comes....

and i'm still predicting a 'problem' in ohio or florida or both...

the other way kerry can win: kill bush :) totally joking

but seriously, this race is just going to be close based on the hatred and love for bush. You could have bush vs an untrained chimp and this race would still be too close to call until election day....

and it is sad that the only way bush would fully lose ahead of the election is to have a sexual affair....Human lives don't matter so much, but someone, somewhere having sex with someoen else, somewhere else....that's just heinous..

Unfortunately Kerry is not a strong contender against Bush. He needs to appeal to the middle and upper class, have a viable jobs iniative, a terrorism solution and an exit plan for Iraq. Right now he can't decide what color his sky is.

I really do wish we had a true leader running for president.

Well that's the problem right there. He can decide. He does decide. But Bush has convinced the sheeple that Kerry flip flops.

He doesn't flip flop any more than Bush, first off. Second off, Kerry's pretty clear on his position on the war. He voted to give Bush the AUTHORITY to go to war if NECESSARY. Bush took it and ran with it. Kerry says he wouldn't have gone to war. That's not a flip flop.

It's a sad day when the position: "I gave the president the authority to go do war if necessary, but I disagree with the way he ultimately did it." is too complicated for the media to comprehend.

However, Democrats shouldn't dwell on this fact. As much as I hate stealing tactics from the GOP, we should have started attacking the media years ago. Now's not the time to start. The only goal that Democrats should have right now, at least when it comes to national rhetoric, is getting Kerry's message and counter-attack out there.

This sheeple is convinced that neither one of our candidates is a true leader. I have also decided that it is my unfortunate duty to join the herd and vote for the "best" person based on my personal preferences. I am waiting for Senator Kerry to APPEAL to me and he is falling short (mainly due to the reasons I stated in the above post which was aimed at the question at hand "What does Kerry need to do.")

Kerry is not in my face telling me how he is going to handle the problems ahead. He IS in my face crying about how President Bush is incompetent and that makes me angry. You can make suggestions, you can disagree, but he need not call our president incompetent in public (especially in times like these when our leaders need to be looked up to by the world, but that is another thread). What this sheeple gets from Kerry is "I don't know how to fix anything but I do know how to point fingers"

And do the other sheeple really believe that a president that is granted the AUTHORITY to go to war won't?

Must stop now........... graze...........graze...........BAAA

Sure. But on the other hand, you have a President who is telling you he's going to keep on keepin' on with things which are failing - all the while, he tells you how good it all is.

Neither one of them have solutions - but what's the sense in voting for the guy who denies the reality of his failed policies?

Kerry needs to get traction on one or two topics. The argument about going to war under the wrong pretenses is a loser (unless substantial new revelations are uncovered about Bush's absolute, undeniable knowledge that the reasons given were false). Talk about the failed analysis of the post invasion situation (it's been touched on but never really pushed). Talk about the fact that not being able to capture Bin Laden or Al Zarqawi does not inspire confidence when looking into the future at the terrorist leaders who are making plans as we speak. Talk about problems that everyone deals with every day from crappy healthcare from your doctor because he sees a thousand patients a day and tie that to a screwed up medical system. Stop talking about Vietnam, the National Guard, Cheney and Bush's ties to big business, etc. People almost expect politicians to have their hands in the pockets of industry/unions/the wealthy/whoever. If they don't people think they must be crappy politicians.

Personally, I think the thing that is hurting Kerry the most is the flip flopping (whether you will admit it or not he has held far too many positions during this race). Much of it was political necessity to get his party's nomination but he should have had a firm message to go out with that didn't change once it was clear he was getting his party's nod. Kerry doesn't need to really push for the votes of the "left leaning" as many of them will vote for him because he's the only one with a shot to "get rid of Bush". His focus should have been on getting those who are more moderate and even more "right".

I won't say it's completely over for Kerry as there's still plenty of time left. But he needs to go in a different direction from the "Iraq was wrong", "Bush lied", "I'm a war hero" crap. Those lines have convinced all that you're going to convince. Rather than focusing on the "undecideds" he needs to get those who are only slightly committed to Bush. If he gets them many of the "undecideds" will get caught in the nets too.

Kerry is going to stick to one message now which is Bush fucked up in Iraq.

Bush will need to stress the flip flopping Kerry has had on Iraq.

If the debates give any room to point out the flip flopping Kerry is done.

If they don't then you will see a very tight race.

I would like to know who the tight-assed dick-face is that came up with that moronic term "flip-flop" so that I can kick him (or her) in the teeth.

Its the dumbest thing I have ever heard, and it seems to be Ustwo's favourite word for some reason.

I wonder why that is.

i think that the election will not be a close as people imagine, and that kerry is in a strong position---that because i see almost no movement in positions--and the press has an interest in creating a horserace--and i think the opposition to bush is larger and stronger than the right would prefer.

if you look at the campaign as it stands now i am pleased to see kerry finally going after the iraq war fiasco, after bush directly, in ways that i do not see the bush campaign being able to counter with the usual thick screen of bullshit.

it is still a bit strange trying to make a conherent statement about the general state of things outside my range of direct experience on this, however. if the space in which i operate is any indication, bush is cooked---if the spaces in which my friends operate who live in cities is indicative, bush is cooked. but frankly i have no idea what is happening in the suburbs (who does? anyone?) or in rural areas (i suspect this would be easier to have a sense of).....and i wonder if what you will see is an even deeper split between urban and non-urban polities coming out of this elections.

:) You've made my point for me; we don't agree on the situation in Iraq, so Kerry harping on it won't help persuade folks like me to vote for him. Your position only appeals to those who are already voting for Kerry.

Focusing on the war on terror will appeal to everyone. Bush hasn't caught the big bad wolf, which leaves an opening for Kerry. All he has to do is push that adgenda and the moderates and centrists will be all over him on election day.

Perhaps you are unware of the 'new tone' in politics as posted.

Lets do a search..........

Flip flop Ustwo

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...3&postcount=40 (Jan 30, 2004)

Whats ironic is I think that was before the whole Kerry the 'flip-flopper' was part of the lexicon. At the time it was more 'waffles'.

So maybe 'I' came up with it, and I hope I did, and I'm sorry you don't like it but I would recomend sticking with the issues and not personal flaming.


Thanks :thumbsup:

roachboy, in a word, yes.

The split between suburban/rural and urban is vast at this point in our history. It is a pivotal distinction to draw. Perhaps more than distinctions of class. Why that is so is an interesting point in itself. I'd simply suggest that your references to your spheres of contact do dictate some significant filtering of experience. There is quite an opposite sense of the political one gathers from suburban and rural mindsets these days. In some ways this election will offer a comparative measure of these significant differences.

I think mentioning the words Flip-flop, waffles, [texas air] national guard, vietnam in relation to presidential candidates or anything that happened more than ten years ago that involved either men should be grounds for immediate temporary banning in this forum until after the election :D
(And I am completely serious about this too. :|)

Onto the question, this election will really come down to Iraq, we all know that. Mostly a referendum on how Bush is handling it, and What kerry will do to right it. Kerry needs to use his time now to get the message out to the American people what he will do to make it better and what Bush has done to get us where we are.
Beyond that a development in the Valerie Plame case, with indictments of high ranking officials would work wonders to blow the race wide open for Kerry.
Overall I believe Kerry will be the undeniable winner in the debates. The Democrats have a new language expert, George Lakoff to help Kerry begin to frame his messages. Positive framing is something we have been lagging far behind on for too long.
The second debate especially where the candidates have to field questions from the audience I think will be the one where Kerry really pulls ahead as Bush has proven himself unable to think on his feet. He will hold his own in the two where he can work on message though.

As for the presidential debates, I am making one commitment, and encouraging others to do the same: Watch the debates, live on TV, or on replay if you can't tune in at the time, and then don't watch any of the post-debate coverage, but instead spend some time yourself or with others who are watching it with you analyzing the questions and responses before giving the talking heads an opening.

Far too much of the information we base our decisions on comes not from the candidates but from others filtering the candidates' messages. Think about it. Count all the info you've taken in about candidates and the race. From the candidates, their officials, supposed allies, supposed enemies, media commentators and reporters, your friends and other associates, humorists, this forum, the list goes on. I try and pay attention to direct information from the Kerry and Bush campaigns, but even I would have a hard time figuring that more than 5-10% of all of the info I've heard is from the candidate or even their campaign directly.

Often you hear swing voters ask when the candidates are going to get to the issues. They haave been talking about issues, but for example, Kerry can spend 45 minutes at a union hall talking about his economic and health care plans, take 3 minutes to refute an attack ad, and the headline is "Kerry Speaks to Union; Attacks New Ad: Kerry spoke before Union people today, and strongly rejected claims by *** about *** and attacking his ***. Senator Kerry's *** has been questioned by the *** repeatedly over the last six months....... and so on. The fact he elaborated on other matters is mentioned on page B12. Bush is faced with similar treatment.

The debates is an opportunity for all to hear directly from the horse's mouth, so I feel the best way to do it is to keep it clear of those commentators who can't wait to get back to the filter and spin after the closing statements: 'Would these guys just get done so we can get back to telling the people our version of what they said?'

I, for one, will be watching the debates, but only doing so <a href="http://opendebates.org/theissue/drearyformat.html">reluctantly</a>. I don't expect to get anything out of them.

Unfortunately, Badnarik will not be present. I'm not one of his backers, but I do want to see Libertarian views given a platform.

-From a staunch Bush supporter.....

Kerry's direction is wrong and doesn't have mass appeal (plus, Kerry himself isn't really appealing).

Everybody seems to have forgotten the pre-9/11 days when Bush's presidency was failing. 9/11 saved him. Prior to he was getting in trouble left and right and pissing both sides off (myself included).

You want to see Kerry take a bounce in the polls? Have him take up real issues that real people are concerned about. However, he needs to avoid Iraq and any discussions of Kerry making America more secure - both are losers for him.

There are many other topics he could go after that would attract a portion of the conservative base, he just isn't.

Here is an example: My wife is a card-carrying Republican (I am not kidding on the "card-carrying" part, either) and she hates GW. However, Kerry has no appeal to her either. If Kerry's camp could figure out these "issues" that have caused a loyal Republican to become disloyal, he could pull enough votes from both sides to win.

Kerry's team needs to examine the Bush presidency from inauguration to 9/11/01 and go after those points. That is where Bush is weak. Trust me on this, Bush has some real weaknesses that have yet to be exploited.

If Kerry and his team continue on the path they are on, I highly doubt we will see a Democrat in the White House (excluding reporters) come November.

/side note: I am really looking forward to the VP debate. I have seen both men answer questions "from the hip" and Cheney will eat Edwards alive. In an impromptu scenario, Edwards comes across like Quayle. Love him or hate him, Cheney is a pro. Personally, I think this will be the debate to watch.

For the VP debate, I couldn't disagree more. This also will be a win for the democrats. Cheney comes across as scary, while Edwards exudes Clintonian charisma. He will not get eaten alive. The guy cut his teeth as a trial lawyer. You don't get as successful as him without being able to think analytically and be able to impress upon your audience your views.

Yes, on that I agree. Cheney will get chewed up and spit out.

I don't argue his success as a trial lawyer.

I am referring to how he answers questions "off the cuff". I have watched/read it a few times and I wasn't kidding about it being Quayle-esque. All kidding aside, it was embarassing watching Edwards juggle questions.

We will have to watch and see, but I don't see this arena as a forte of Edwards.

Edwards rank emotionalism he uses to get juries to award outragous damages against innocent doctors won't work on questions about national security or health care. Edwards will be destroyed. He isn't half as good as you hope he is. There is a very good chance he won't even be re-elected in NC.

Cheney is a boring speech maker but very good off the cuff.

I'm far less sure about Kerry vrs Bush then Edwards vrs Cheney.

Shouldn't the 'winner' of the debates be the voters - who should get 'from the horse's mouth' information on where the candidates really stand, and what they are going to do as President? I know the more jaded folks might be looking at me askance for that question, but I ask in all seriousness, what can we do do make the debates less of a sporting event, and more of a help for voters and the democratic process?

Personally anyone still waiting for the debates to make up their mind hasn't been paying a lot of attention. As such it is not the voters who win but the candidates as they try to coax the wishy washy voters and the mostly disinterested to get those 5% which will determine the outcome in most states.

I shot myself in the foor by adding the side note.....20/20 hindsight, eh?

Back to my main point.

There are issues/talking points that Kerry could address that would attract votes from the middle/right. He is missing them. Until he figures these out (and the clock is ticking) then his chances of winning are slim.

Hell, there are things that Kerry could address that might even appeal to me. Slim chance, but still entirely possible.

He has got to realize that the path he is taking is not working. He is not appealing to the "masses".

Here is a hint for him: Overtime and the recent changes in the law regarding who gets overtime and who doesn't. This is a real issue that affects real people that will vote. What changed in the rules? Who is affected? etc., etc.

jb2000-

good idea for a topic to discuss, why don't you start a thread on it? I have already detracted enough so I won't comment, but I might in a different thread.

Rank emotionalism, outrageous damages, Innocent Doctors? Le sigh.

He didn't make his millions just batting his eyes at juries. The guy can talk well, is photogenic (very important now a days), can think quickly (necessary for responding in cross examination) and is a highly intelligent man.
I'll agree with you, he won't win his seat in NC back again. Course he isn't running there anymore and write ins rarely pile up to a successful campaign.
Cheney is intelligent and can make for a good discussion but he will just be outclassed, and every grimmace he makes where he shows off his lower teeth only (a favorite of his) just sends shivers down americas spine. In 2000 he seemed like a rock who would steady the underqualified Bush, now he is America's ogre. He is a liability, America doesn't like him. The repeated trial balloons flown by the Republican party of him being replaced towards the end of this term are evidence to that.

I know several people in my office (Pa) who are waiting for the debates to make a solid decision about their vote. They are disregarding the campaigning and actually counting negative advertising against the candidates. But for the most part they are planning on weighing the issues through the debates.

Thank you John Edwards!

I now return you to John Kerry.

Edwards got 'outrageous damages' from 'innocent doctors'? That'd be news to me which case(s) was it?

Regardless, I don't think its silly to wait for the debates to finalize your decision. Some like myself and apparantly Ustwo have already pretty firmly made our choice and are ready to vote today. But traditionally, Americans didn't make the choice so early, and I hold those who remain investigative about their choice to this point in high respect.

As I stated before, the vast amount of information/views/perspective that has been put out thus far has been from sources other than the candidates and their campaigns. We hear a lot more from others describing what the candidates are than we hear from the candidates themselves (not for lack of trying).

The choice of who to hold the most influencial single seat in our government is not a decision that should be taken lightly, and we should look forward to the opportunity to make it a more informed decision by following the debates. The fact that so many have made their mind up already is depressing, not encouraging. It is such an unenlightened process, where a few interested parties choose up sides early on and the rest of the voters are swayed by bombardments of hearsay, alarmism, and rhetoric into picking sides along with the true believers, or getting frustrated and simply bowing out of the process all-together. This is certainly good for a lot of folks in power, and most of the true believers on either side can convince themselves its good for them, but I don't think it is good for the country.

Unfortunately, there isn't that much candidates can do about it. 95% of the election-related content out there doesn't come from them, but from the idealogues and the media. The candidate becomes more prominant as the election approaches, and the debates are where the candidates themselves can tap in directly to a wide audience unclipped (at least in the first run through) and unspun. That if nothing else, to me gives the debates value.

Quote from where, Ustwo? I'd be interested in following up on the case.

Lawyers are often the voices for people, especially in the court room. Such a statement could well be spun to seem like he's trying to do some voodoo ritual, but without any of the context, it is impossible to tell.

Is that any more outrageous than bush claiming to be working directly for god?

You mean the 'quote' that was an arab translation of hand written notes?

Even if it were true, yes its a LOT different unless god was paying him and someone innocent was having to pay for it.

When did he say that? I mean I know he's an ideological crusader and all, but I think most Christians consider themselves to be working for God. Did he claim to have a special hotline to God ala Pat Robertson?

Ustwo, I'm still eager to hear more about the case you cited. So far as I have seen, Edwards hasn't extorted anyone, unless one considers legitimate restitution for damages extortion.

Are you seriously charging that John Edwards knowingly sought unwarranted damages, in seeking damages in cases where he either knew that the injury was not real, or that the defendant was not guilty of causing the damage or liable for them? That is a very serious crime, grounds for disbarment, and for counter-suit for restitution against Mr. Edwards and his client. Since none of these have been pursued, you are going to have a tough time demonstrating that he did any of these illegal activities, when those (including some very good lawyers) who were involved with the cases were not able to demonstrate the same.

Or are you just drawing the conclusion that since he has successfully prosecuted cases, that he must be one of the very small minority of lawyers who engage in unethical behavior?

Yes. He is scum. If John Kerry were everything I wanted in a president I still wouldn't vote for him on the odd chance Edwards might end up president. I don't wish to derail this thread anymore so I sent you a pm (before you posted this).

Did this come from 'Plan of Attack', the Bob Woodward book? I need to go read this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2921345.stm
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_A...386439,00.html
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/S...ID=0&listSrc=Y
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...shfaith20.html

There you go, google is your friend.

Note to everyone: Kerry is not finished. Bush's post convention bump is slipping away and we once again seem to have a race that is within the margins of error.

To win, Kerry needs to simplify his message and set down his vision for America in concrete and non-complicated terms (much like he began to do in his 9/20 speech). He needs to discipline himself and his surrogates to keep to these "talking points" and then continue to stress the errors and misleading statements of the Bush Administration. He should also continue to "soften" his image with the various talk show appearances, which have gotten positive reviews. Finally, he needs to win the debates.

Others have said it, and it is true. At this stage of the game, it is still anyone's guess who will win. It would be foolish (and while Karl Rove is many things, he is not foolish) for the Bush Campaign to assume they will win.

mml-

You are speaking as one who is already committed. These are the things YOU want to hear. These points will only work on the base Kerry already has.

In my opinion, coming from a person who is married to a Republican-undecided, he needs a completely different approach.

There are issues and ideas out there that would appeal across the board but Kerry isn't touching them.

Your points will only get him rah-rah's from the people that are already on his side (the ABB's). That will not win him an election. Especially when the guy isn't very interesting and likeable to begin with.

Great job Ustwo, you posted a very biased article and declined to give us a link to it. Hiding overtly partisan sources?

Here, I'll add the byline.
Ann Coulter, Frontpagemag

You wouldn't have done that on purpose now, would you?

KMA, you may well be right, I am clearly in the Kerry camp. What I meant to imply is that to win Kerry needs to fine tune his message, make it more clear and understandable to people who do not spend hours a day reading or listening to politics. I agree that there are a multitude of issues that he should be addressing and that is more of what I meant by "vision" . I think many people would be appalled at some of the environmental decisions this White House has made as an example. What do you see specifically, as some of the issues he should be addressing? By the way, all is not Pro-Kerry in the mml family: some for, some against, some undecided.

You've said that a couple of times now, but I can't find in either of your responses the issues you think your wife would respond to.


My experience has been that some republicans claim they are independent or undecided, for whatever reasons (I don't know if they feel it gives them some semblence of rationality or discernment--but that's my suspicion), yet consistently vote Republican.

I usually ask these people when the last time they voted for anything other than a Republican candidate in an election other than their local community elections (i.e., mayor, council person, etc). It's not a very surprising answer to me that they may have done so about 30 years ago.


When has your wife voted for a democratic or third party president? I'd be curious to know whether she fits the pattern of other similarly situated republicans.

I suspect that if they were as undecided as they claim or wish they were, that they might actually vote for another candidate--not necessarily a democrat. So what they really seem to be saying is that they wish to be open minded and if a bombshell of a reason goes off in their heads, they would jump party in the ballot box.

But what they don't seem to consider is that, given their political predispositions, any bombshell that would otherwise go off in their minds will be filered through their political ideology and diffused before it presents an issue with the party they are voting for.

That's my armchair psychoanalysis of the 'undecided' republican.

Ustwo,

A google search on the text you first presented reveals the quote as you presented it came from an Ann Coulter column, since regurgitated on a number of other sites, some citing Ann, others anonymously.

As I first suspected, the presentation was one of creative editing, to make it sound like Edwards was having some kind of mystic seance in the courtroom, when really all he was saying was how it was up to him to as a lawyer to represent her in the courtroom where she couldn't speak on her own behalf.

For completeness, you left out some of Ann's interjections, and since I don't know if you were quoting her article or a regurgitation of it, here is her presentation (the whole column can be found a few places, this is one: http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles...e.asp?ID=14143):

Hard to disagree, huh? Edwards claiming to read minds or be some kind of clairvoyant medium in the courtroom? Nuts, right?

I will be the first to admit, I haven't the time resources to pull up the courtroom records and read every piece of the case, but here is a more complete quotation of that part of the testimony, putting it much more in context.

So no, it doesn't appear that little Jennifer spoke words to John, but he clearly isn't claiming any kind of clairvoiance either. He is merely interpreting the the medical information on the heart monitor in a way that we all can understand clearly what that information meant.

This is how Ann does business. She not only takes things out of context, but intentionally strips them of their original context and paints her own surrounding it, much of it complete fabrication. But even so, I don't discount your argument based on the source, I challenge it based on the information itself. I doubt that you would intentionally bring such ill-presented material to this forum, and you ay well have not even been aware that it was Coulter's work, or what the source was.

Keep in mind, this case was a successful prosecution. Edwards has a pretty high 'batting average' if you will. That doesn't come from prosecuting frivolous and unwarranted cases, no matter how slick you are. You have to back cases that have real merit, where there is a real case of wrong-doing, combine them with good law practice, and present them well in court, to have that kind of record.

I asked you earlier if you are seriously charging that John Edwards intentionally prosecuted cases which were not warranted, or where he knew that there either was not an injury, or that the defendant was not liable. The Jennifer Campell case is clearly not one of those. Or do you seriously expect me to believe that every one of those jurors, the judge, the appeals judge, and everyone else involved in adjudicating this case, who witnesses many long days of detailed evidence and knew every nook of this case, were wrong, somehow brainwashed by John's incredible aura?

Remember that ultimately the true value of the case was that hospitals and insurance companies changed their ways in regards to these cases, and started paying more attention to cases where there is fetal distress. Do I have the data in front of me to say it saved X number of babies lives and X number of Palsey cases, etc.? No, but I have no doubt it has saved many families a lot of distress.

This is the kind of person you call scum? I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you on that. Having had a baby who went through distress, it was taken totally seriously and we quickly went to C-Section, as opposed to what happened to Jennifer Campbell. No, I'm not trying to say it's John Edwards who saved my baby's life. But it is him and those like him who have improved the responsiveness of not as much doctors, whom I assume want to do what is best, but insurance companies and hospitals that have to front the cost for procedures and thus improved care for all of us. Should John Edwards be demonized for having gotten well rewarded for this? Should we demonize the captains of industry who bring improved products into our lives, supposedly improving our lives, and getting rich in the process? Only when they commit fraud and break the law and engage in unethical practices. As far as I can tell (although I'm open to presenting the case) John Edwards has not acted illegally, has not prosecuted frivolous/groundless lawsuits, and has not knowingly represented false claims. You say that he has, but have not pointed out a case where this was so. Even Ann Coulter was only trying to make him look like some clairvoyent fool, which even though silly, isn't a crime, even if it were what he was doing in that courtroom.

So what is it about John that makes him scum, Ustwo?

Oops, forgot the link to the article for my second quote above:

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics...-7372374c.html

Smooth,

read again, I mentioned one. There are many I can think of, but that defeats the purpose of my agenda and isn't my point. I hinted to a whole slew of issues that W. is very weak on and that could possibly dissuade his base.

Regarding my wife: She voted against Bill Owens (Republican Gov of Colorado) and will every chance she gets. Voted Perot instead of Bush or Clinton in '92. She voted for W. the first time because she didn't like Gore. She is not happy with Jr. at all and I don't think I will be able to keep her on my side this election. (She met W. and Brother when campaigning for Phil Gramm at the RNC--she was so-so on W. but really didn't like Jeb).


I will repeat my point - I am not going to outline the issues/ideas but merely state that the direction Kerry is going only excites the ABB's. He is not likeable so he needs to do something different to draw from the "other side". The track he is on isn't gaining him any ground and, in my opinion, won't win him an election.

Honestly, it is boring. I can only hear the same talking points from any candidate so many times.

c'mon, I'm not doing myself any favors here. If it were up to me, Kerry should continue the course he is on and I would be happy.

What does Kerry need to do?

Not much more than he is doing now. That the incumbent is effectively tied with the challenger bodes extremely poorly for the incumbent. This is Bush's election to lose - and there's a very good chance he will.


Ustwo - Nice Ann Coulter quote. That's some finely tuned, clarity of vision, non-partisan information you provided.

It would be very easy to read this the wrong way.

might've been better said without the political tags. you seen to be inferring that someone who is true to the conservative cause isn't rational. That in order to "appear" intelligent, one must appear undecided.

The christian conservatives in my family and circle of acquantances are not rational--nor do they claim to be.

They base their decisions on religious ideology--unabashadly so. One of the most cited reasons they fall back on Bush (and other republicans) is because of their position on abortion.

Their position is based on mythical stories about what they believe a deity told inspired people to write down. They are not ashamed of their position--they believe it to be true.

You may be upset about that characterization of people in your party, and I don't know your religious affiliation nor do I make any assumptions about it, but that is certainly non-rational behavior and it governs their voting patterns.

I haven't met any democrats who similarly situate themselves politically, socially, and culturally.

Since I am neither, I couldn't care less whether such democrats exists. I was offering my analysis of republicans I have met who purport themselves to be independent. However, when confronted with issues that affect real people, in real time, even themselves, most notably in economic issues (which is really all the government should be involved in, but this whizzes over the heads of conservatives when I state it, although readily comes out as a plank in their platform when it becomes politically expedient), these republicans subordinate such issues to one or a few religious issus.

If you can find a religious, politically vocal group of liberals, feel free to post an analysis of them--I won't be offended. You drew a link betwen intelligence and rationality that I never stated. This fits into my earlier observation that many republicans welcome their situational victimstance.

I'm surprised Kerry didn't stick with the domestic issues. I think they are a sure bet winner. A democrat who focuses on improving the lives of citizens by means of government programs seems unbeatable to me. I really don't understand why he went after the strengths of his opponent rather than focusing on the strengths of his (and his party's) positions.

What strengths would those be, Art? I would argue that Bush has been very weak on foreign policy.
As for domestic programs, it's a little difficult for Democrats to propose any wide spectrum programs these days. Although Bush may have driven up the deficits to record levels (as did Reagan), it's Democrats who are stuck with the image of fiscal irresponsibility. This is just another example of the triumph of sound bites over substance. Only nixon could go to China and only Clinton could dismantle welfare, not that you'd ever here many Republicans acknowledge that.

I am hoping that Edwards might prove to be a good president in the future. A few years in the political arena and he may be worth voting for.

Can we add sheeple to this list of derogative terms. It has an air of arrogance.

I think the reason is clear : 9-11
Kerry can talk about domestic issues all he wants, but as soon as Bush mentions 9-11, its all over.
This is why it was important for Kerry to take 9-11 off the board politically.
So far he hasn't done so.

I think Kerry should have relentlessly attacked the President and the Republicans over their shameless political exploitation of 9-11 at the Republican Convention. There is still time for him to do so at the debates. Perhaps its because this hits me personally, but I think this is the most important thing for him to do.

These are the miscalculations I'm talking about. Not admitting that the strengths of the Republicans at this juncture - with the majority of the electorate - are security and defense and the response to 9/11, are the kinds of things that have backfired, as shown by the current polls. Admitting they are strengths and then addressing them as a means of taking them off the board hasn't worked either.

Yes, he'd have to withstand the accusations of fiscal irresponsibility if he focused on governmentally funded domestic programs but IMO I don't think folks care that much about it. And he could have countered with the high level of spending and deficits of the current administration.

So I am still not getting it. Why not focus on what is just about guaranteed to get you votes rather than what has been focused on so far in this campaign? It hasn't worked and isn't working.

Art,

As you already know, there is a giant chasm between reality and voter perception. Bush has the public sentiment on security and defense although his policies have done nothing to increase our safety, perhaps decreasing it. In the same way, it doesn't matter what the Republicans have done financially...Democrats are "socialists" who only want to tax the rich. Petty things such as facts have nothing to do with it.

We don't know what people who aren't in the polls are thinking. They are the elusive 'unknown' or 'expected' voters, which many pollsters are trying to extrapolate via various formulas.

If nothing else, it's expected that more people who are currently off the radar will come out in droves. The issue I have is what makes people banking on them so certain that they won't break down similarly along political lines as the larger electorate?


but my main point is that we don't know how effective kerry's strategy has been on the people who weren't registered to vote last election cycle and are currently not being probed during these polls.

This is completely unsubstantiated in nature - but one of the inherent weaknesses of many polls is a new aspect of society: the number of people who do not have land-line telephones. Not all polls are telephone based, but many are. There are somewhere around 170 million cellphones in use in the country. Assuredly, the large majority of them are business related, but there is and has been a growing number of people who only have a cellphone. And this segment of the country is typically young, which is also typically more apt to vote liberal. If even half a percent of the 170 million cellphones are people who are never sampled in these polls, that's 850,000 people - most of whom would probably vote Kerry.

But assuredly, it's all a guessing game until Nov. 2nd. I think a real concern is the high degree of probability that some of the individual State vote counts will be strongly contested. I do not expect either side to acquiesce as quietly as Gore did in 2000.

Amen Art! I truely wish we could talk more about domestic policy, as the reality is that a Kerry Administration will do very little that is different from the Bush Administration in Iraq. Unfortunately, whenever these issues come up the Republicans say "The only way to do all these things Kerry wants to do is to raise taxes, and we believe the American pulbic knows how to spend their money better that the Federal Government." An overly simplistic statement, but an effective one. The fact is that taxes will be raised, particularly on the top 1% of the population, and rarely in Presidential politics does someone win by saying they will raise taxes. Kerry calls it a "rollback". All this being said, I do believe that he must begin to address some of these issues more agressively. Health care, social security, job training and development, environmental policy and education should be brought up much more frequently. The reality is that most Americans are concerned about National Security, so that is the topic of choice. Hopefully, the debates will allow the candidates and America to focus more on domestic policy.

Your choice is a man who says its alright to kill babies and claims that he can gain our soldier support.(He cant. Just ask a soldier near you. They want a president who keeps his word and supports them. That man is Bush. Like I said, dont believe me, ask a soldier.)
Or
A President who sticks to his promise. Has morals, and fears God.

why do i care if a president fears god. I'd much rather have a president who...oh, i dunno, can keep from pushing his religion on everyone, keep from scaring me with the "God says this is the right thing to do" type speech as that is kinda close to "allah says this is the right thing to do..."

The polls are definetly all over the place. I was at electoral-vote.com this morning and it made VA(the state i'm voting in) look like a swing state with a weak bush rating I check back later today and it's strong bush all of a sudden?
whatever I'm doing the mail in for Kerry.

back to the issue at hand I think if Kerry really makes a strong showing at the debates and has some newsworthy soundbites there(so he reaches more people on cable news replays) he has a chance.Kerry really needs to hit Bush hard with the issues though and come back and respond to any muckraking news stories (Swiftboats,CBS documents,etc.). I mean really if he doesn't risk a little at the debates there's really no other chances to reach people.Hell after all the dirty tricks that Rove has been pulling I'd love to see Kerry attack the common man image Bush presents when he was really born to privlege possibly more than anybody else in the country.

While I know I should not resond this kind of Trolling, I just had to comment on the rather large paint brush this statement was written with. My brother, who is a Republican and generally votes that way, is in the military and has spent time in the Middle East on a couple of occations (i.e. this war and the last) and is a devout Christian (opposes abortion, pro-school prayer etc...) cannot bring himself to vote for President Bush. Addditionally, one of my lifelong mentors, a retired Army Colonel who had NEVER voted for a Democrat cannot abide a President who, in his words, lied to Americans and rushed our military into a poorly planned war, and ignored obvious, tried-and-true military doctrines that would have helped protect the lives of American soldiers.

So, while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, please try to remember that it is only YOUR opinion and as much as you may wish it, you cannot make it a universal truth. ( I was also curious as to what the abortion issue has to do with earning the loyalty of the military? But maybe I am misreading your comment.)

I think Kerry waited way too long to make any attempt to tell America what he believes in. I realize MANY don't care, as long as he is against Bush, but that's not good enough for me personally.

Ok, you don't like Bush and think he has done poorly. What would you do different? We are finally getting a few answers, but I don't know if it is soon enough.

I'm a Republican officially but will vote as I feel I should. I don't believe Bush is the ideal choice to lead our nation. However, I'm not yet convinced Kerry can do better. The "Vote Bush Out" campaign works for most of the democrats it seems. But I like to vote someone IN to office.

To convince me to vote for him, Kerry needs to convince me that he can stand for something consistantly and that he can protect America and is not afraid to take the fight to the enemy. I agree with him on SOME of his financial strategies. But I don't think either president is going to win an award for saving our economy.

Frankly, if Bush wins we only have 4 more years till we get 2 new choices! I do like the sound of that!

I agree, it seems easy for both sides to make a broad statement and claim it as fact. I have close friends that are in the military who support Bush 100% and fear a man like Kerry leading them. I also am dating a woman who's family is military and sides more on the anti bush side (but he is democrat.) It works both ways.

I realize it is hard for an atheist or non christian to understand where this train of thought comes from so perhaps I can shed a little light (or perhaps not, we'll see)

The term "fear God" has more implications than just doing everything God says and pushing those standards on everyone else. What does God stand for to a Christian? I would argue that most would say God stands for values. Values such as loving each other (respecting), Freedom to choose (yes, I'm sure many feel otherwise, but this is what a Christian sees), Not murdering, Protecting. Loyalty to your family.

I'm well aware that many anti christians would enjoy pointing out examples of how they feel Christians fail to live up to these standards as well as other standards. That's great for you but that is not my point so please save yourself the trouble.

"Fearing God" is also a way of stating that they feel there are moral decisions to be made. You don't have to be Christian to agree with those standards. Whether someone believes God wishes he follow these standards or not, if they are good standards that is all that matters.

It's easy to hear the word God and jump down someones throat while at the same time agreeing with the same principals.

The real debate is how the principals are applied and put into practice. For example, If you honestly feel/felt that Sadaam and his army would attack america and murder your family, is it better to attack him first? Or find better ways to defend yourself without attacking first. That is a debate that has gone on for decades.

And there is nothing wrong with Muslims or Hindus or whatever religion you care to pick feeling they should follow who they feel is their God! It's when they say that YOU also must follow that God or be killed that it becomes an issue. Bush is not saying you must be Christian (abortion and gay issue aside for now) or die!

I'm all for letting the world do what they want in their own countries. And while I realize no one can/should police the world, I also have a hard time watching people getting slaughtered and raped and tortured for no more reason that having different beliefs. So whether or not to go to war with people like sadam is not an easy issue for me personally.

Having a president that respects the lives of others enough to go to war for them is honorable to me. Much as seeing someone being raped in an alley and doing something about it instead of walking on by is honorable at the very least!

That's a trait I like. Now, how you go about taking care of the bad guy is another issue. That one is up for debate. Would I want a president that ignored Hitler and his slaughter even if it was far away from our land? It may not be logical or financially sound to go to war to stop Hitler, but any "God Fearing" man or woman would do his/her best to protect the standards they believe in. The standard that life means something and should be protected even at the risk of your own time/money/life, in this example.

Now I don't believe that Religion and Politics should be mixed. I strongly believe in the seperation of church and state and I DO believe that at times Bush crosses the line or at the very least attempts to. But the fact that he feels compelled to "do the right thing" doesn't scare me.

Tieing this whole post back to the thread topic....I want someone as president who will keep the seperation of church and state! I also want a president that will listen to his conscience and not just to his pocketbook!

How can Kerry Win? Convince me he has strong beliefs and that he will stick by them would be a good starting point for me.

You should revise that as it sounds to me, through your writing that you imply the Christian God and Islamic God are two separate concepts. Islam and Hindu should not be lumped together. You should be replacing "Follow that God" with "Follow that set of religious tenets." You do know that (for the most part) Islam is the same as Christianity except for Jesus being demoted to a major prophet and Mohammad being the final revelation, right?
Also, from this statement, "It's when they say that YOU also must follow that God or be killed that it becomes an issue.", It seems like you don't understand what has happened.
Al Qaeda did not attack us because we are Christian. Al Qaeda attacked us because they saw western society encroaching on Islamic nations again. They had just gotten rid of us in the 1960's with the end of colonialism. People like Osama saw America trying to start that up again in the first Gulf War, especially with the establishment of military bases. 9/11 is based on cultural protectionism, not religious fevor.
For that reason Bush's statement of "They hate us for our freedom" is so disgusting. It just shows that we have learned nothing from 9/11 and our leadership has absolutely no idea of how to deal with the Arabic psyche. And that right there is where the real "War on Terror" needs to be fought.

Watch the debates.

Yes I suppose I could have written it more correctly. I could argue that what an islamic extremist feels his God asks of him and what a typical Christian feels his God expects of him are often VERY radically different! So different that they could not possibly be the same being. To avoid confusion when discussing different views of the same concept of "God" it is easy to refer to "them" as the islamic God or the Christian God.

One could argue that if working on a car is the most important thing in a person's life, that the car is their God. Or that being a forum whore all day makes the forums that persons God. This is not a new expression and I did not invent it. Using this terminology I feel free to "Lump" any groups as I choose. Further more, I'll lump whoever I choose if I feel it helps to illustrate a point. Guess it didn't help you and perhaps anyone. But it was intentional. Thanks for the PC lesson though ;)

Perhaps I did make a mistake in what happened. In truth I can't at the moment remember the exact reason for the rape, torture and slaughter or innocent lives. However, you are talking about Al Qaeda. I didn't mention Al Qaeda did I? I was talking about Saddam and his actions in his own country. Thanks for your view of how we deserved to be attacked on 9/11 though.

Sorry, you CAN NOT justify targetting civilians for political or religious reasons to me. We may not understand their psyche, but they do not understand ours either if they felt that their actions would in any way make things better.

And yes, I have every intention of watching the debates. I hope it will answer many questions. However, memorizing a few lines for a night of scripted responses will not sway 100%. His many interviews, written statements as well as his voting record speak volumes beyond a night or two of speeches and responses to scripted questions.

On a personal note, do you believe in Kerry yourself? Are you a Kerry supporter or a bush hater?

Sorry, edwhit......our treasury, our citizens, and our constitution, cannot
afford four more months of Bush.....4 more years would be catastrophic !

<a href="http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm">http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm</a>
edwhit, if you are of the opinion that the Lone Star Iconoclast editorial
board is distorting Bush's presidential record to an extent that you can
offer a compelling reason to vote for him, in spite of the detailed list
of his negatives and the damage that they have caused (and will continue
to cause in years to come.....even if the electorate can put an end to
his regime on Nov. 2), please bring it on ! Bear in mind,,,,in the last 34 years,
only one president has balanced the budget....a democrat, Bill Clinton.

When Reagan took office in 1981, the entire federal deficit
was $930 billion. The deficit is now $7.2 trillion. Kerry served voluntarily in
Viet Nam. Bush joined the guard, checked the box that put him on record as
declining to serve overseas, did not fly the customary 5 years after the
military spent $1 million to train him, and can offer no records that confirm
that he took his required 1972 flight qualification physical. This link to
<a href="http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=269">http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=269</a>
Reinforces my point that Kerry has had a consistant position on the Iraq war.
Understand that Karl Rove has influenced you and many Americans by using,
with great success, the strategy of attacking the strengths of Bush's opponents in order to <br>distract attention from Bush's shortcomings by having Bush, Cheney, and cooperative media
(Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Fox News)
repeat the same distortions, half truths, and untruths over and over, in a highly coordinated presentation.
Did you know that Nixon met with Swift Boat officer O'Neill for an hour in
June, 1971, in an effort to blunt the impact that he perceived Kerry to
have on his Viet Nam policy?
Did you Know that Kerry initiated the Iran Contra investigation and exposed
the illegal support for the Nicaraguan Contras, the Reagan administration selling arms to Iran, as a freshman senator in 1985, gaining the support
of republican Jesse Helms by exposing the details of CIA operatives raising
money for the Contras by smuggling cocaine into the U.S.?
<a href="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB113/">Memos on
the Kerry Report, Contras and Drugs</a>

<a href="http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/062003.shtml">Kerry: With probes, making his mark</a>

edwhit, you indicate that you are keeping an open mind.
Discern what elements of your opinions of Bush and Kerry have
been influenced by Karl Roves "psych ops", and what the facts
are about the candidate's resumes. IMO, Kerry's life experience involves
bringing the details of how two past republican presidents were
actually conducting wars, to the attention
of the American people. Kerry knows from experience what and who
he is up against. He has never waivered in 30 years of taking Nixon, then
Reagan, and now.....Bush on. The most important factor in all three of
these historic struggles is that Kerry was armed with the truth, and the
agendas of the 3 presidents could not stand up to public scutiny.

Instead of four more years of an administration that shrinks from it's obligation to demonstrate a dialogue with the press and the people, (14 Bush press conferences in 40 months, Cheney's secret energy task force, repetetive talking points instead of detailed answers to questions from the press and the people, carefully pre-screened audiences at campaign stops, illegal, well orchestrated effort to bottle up peaceful protestors in out of view, offsite, secure locations.....), I look forward to a new regime, led by
a head of state who has pursued and exposed past leaders who refused to
govern openly, or who even thought that they were accountable to the
citizens who they took an oath to represent !

host, I appreciate your response and will certainly take your words and the quotes and sources provided into consideration.

I have always tried to take anything I hear with a grain of salt and you will understand if I continue to do so even with what you have stated.

I am not happy with much of what Bush has done and much of what he intends to do. I have not been against a "regime change" but I don't want to blindly accept the next guy running as the answer on blind faith alone. Out of the pan and into the fire and all that.

I am well aware that Karl Rove and company are distorting the truth when convenient in order to have an effective attack against Kerry. I tend to not be very trusting of many politicians and even less trusting during election time. Kerry, of course, has not been free from distorting the truth and exaggerating the truth. But that is to be expected.

It is easy to see reasons to not want bush in office 4 more years. The bigger challenge for me has been to find reasons to want Kerry in office for the next 4. Cutting through the election year BS to find the truth. Yes, he promises great things. But what candidate in the history of politics has not?

Your essay (;)) is very insighful and will provide more food for thought as well as more directions to continue searching. It's nice to see thought out reasons to vote for Kerry as opposed to merely voting against Bush.

What happened to the original............look a butterfly!

I'm not bold enough to create a new thread for this, but I can make it fit here. I just watched Bush at a speaking event about 15 minutes ago, and he told the people he was speaking to that Kerry's plan was to immediately withdraw troops out of Iraq, followed with "i'm not going to do this, we need to see it through, etc." Now - I saw what Kerry said last thursday, and this was not it. You guys that watched the debate never saw him say this, and I would like to think that the President, who was standing a mere 20 feet away from Kerry (taking notes, nonetheless) would have heard Kerry explain his plan, which did not include the immediate withdrawal of troops. Did anyone else watch this? What can Kerry "do to win," short of mailing out transcripts of the debates to the people that would do something like this?

Kerry needs a backbone. Once he gets one his chances of winning goes up 100%

Out of curiosity, did you just hear (this morning) what the President said Kerry plans to do in Iraq? I know what I heard, but do you, aceventura3, recall hearing Kerry last thursday say that his plan was to immediately withdraw troops from Iraq? I am not attacking you or anybody else, just curious if anyone else picked this up. But it just blows my mind that the person closest to Kerry, who we all saw taking notes, would come out this morning and totally contradict what he and everyone else watching on television, or listening on the radio, or reading the transcript saw, heard, and read. It also seems as if they're making up what Kerry's plan(s) should be, shaping them into what they think is the opposite of what every voter wants to hear, and campaigning as such.

Its like they (the President and his staff) formed this whole list of things to do and things to bring up when they found out who they would be running against. It seems like they assumed their competition would be totally anti-war, would be for the immediate withdrawal in Iraq, and would be against any war at any time, regardless of the situation. What I heard from Kerry last thursday was actually the quite opposite of this, but Bush is still speaking as if they are *still* following this "plan" that consists of a "anytime/anyplace" anti-war competitor.

They're trying to make Kerry into McGovern... except he's not McGovern so it is not working. Therefore, here a former Bush supporter has gotten sick of hearing the Republicans interpretation of the Democrats plan and not the Republicans actual plan. So I guess the Dems got this swing voter.

I'm not overly confident with Kerry, i think that any President who ever promised everything did nothing in return. O well, cant wait til Nov. 2nd.

that's what i'm seeing, actually...bush only heard exactly what he was thinking he would hear and he's going on as if the rest of the country heard that as well, when the rest of the country that watched the debates heard what kerry said...no mention of pulling troops out, no mention of handing over our defense to the UN...Hell, i'm shocked we aren't hearing that a vote for john kerry is a vote for the pope.....

Haven't read most of the posts before hand (lot of reading!, but will do so after this post)..

But in order for Kerry to win, he and Edwards need to keep making asses of the Bush Administration. Likewise, Bush & co need to keep making themselves look utterly stupid.

Even then... I dunno. I don't give the average voter much credit because in the end they'll still believe all the lies and will fail to see through the smokescreens. Hell, I think Bush could come out and say, "Yeah, I lied to you" and admit to all the other accusations against him, and I think people would STILL vote for him. He rambles off something about 9/11 and all of a sudden they become "patriotic".

Bodymassage,

Kerry has said many times that he will start bringing home troops within six months and that they will all be home within four years. Don't know if that was in the debate or not, but google will help you find it I'm sure. I'm not sure if "within six months" is the same as "immediately", but we assume it is faster than Bush would bring them home. (Bush will not set a time table saying that it would only encourage the "insurgents" (read terrorists) to wait until we are gone to really fight, which I think is a very valid point but off the subject here.)

Kerry is promising to remove troops. That is fact. I believe the argument Bush wants to make is that Kerry making that promise is bad for Iraq's new government. I have no clue if Bush is doing a good job of making that argument, but I believe that's what he's trying to say.

I don't believe that Bush is acting like he's running against an anti-war foe. I don't think anyone can honestly say that they think Kerry would be as focused (ruthless may be a better word) on the war on terror as Bush has been, and I think Bush sees that as one of his strengths. Thus, Bush is taking every chance he gets to make sure that people know that he thinks Kerry may not have the stomach for this. Vowing to pull out troops is just one way that Kerry indicates this theoretical weakness.

What I heard was that the Iraqi police need to be better trained, and that we need more "trainers" to do it effectively and in a reasonable amount of time. During the debate, Kerry reiterated that the troops needed to stay until they were no longer needed, until we have "won." What made the President's remark this morning seem so rediculous was the tone of his voice and his smirk as he said it. He definately made it seem as though "If Kerry is elected on tuesday, expect our troops to be gone by wednesday." Like I said, anyone who saw or read the debate in any format knows this to be not just horribly innacurate, but false. What made it even MORE rediculous to me, is this man was more personally involved with Kerry when he (Kerry) made these points than anyone else in the world, other than Kerry himself.

You never, ever release a timeline for any type of troop withdrawls. HUGE tactical mistake.

Scenario A: By announcing that troops will be removed in XX years/months, you just told your enemy how long they need to hold out. Once the troops are gone, the enemy moves back in. This mistake has been made many times in history with the outcome of failure, every time.

Scenario B: "Stay till the job is done", the enemy has no timeline, so they can hold out, but they don't know for how long. You keep fighting until the enemy is gone or gives up. This will lead to victory, as long as the battle(s)/war isn't lost in the process (not a concern for our military).

/back to the topic

It is safe to safe that most people that are current/former/future military vote conservatively. These same people know that announcing any form of timeline will lead to failure and our men and women in uniform do not believe in failure. Bad move on Kerry's part and he would be wise to not mention it again.

In combat, there never should be a timeline, just an objective/mission. The job is done when the objective is met, not because XX days/weeks/months/years have passed.

Remember, nothing Kerry or Bush can or will do will really change the minds of the respective "political base". If Kerry wants a chance, he must appeal to people other then his ABB crowd.

This one ain't gonna do it.....

But to put it in perspective, whoever the Commander in Chief may be, having a plan for leaving/withdrawal/whatever you want to call it, does not mean just abandoning everyone, leaving a bunch of civilians to deal with terrorists. On the other hand of your argument, I think it is important to give OUR troops and their families somewhat of an idea of how long they're going to be there. Another thing you shouldn't do, along with divulging every detail of your strategy with the public (more specifically, the enemy, who can get it from public sources), is give your troops the idea that they could be doing what they are indefinately. A good analogy to this would be mowing the yard versus vacuuming it. You can see that there is an end in sight, be it sooner or much later. Vacuuming the yard, on the other hand, does not have such an end.

I think both sides want the Iraqi's extremely capable of policing themselves, and that Kerry was just making a point that it could be done both faster, with more "trainers," and Edwards added even being trained outside of Iraq, for whatever reason.

bodymassage3: you misunderstand.

To a military person, there is a tour of duty. It can be extended (I have been extended, twice), but it is never definite. It shows a lack of ability for a potential commander-in-chief to make any assertions like this.

I am referring to the people that are not already in Kerry's camp (i.e. most military). If he wants to appeal to them, then he shouldn't make comments like this that show his weakness in defense. You know the old adage about people thinking you are stupid, versus opening your mouth and proving it? That is what I am referring to.

You are not in the audience that I am referring to.

I saw in another thread that you followed the debates. About the comment the President made this morning about Kerry wanting to immediately withdraw troops - do you recall hearing this in Kerry's position last thursday?

Kerry never said he plans to bring troops home. What he said is, the cost and burden of the Iraq war is overwhelmingly placed on American soldiers. If he is elected, and the rest of the world can hate us just a little bit less, other international authorities can interject and hopefully ease some of the burden. He envisions that his administration would, within possibly 6 months, be able to start reducing troop deployment in Iraq. Remember: troop deployment in Iraq is worse than the Bush administration ever thought it would be, and many of the troops there Stop-loss troops or reservists, people who were never supposed to be there in the first place. He's talking about not forcing soldiers to unretire against their will, not retreating from our mess.

no, honestly I don't remember.

I agree that it must help troop morale to know when they are going to get to come home, but I also agree that they do know when they are coming home (or at least have an idea). They don’t know if they will have to go back, but the never ending troop rotation deals with the idea that we need our troops to know when they are going home. They do.

If you are concerned about troop morale, then you need to address Pres. Bush’s point that Kerry saying that this war was a mistake hurts troop morale. Not to open another whole can of worms, but this is the point that the Swift Boat Vets have tried to make about Kerry’s anti-Vietnam stuff. I’ll admit upfront that I’m 30 years old and have no interest in or firsthand knowledge of that time period, but I would guess that if I was fighting in Vietnam and heard that the American People thought that I was risking my life for something that was at best a mistake I would have probably had a little more trouble sleeping at night. If I was a soldier in Iraq today and knew that the guy who wants to be President thinks that I’m risking my life for a mistake, I’m sure I would have more trouble sleeping at night.

If that guy became my Commander in Chief and still wanted me to risk my life for what, at that point must officially be a mistake, I don’t know that I wouldn’t seriously consider going AWOL.

Is it really so difficult to understand that the act of war was a mistake but now the task is to correct that mistake and is therefore honorable?

Other than the desire to post partisan nonsense - how can anyone question that logic? You may think the war was a mistake, or you may not - neither believe changes the fact that we must do something about the situation.

In essence, if 'that guy' became your Commander in Chief, if you were in the military, you would be tasked with doing the correct thing: fixing a mistake. It's not as if you were being asked to perpetuate a mistake.