Kerrys polished, but can't make his case

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2003
Kerrys polished, but can't make his case
48
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 10:19am
Almost any of us armchair warriors could have put down John Kerry's feeble generalizations better than Bush did.

And yes, it's true, if you hadn't been following the election campaign closely till Thursday night, Kerry wasn't as pompous or boring or even as orange as some of us had led you to believe, though his lipstick was a slightly distracting shade and he would have been better advised to ease up on what was either his simultaneous signing for the deaf or an amusing impression of the stewardess pointing out the track lighting leading to the emergency doors.

But none of that matters. If John Kerry is so polished and eloquent and forceful and mellifluous, how come nobody has a clue what his policy on Iraq is? As he made clear on Thursday, Saddam was a growing threat so he had to be disarmed so Kerry voted for war in order to authorize Bush to go to the U.N. but Bush failed to pass ''the global test'' so we shouldn't have disarmed Saddam because he wasn't a threat so the war was a mistake so Kerry will bring the troops home by persuading France and Germany to send their troops instead because he's so much better at building alliances so he'll have no trouble talking France and Germany into sending their boys to be the last men to die for Bush's mistake.

Have I got that right?

Oh, and he'll call a summit. ''I have a plan to have a summit. . . . I'm going to hold that summit ... we can be successful in Iraq with a summit . . . the kind of statesman-like summits that pull people together ...'' Summit old, summit new, summit borrowed, summit blue, he's got summit for everyone. Summit-chanted evening, you may see a stranger, you may see a stranger across a crowded room. But, in John Kerry's world, there are no strangers, just EU deputy defense ministers who haven't yet contributed 10,000 troops because they haven't been invited to a summit. And once John Kerry holds that summit all our troubles are over. Summit time and the livin' is easy, fish are jumpin' and the cotton is high, your daddy's rich and your ma is good-lookin' ... No, hang on, your wife is rich and your manicure's good-lookin' ...

In his prebaked soundbite of the night, Kerry said: ''Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?''

Interesting question. The play-by-play pundits thought it brilliant. But I beg to differ. It would have been a better line if he'd said, ''But the president's made a mistake in how he's fighting this war. Which is worse?'' There may be a majority that thinks post-Saddam Iraq has been screwed up; there's not a clear, exploitable majority that thinks toppling Saddam was a disaster, and Kerry can't build one in the next month. But it would still have been a lousy line for this reason: ''Talking about'' stuff is all Kerry's got. He's no executive experience, he's never run a state, never founded a company, built a business, made payroll. Post-Vietnam, all he's done is talk and vote. For 20 years in the U.S. Senate: talk, vote, talk, vote. So, if his talking and voting are wrong, what else is there?

Speaking as a third-rate hack, I'd say that as a general rule articulacy is greatly over-rated. It's not what it's about: Noel Coward would run rings round Mike Tyson in the prematch press conference, but then what? But, if articulacy is the measure, how come Kerry can't articulate an Iraq policy any of us can understand? By contrast, for an inarticulate man, Bush seems to communicate pretty clearly. He communicates the reality of the post-9/11 world, a world where you can't afford to err on the side of multilateral consensus and Hague-approved legalisms and transatlantic chit-chatting and tentativeness and faintheartedness about the projection of American power in America's interest.

A majority of the American people -- albeit not as big a majority as it ought to be -- get this. John Kerry still does not. Which means he lost the debate. He got a technical win on points from the pundits, but this election won't be won on points. It's primal. The pundits keep missing this. They thought Kerry was good in the debate, just as he was good in his convention speech, because on both occasions he was tactically artful. But that's not going to cut it. We're post-Clinton: you can't triangulate your way to victory.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn03.html






Image hosting by PhotobucketPhotobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 10:39am
Bush communicates the reality of a post 11 September world? Hmmmm, ya mean going back to the tried and true patriarchal 10,000 years of constant war? "It's war!" "Them's fightin' words!" It's all about beating his chest and being a great warrior. Please. That solves nothing, all it does is perpetuate this nonsense, like Northern Ireland and Israel - Palestine. Sooner or later you have to find solutions, not fight. Yeah, we have to defend ourselves, but while Bush does that, he creates ten more terrorists for every one he bags. Not the way to deal with it.


Edited 10/4/2004 10:43 am ET ET by rayeellen
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2003
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 11:08am


I agree, in a perfect world we would have world peace. There wouldn't be any reason to fight because we would all love each other. Unfortunately, that world doesn't exist. Bush isn't creating terrorists. You are kidding yourself if you think that terrorism will stop if Kerry gets elected and makes friends with everyone.

These terrorists are born and raised to be terrorists. It isn't about politics. They don't care who becomes president in America.

Image hosting by PhotobucketPhotobucket - Video and Image Hosting
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 11:25am

Still newbie...mostly been lurking here...but this drew my attention....I have to agree with this one...but on my take...this ENTIRE war is for absolutely NOTHING....simply BECAUSE


<>


as quoted by *FUTURE PRESIDENT KERRY* we went to the WRONG war...WRONG place...WRONG man...this is a true statement...there will always be another Saddam in Iraq...sooner or later...and all these people killed for a big FAT NOTHING!






 

Peace to all....and God Bless our Troops....STOP THIS WAR

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 11:45am
Terrorism cannot be stopped by force alone. Show me where it has worked even once. Force is necessary at times, but you have to do more. I've mentioned this before, but will again... 40 years ago virtually every National Geographic article on other countries would show one of their citizens with a picture of Kennedy in their home. He was a symbol of hope. Bush? A dart board if anything. Why? And it isn't just Bush, but he is the current president... it is because of failed policy for decades now. We don't inspire hope, we inspire fear, and people hate us. That is what creates terrorists. So we need to reexamine our policies and make some changes.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2003
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 2:18pm


Kerry can't think of any changes. All he states is that he thinks he "can do better." His words. I don't buy it. I don't see any concrete examples from him.



Making a Kennedy comparison is ludicrous because it doesn't take into account recent world events. We are talking about a breed of terrorists that stop at nothing. They will blow themselves up, they'll kill kids at school, they have no fear.

The killing of thousands on September 11th is a terror attack unlike the world had ever seen.



Force is necessary at times, just like you said. What would be "doing more" in your opinion?

It would be nice to be able to have a sit down chat with our enemies and peacably come to terms. That is just not realistic, unfortunately.

Image hosting by PhotobucketPhotobucket - Video and Image Hosting
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 2:42pm
There have always been such types around. FDR faced challenges just as any president faces now, and likely worse.

Bush has left us with the Patriot Act, an affront to our freedom. I don't believe in taking away freedom to stop terrorists. And I don't believe in making our country an armed camp to do so, either. They hate us because we are biased in the middle east, and because we have troops in the middle east. We created these monsters, but that seems to be forgotten... we thought they would spend their time giving the CCCP grief, but now they have turned on us. Same with Saddam... weren't we buddies in the Reagan administration because they were fighting Iran?

>>It would be nice to be able to have a sit down chat with our enemies and peacably come to terms. That is just not realistic, unfortunately.<<

Hmmm. Did I advocate that? I advocate sensible policy... again, we could learn a lot from the Canada's of this world... but we seem to think we can pummel everyone into submission, and that we should be the Big Cheese. Why can't we just be part of the world community? Why do we have to favour Israel or Palestine? Why can't we work to solve it instead of making it worse? Why not more effort's like Sen. Mitchell's with Northern Ireland?

The rest of the world is afraid of us, and not in a good way. Why? Are they all wrong? Or do we actually elect governments that are not good global citizens?


iVillage Member
Registered: 08-11-2004
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 3:02pm
If we sat down with our enemies for a chat we would be beheaded!
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2003
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 3:43pm


I support the patriot act. It was decisive and quick thinking 45 days after the 9/11 attacks. Of course it isn't there to take anyone's freedom away, but as like all things, exploitation by the democrats will occur.

The act protects Americans' rights, and those investigating terrorism have no interest whatsoever in the ordinary lives of the American citizens.



I agree with you. But that isn't what I've seen. Where have your freedoms gone? As stated, the Patriot Act has nothing to do with violating your individual freedoms....unless you are a terrorist.



we created these monsters? what?



In the current state of the union, what to you is sensible policy?

Image hosting by PhotobucketPhotobucket - Video and Image Hosting
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 4:07pm
< We don't inspire hope, we inspire fear, and people hate us. That is what creates terrorists. So we need to reexamine our policies and make some changes.>

I'm so tired of hearing all of the "blame America" explanations for terrorism. Liberals like to claim that it's not about radical Islam, it's about US policy. Look, if it were about our policies it would not be about suicide attacks on innocent civilians. These people don't just hate American policy, they believe that to die while killing "infidels" will offer them great rewards in the afterlife. Please, tell me what our "solution" is supposed to be to that. We do inspire hope, and we have all over the world since our inception. Every day tens of thousands pour across our borders in search of the American dream of freedom and prosperity. It is repressive backward radical religious leadership who has brought hopelessness to these people, not the US. I have yet to have one person describe to me just exactly how we have caused the despair of radical Muslim people. Aside from "we support Israel" I've never been given an explanation.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 4:13pm
< I advocate sensible policy... again, we could learn a lot from the Canada's of this world...>

Here's what France's "sensible" policy got them-the kidnapping of their citizens in an attempt to change French law-which worked! Maybe you want to live in a world where laws and policies are dictated by those who target innocent civilians, but I certainly don't.

Pages