Kerry: I'm not going to be questioned....by those who refused to serve

[Dynasty]

There are many reports of Kerry, his campaign, and the Democratic party gettting frustrated and worried about what looks like a good sized Bush bounce comming out of the Republican Convention.

It appears it has manifested itself in a far more aggressive attack aginst Bush by Kerry himself. Here is a link to an article:

Kerry: Bush is "Unfit To Lead" (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/02/politics/main640592.shtml)

Here's the whole Kerry quote:

"For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as commander in chief," Kerry said. "We'll, here's my answer. I'm not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq,"

When tough personal attacks are seen in commercials, it turns off the public. But, it's effective. When it's done by the candidate himself, I think it has a very high risk of backfiring.

I think it could be a huge mistake for Kerry to take this approach. He should be letting his subordinates make these types of attacks. By doing it himself, he's could be presenting himself as the type of person (not candidate or politician) people don't want to vote for.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
"For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as commander in chief," Kerry said. "We'll, here's my answer. I'm not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq,"

When tough personal attacks are seen in commercials, it turns off the public. But, it's effective. When it's done by the candidate himself, I think it has a very high risk of backfiring.

I think it could be a huge mistake for Kerry to take this approach. He should be letting his subordinates make these types of attacks. By doing it himself, he's could be presenting himself as the type of person (not candidate or politician) people don't want to vote for.


[/ QUOTE ]

Bush has already come out and said that Kerry's service was "more heroic" than his own.

Stu

[ThaSaltCracka]

I think he was referring to Cheney.

[Stu Pidasso]

Man... you're making me have to work. Ok heres the goods.

US President George W Bush has said his rival in the presidential race, John Kerry, was the "more heroic" for having put himself "in harm's way" in Vietnam.

Here is the link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3609312.stm)

Stu

[tanda]

Agreed.

A midnight rally in Springfield, Ohio to attack Cheney and Bush for things they did not say. Neither said he was unfit or unpatriotic.

Oh ... and he will just piss off the vets about 1971 even more.

Smacks of desperation.

This rally may be remembered not as a turning point but as a sign of the beginning of the end. He seems to be coming unglued.

[vulturesrow]

Yeah this tactic is very surprising. Obvously, I am biased. But Kerry appears to be playing right into the Rebpublican's hand here. I mean right now, no Republican breathes KErry's name without talking about how they commend him for his service. You have to wonder what is going on behind the scenes at the Kerry campaign.

[MMMMMM]

Very insightful, Dynasty.

[adios]

Let me get THIS straight. Kerry is holding a midnight rally after the Presidents conventions speech, John Kerry is going to go after the Vice Presidential candidate's history of receiving draft deferments, John Kerry is going to remain in his own version of a Viet Nam quagmire no doubt attacking Bush's military record, John Kerry refuses to authorize full disclosure of his military records, Kerry's promotion of his Viet Nam service has clearly been a losing tactic for him, Kerry is certain to invite more criticism regarding his Vets Against the War activities, and according to the polls John Kerry's strongest issues are the economy and health care. If Bush is a lunatic what does that make Kerry?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me get THIS straight. Kerry is holding a midnight rally after the Presidents conventions speech, John Kerry is going to go after the Vice Presidential candidate's history of receiving draft deferments, John Kerry is going to remain in his own version of a Viet Nam quagmire no doubt attacking Bush's military record, John Kerry refuses to authorize full disclosure of his military records, Kerry's promotion of his Viet Nam service has clearly been a losing tactic for him, Kerry is certain to invite more criticism regarding his Vets Against the War activities, and according to the polls John Kerry's strongest issues are the economy and health care. If Bush is a lunatic what does that make Kerry?

[/ QUOTE ]

I listened to his speech tonight. He sounded desperate to stop the his downhill momentum. It was pretty pathetic.

Stu

[MMMMMM]

Pretty funny stuff, adios.

Sounds like the tilt factor is setting in. Kerry's spraying chips already. A midnight rally right after Bush's speech, with more focus on military service?!?

Jack-ten offsuit? RE-RAISE!!! Missed draw on the river and got check-raised? Hell, RE-RAISE again!!!

[ChipWrecked]

It seems strange to me that Kerry makes it all about the Vietnam war, that was thirty years ago.

Oh, wait. My bad. If I had spent twenty years in the Senate doing nothing, I'd make it all about a long-over war too.

[GWB]

Isn't it kind of silly to say "he's unfit to lead" about someone who has just spent the last four years leading?

Now, if that was said about someone who was never in an executive office position (like a Senator), such a statement might be possible.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, if that was said about someone who was never in an executive office position (like a Senator), such a statement might be possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon now. Kerry was a Lt. Governor in Massachusetts more than a couple decades ago. Granted, he was only the #2 guy. And, Michael Dukakis was Governor at the time. But, it's still an executive office position.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now, if that was said about someone who was never in an executive office position (like a Senator), such a statement might be possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon now. Kerry was a Lt. Governor in Massachusetts more than a couple decades ago. Granted, he was only the #2 guy. And, Michael Dukakis was Governor at the time. But, it's still an executive office position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, he got his ticket stamped. Unlike Texas, the Lt. Gov. in Mass. has no real decision making authority or responsibility. And he left the office half way through his term by running for the Senate.

[adios]

Continuing the poker analogy, I think Bush's "rope-a-dope" strategy before the river for getting Kerry to bluff off a big portion of his stack is brilliant.

[The once and future king]

You think Bush came up with this strategy? Think again.

For what its worth, on this side of the pond it looks like Kerry is getting his arse kicked. I dont think it helps that he seem to have anti charisma. Dont get me wrong I would like him to win, but that looks like a slimmer and slimmer possibility.

The only hope is that given Bush is such a devisisve President, I mean you other love him or hate him, that large swathes of the population who ordinilarily wouldnt vote get out and vote Kerry.

It does seem that in the USA the right is much better at mobilising its vote, hopefully this year will be the exception.

This is about the only time that I wished the UK was a (vital swing) state in the Union. Kerry would win here by a landslide.

[El Barto]

I saw an article that stated that 81% of Germans would vote for Kerry. What is going on over there?

[The once and future king]

Well someone will pipe in and say we in Europe are all commie pinko socialists.

I say tell it to Margret Thatcher. We had a strong redical rightist government from 79-97. 18 years.

However I would be surprised if Kerry recieved less than 81% of the vote in the UK.

[Bez]

Thatcher was radical but Major was certainly not. I'd be surprised if anyone turned up to vote if this was in the UK. No-one cares about politics anymore as both leaders of the main 2 parties are very poor, as is the case in the US at present.

[The once and future king]

Agreed.

However if the vote was between Kerry and Monkey Boy then there would be a big turn out.

[Bez]

Yeah, probably. I've yet to meet a single person who respects Bush, even those who supported the Iraq war.

[ChristinaB]

Midnight rallies are not a good idea. Big mistake.

We will all suffer for years if John Kerry screws this election up. Getting Bush out is too important.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
For what its worth, on this side of the pond it looks like Kerry is getting his arse kicked.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's the case it's self inflicted.

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think it helps that he seem to have anti charisma. Dont get me wrong I would like him to win, but that looks like a slimmer and slimmer possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Kerry supporters remind me of some Red Sox fans on this forum at the 90 game mark. The campaign has a long way to go believe me.



[ QUOTE ]
The only hope is that given Bush is such a devisisve President, I mean you other love him or hate him, that large swathes of the population who ordinilarily wouldnt vote get out and vote Kerry.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Democrats are the party of bi-partsenship? That's too funny.

[ QUOTE ]
It does seem that in the USA the right is much better at mobilising its vote, hopefully this year will be the exception.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a lot to learn about politics in the U.S.

[ QUOTE ]
This is about the only time that I wished the UK was a (vital swing) state in the Union. Kerry would win here by a landslide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again you have a lot to learn about politics in the U.S.

[The once and future king]

I did not say that the democrats are Bi-partisan.

This is not what I meant. I meant those that normaly would vote democrat but cant be arsed to vote such as the 18-24 demographic might be arsed this year because Bush is so reviled.

Also if one attends a University with the express purpose of studing American politics one is soon taught that the republican vote is better mobilised. This is because in general the republican vote is OLDER. Those in the older demographic vote more frequently as they have a strong attachement to ideas of civic duty. In contrast to the Democratic vote which is younger. Shouldnt be having to explain this to you its so obvious.

[ QUOTE ]
This is about the only time that I wished the UK was a (vital swing) state in the Union. Kerry would win here by a landslide.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Again you have a lot to learn about politics in the U.S. "

This is so dumb its embarrasing. I am making a prediction about UK voting patterns and you tell me I need to understand USA poilitics better. You need to learn some basic comprehension skills. I am saying quite clearly that if voters in the UK were able to vote in the USA elections that Kerry would win a large magority of the vote in the UK.

I can see why you support Bush.

[Bez]

I would like to confirm that almost everyone in the UK other than Tony Blair dislikes Bush. Rightly or wrongly, he is seen as a gun toting cowboy.

[MMMMMM]

" would like to confirm that almost everyone in the UK other than Tony Blair dislikes Bush. Rightly or wrongly, he is seen as a gun toting cowboy."


I fail to understand why "cowboy" is considered a derogatory term overseas.

Historically speaking, American cowboys were generally brave, hardy souls who were not afraid to take risks and accept responsibilities. It was a tough profession, fraught with dangers; and cowboys embody the adventuresome, fearless, can-do spirit that made America great.

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
I saw an article that stated that 81% of Germans would vote for Kerry. What is going on over there?

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you be surprised at this??? Your presidents (I live in the US as of this spring, but am from Denmark) foreign policy has basically been: the US has the right to do anything it wants in the world to protect its own interests. He has really antagonized a lot of people outside the US.

I've learned that most Americans can't Imagine how the world feels when the major economy and military on the planet makes decisions who affects us a lot, but are often purely based on domestic concerns.

One issue that sheeds light on this is how the US has refused to sign the treaty on an international war crimes tribunal out of fear that some from it's own military might be indicted some day. This is the same US who claims to defend human rights everywhere. To the world it looks like hypocracy and it's an indication that the US doesn't want to be part of the international community.

These tendencies are scary to people in other contries.

I've heard a lot of republicans wonder how Clinton could be so popular in the world. It's really very simple: Clinton seemed to know and care about the concerns of other contries. We don't care who the President of the USA screws as long as he doesn't screw us.

[El Barto]

It is the margin that surprises me. In the 2000 election the 2 states that Bush lost by the biggest margin were Rhode Island and Massachusetts. They came in about 65% Gore, 35% Bush.

There is a big difference between a 2 to 1 margin and a 4 to 1 margin.

[Bez]

He likes to use guns far too much. I think cowboys are seen as acting like they do in countless films, regardless of the historical truth.

[arx]

I fail to understand why "cowboy" is considered a derogatory term overseas

By the same token, I fail to understand how liberal can be an insult in the USA, but I have learned it is.

[andyfox]

I agree 100%. Kerry should fire his campaign chairman.

And hire me.

[andyfox]

I was trying to think of the last time a sitting United States senator won a presidental election. In my lifetime, only John Kennedy. And that was 44 years ago. Were any others elected in the 20th century?

[adios]

LBJ but he wasn't a Senator at the time of course.

[J.R.]

Harding (1920, thanks to the ladies) and Kennedy are the only sitting senators to be elected president.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
One issue that sheeds light on this is how the US has refused to sign the treaty on an international war crimes tribunal out of fear that some from it's own military might be indicted some day. This is the same US who claims to defend human rights everywhere. To the world it looks like hypocracy and it's an indication that the US doesn't want to be part of the international community.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bzzzzz. Wrong. The reason the US doesnt want in on that is because it doesnt want itself exposed to capricious and mischievous prosecutions.

[Utah]

I agree....wait.....no I dont as I can already taste that $100.

His little stint last night smelled of desperation. Also, WTF was with the "all hat no cattle" line"? I bet about 20% of the people got that.

[cjromero]

That midnight rally was pathetic. My favorite line was when he said, "Now we know what RNC stands for. Really Not Compassionate."

Did he actually think that was a good zinger?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
One issue that sheeds light on this is how the US has refused to sign the treaty on an international war crimes tribunal out of fear that some from it's own military might be indicted some day. This is the same US who claims to defend human rights everywhere. To the world it looks like hypocracy and it's an indication that the US doesn't want to be part of the international community.


[/ QUOTE ]

To (at least some) of us in America, signing that treaty would be giving up some of our soveriegnty to the international community. Why would we want to do that given the record of the UN and other International authorities.

Stu

[Senor Choppy]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it kind of silly to say "he's unfit to lead" about someone who has just spent the last four years leading?


[/ QUOTE ]

Is that what he was doing? I thought it was more like embaraassing himself and his country, and generally breaking everything that he touches.

Bad leadership doesn't make you fit to lead.

[andyfox]

I don't know what that line means. I'm guessing it's not a Massachusetts expression.

Kerry needs ads on TV right now. Attack ads that make Bush look bad. A tape of Bush explaining why nation-building doesn't work, followed by some ugly statistics from Iraq. A tape of Powell talking about the "mobile weapons labs" followed by proof that they were nothing of the sort. A quote from the government report saying that disbanding the Iraqi army would be a terrible mistake, followed by information about how we disbanded the army at once. A chart showing the job creation during the Clinton term vs. the Bush term; and the poverty rate. A tape of Bush answering Lauer that we can't win the war against terrorism, followed by Cheney saying he didn't mean to imply that we can't win the war against terrorism.

SOMETHING! Hell, go after him on the Texas Rangers boondoggled. ANYTHING! Otherwise, he's got all hat, no cattle.

[Utah]

"SOMETHING! Hell, go after him on the Texas Rangers boondoggled. ANYTHING! Otherwise, he's got all hat, no cattle. "

LOL. It means that you buy a big cattleman hat and you walk around like a cattleman. But in reality you dont really own any cattle. You're just show.

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One issue that sheeds light on this is how the US has refused to sign the treaty on an international war crimes tribunal out of fear that some from it's own military might be indicted some day. This is the same US who claims to defend human rights everywhere. To the world it looks like hypocracy and it's an indication that the US doesn't want to be part of the international community.


[/ QUOTE ]

To (at least some) of us in America, signing that treaty would be giving up some of our soveriegnty to the international community. Why would we want to do that given the record of the UN and other International authorities.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

My point exactly! Most other countries do it willingly because the believe it a benefit for all to be able to persecute war crimes, why not the US?

[ QUOTE ]
The International Criminal Court treaty has already received more than the requisite number of 60 ratifications, and its jurisdiction will commence after July 1, 2002, with or without the U.S. signature. The court will try people accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. All of Western Europe and virtually every major U.S. ally are strong supporters of the court. The only states still actively opposing the court are the United States and Libya.

[/ QUOTE ]

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One issue that sheeds light on this is how the US has refused to sign the treaty on an international war crimes tribunal out of fear that some from it's own military might be indicted some day. This is the same US who claims to defend human rights everywhere. To the world it looks like hypocracy and it's an indication that the US doesn't want to be part of the international community.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bzzzzz. Wrong. The reason the US doesnt want in on that is because it doesnt want itself exposed to capricious and mischievous prosecutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's also happens to be the arguments used by war criminals on trial at the international court in Haag, when they explain why they don't recognize the court.

[ QUOTE ]
The U.S. government has said that it fears U.S. servicemembers or officials could be brought before the court in politically motivated cases. But the International Criminal Court will only take on cases that national courts are demonstrably unable or unwilling to prosecute. The treaty for the court includes numerous safeguards to protect against frivolous or unwarranted prosecutions. The key, said Roth, is to ensure that they are applied conscientiously.

[/ QUOTE ]

[MMMMMM]

"My point exactly! Most other countries do it willingly because the believe it a benefit for all to be able to persecute war crimes, why not the US?"


The U.N. is a farce in many ways; Sudan is chair of the U.N. Human Rights Committee; the Arab states vote en bloc against Israel; and political considerations, cronyism and overlapping interests make a bureaucratic mockery of the supposedly noble purposes of the U.N.

Granted, the International Court is not the U.N. itself, but the specter of politically motivated prosecutions is daunting nonetheless.

Here's my idea: no nation whose political system is not democratically based should have any vote of any sort in the U.N. If they don't give their own people free elections, they cannot truly be considered to represent their country at the U.N. and are instead an illegitimate government in the first place. So: KICK THEM OUT OF THE U.N, make it a members only club for DEMOCRATIC nations. When the totalitarian regimes are later deposed or reformed, their countries may then apply for admittance too, once a democratic-style system is firmly in place.

The idea of ceding some portion of one's authority or sovereignty is somewhat questionable even when the others are reasonably like-minded, free democracies. The notion of ceding some of one's own authority or sovereignty to nations whose leaders are purely illegitimate thugs, who also have interests diametrically opposed to one's own, is not only daunting, it is in my opinion ridiculous.

If the World Court were made up solely of decent democracies I would say it is a notion to be entertained and evaluated. However, as long as there are regimes involved in its judging or administration which embody the antithesis of human rights, and do not even allow their own citizens (or "subjects") to vote, I would say that even entertaining the idea should be out of the question.

Finally there is the matter of cost and efficiency. Look at what an incredibly lengthy and ex[pensive circus Slobodan Milosevic's trial has turned out to be. This is one reason why the Iraqis should try Saddam Hussein, rather than some international court trying him.

International bureacracies are even more inefficient and ineffective than national bureaucracies--and as such, primarily seem to waste time and resources--in addition to becoming excellent vehicles for stalling or lack of any meaningful action, allowing the problems to perpetuate under the guise of discussions and resolutions which drag on interminably.

[GWB]

http://freeconservatives.com/pics/members/acco/unburn.gif