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: 08-07-2004
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 10:25pm
The most significant word in this statement is the "if".

Yes, IF there is evidence. But he hasn't had a chance to hear the evidence, or defend hinself against it. It is possible that the government is wrong, or abusing their power. Yes, they can continue to hold him, forever apparently.


< Um, if there was evidence that he was planning to (or hoping to)build a radioactive device to detonate in the US for al quaeda, yes, I would approve. They didn't arrest this guy for no apparent reason, and the reason they haven't charged him yet is that as an enemy combatant i.e. prisoner of war they can continue to try and press him for information and possibly capture the big fish who put him up to this. >

But he is still being held. The President has not complied with the ruling you mention. The justice system is trying to do its' job, but the President has not complied.

I will check my sources about this case & the patriot act & get back to you with more info on that point.


< as I said I believe a court has already ruled that he can't be held as one so the American justice system is doing it's job if he's not. Still has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. >

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 10:26pm


Nobody in the Bush administration tried to justify Abu Ghraib in the name of safety. The people who perpetrated the abuse are being tried for their crimes, unlike Zarqawi's people who are being applauded for their horrendous actions by a lot of their supporters.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 10:37pm


Nobody is disputing that there is evidence. What's in dispute is whether he can be treated as an enemy combatant (in which case he can be held and questioned indefinitely)or must be treated as a common criminal since he is a US citizen, with the right to a speedy trial. His lawyers are arguing that he can not be an enemy combatant because he is not part of an organized miltary force. Trouble is, the people we are at war against do not represent any particular country, do not wear uniforms and are not part of an organized military force. Should that mean that terrorists who plot to bomb American civilians can never be treated as enemy combatants? That's a very dangerous precedent to set, IMO.



It's not up to the president whether he goes free, it's for the courts to decide, and from what I understand the justice department is appealing the court's ruling. Even if the ruling is upheld that probably just means he'll be charged with a crime and held over for trial, not that he'll go free. Not sure what the current status is now though.

The Patriot Act has to do with the legality of investigative techniques and interfering with terrorist financing and money laundering, it really has little if anything to do with the arrest or prosecution of anyone (except immigration violators, I believe).

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2003
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 10:41pm
The Abu Ghraib scandal was never "justified in the name of safety."
Image hosting by PhotobucketPhotobucket - Video and Image Hosting
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 11:39pm
I didn't say they did. In an earlier post I mentioned people telling me that is how they viewed it.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 11:40pm
Again, in my first post on this I said others felt it was justified for that reason. I did not say anyone in government argued using that justification.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-02-2004
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 11:51pm
Hi, Sunlovey,

I thought that was an excellent post, well though out. Thanks for that!!!!!!
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2003
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 11:53pm
Okay then. I agree that if others feel that way, it's a shame.
Image hosting by PhotobucketPhotobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Pages