.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

American Values Under Attack Image by FlamingText.com
Image by FlamingText.com

"Fighting the world wide web of wicked wrong doers."

Welcome. The aim of this site is simple - to rail against the slow, but steady chipping away of traditonal American values by a host of groups & individuals bent on destroying them.

“We know the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?" - John Page 1776

And crown thy good with brotherhood.... ....from sea to shining sea line07-b.gif Your commentator - Francis Lynn...MySpace Profile...E-mail

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

The Girl, The Interview, The Twist, The Flip - Part II

Diane Sawyer interviewed John Kerry on Good Morning America. The victim status that Kerry places himself in is amazing.

DIANE SAWYER: The polls show 53 percent of the voters in the recent poll think that you change your mind too often. George Bush has 59 percent of a clear stand on the issues — you have 28 percent. Is there any way in which you're responsible for that?
JOHN KERRY: I think their advertising and their — their effort over these last months to use that word have been particularly successful. I give them credit for it. But it doesn't reflect the truth. See what the Republicans do — and they love to do — and they're very good at it — and they've spent millions of dollars doing it — is just find a little sentence here and find a little sentence there — and take it out of context. That's why I look forward to this debate, because it's an opportunity to be able to really let the American people know the truth and know where you stand.

Maybe, John, just maybe, the problem is you & not the machinizations of George Bush & Carl Rove. If Republican advertising can bring you down to only 28% of people believing you have a clear stand on issues, then your election hopes are over now. Go home. And ask your own ad agencies for your millions back, since apparently they failed you. And I guess the past year you spent running in the Democratic primaries was of no help to you in getting your clear positions & issues out to the people. Republicans take you statements out of context, you claim. They twist & distort. But there is no need for them to do that - you are a wealth of contradictions & fuzziness. The truth is that you are primarily responsible for that 28%. Your attempts to be all things to all people has only blurred anything that you might stand for. You are caught in an unfocused issues hell of your own making. It is a self-imposed trap that you can not escape & any attempts to do so will beget internal contradictions which your opponents will quickly seize on, as they are doing already. So you are relegated to victim status now. A self-created victim.

But you are always the victim, John. You fall off skis & blame "that son of b**tch" Secret Service Agent. A questionable statement is made by you & you blame your staff. The famous, "I actually voted for the $87 billion authorization before I voted against it", now happened, you claim, because it was very late at night & you were oh so tired & that caused you to mispeak. Even though, it now turns out, it was noon when you made the statement. Stop being a victim John. People don't like self-defined victims or whiners. How can voters expect strong leadership from you when you play victim or fuzzy up your positions? How can the voters trust you to be strong in office when you, like so many liberals, refuse to take personal responsibility for your life? Libs love to throw out the "it's Bushes fault" line. In your case, John, it's everyones fault but yours.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kerry responded last night in the 1st debate. This was supposed to be a pushover for Bush - a debate on the war on terrorism. Well Bush didn't come close to winning - he sounded whiney and defensive most of the night.

By Richard Wolffe
Updated: 11:09 a.m. ET Oct. 1, 2004Oct. 1 - It’s never easy to declare the winner of a TV debate. But the contest in Coral Gables, Fla., on Thursday scored some striking successes all the same. Not least, the debate showed sparks of life—and insights into both candidates—that nobody anticipated. Here’s a rough guide to the highs and lows of both George W. Bush and John Kerry at their first encounter.

Bush: the Highs
Bush showed some of his much-vaunted compassion when he spoke about Missy Johnson, the wife of a soldier who was killed in Iraq. For a rare moment in the debate, Bush dropped his personal attacks on Kerry to talk about something much more human. “I told her after we prayed and teared up and laughed some that I thought her husband’s sacrifice was noble and worthy,” Bush said. The president’s aides have long said that he’s much more likable and personable than his rival. The anecdote about Johnson gave voters the best glimpse of that personal touch that Bush is famous for—a quality he exhibited again when he praised Kerry as a father, and thanked Kerry’s daughters for reaching out to the Bush twins.

Bush also displayed an emphatic, podium-thumping approach to winning the war against terrorists. “The best way to defeat them is to never waver, to be strong, to use every asset at our disposal, is to constantly stay on the offensive and, at the same time, spread liberty,” Bush said at the outset. It’s that kind of clarity that gave Bush his best moment on Iraq, in saying without equivocation that “the world is safer without Saddam Hussein.”

Bush: the Lows
The president was killed by a thousand cutaways. The cameras showed a testy, uncomfortable president under the blows from Kerry. The pursed lips, the dismissive glances, the stuttering, frowning responses: they were almost like Al Gore in 2000. If Bush was hoping to show his optimistic side, he missed his goal. It wasn’t just the body language. Bush’s strategy was to repeat his campaign’s attack ads, but the effect was to make him look aggressive and negative. That’s a world away from the charismatic president his aides had hoped for. Just last week, Bush’s advisers believed the TV debates would show Bush at his most likable and Kerry at his most dislikable. Bush barely showed his most congenial side on Thursday night.

When Bush wasn’t looking touchy, he sometimes looked startled. Kerry jumped on Bush for saying he invaded Iraq because “the enemy attacked us,” pointing out it was Osama bin Laden who attacked the United States, not Hussein. Bush’s response? “Of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us,” the president said defensively. “I know that.” Not very presidential.

Bush also lapsed into something that is rarely associated with him: Washingtonspeak. He talked about a “supplemental.” He prided himself on his “multipronged” approach to terrorism, and his international summits. He even waded into the realm of international treaties, disappearing down a blind alley on the International Criminal Court. Such obscurities were once thought to be Kerry’s domain, but Bush showed he was less of the regular guy he portrayed in 2000.

Kerry: the Highs
Expectations were so low about Kerry that it was relatively easy for him to surpass them. After watching his character get trashed for months on the campaign trail, Kerry looked and sounded a world away from the verbose, weak-willed caricature that has dogged him so far. Kerry was more concise, and more forceful, than he has been all year. He accused Bush of failing to live up to his promise to go to war as a last resort. “Those words mean something to me, as somebody who has been in combat,” said Kerry, making one of several references to his time in Vietnam. “Last resort. You’ve got to able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents: ‘I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter'.” Kerry also dealt directly with the key piece of evidence in the GOP’s flip-flopping attack: his vote on the $87 billion funding for the war. “Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talked about the war,” Kerry said, “But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?”

Before the debate, pundits had questioned whether Kerry could land a punch without looking overly aggressive. In fact, he did something more difficult as he tied the costs of the war to the homeland. “Today we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost,” said Kerry. “Two hundred billion that could have been used for health care, for schools, for construction, for prescription drugs for seniors, and it’s in Iraq.” He also accused Bush of spending money on police and firefighters in Iraq when he’s cutting money from police and firefighters in the United States. Both points translated the costs of the war into terms the voters can understand back home.

Kerry: the Lows
The more Kerry attacks the war in Iraq, the less he sounds like he wants to be there. Kerry’s problem on Iraq isn’t one of mixed messages. It’s that he doesn’t sound like it’s his fight. That is only underscored by his reliance on international summits to find an exit strategy. Why should other countries believe in the Iraq mission when Kerry never really believed in it himself? For voters who think that Iraq is going in the right direction, Kerry offered little reassurance.

Kerry also wandered down blind alleys of his own. He stumbled into name-dropping exercises that were meant to boost his national-security credentials but sounded ponderous. When he cited the military figures who back him, most of the names meant little to voters. (my comment: the names meant little but the titles of General, General, General, on and on did) It also underscored Kerry’s basic problem in challenging Bush. Kerry could only claim to be strong; Bush had the luxury of taking his strength as a given.

Assumptions Debunked
Overall, the debate was a microcosm of the campaign. Bush’s strategy focused on tearing down Kerry’s character. Kerry’s strategy focused on policy details. The result was a reversal of some assumptions about the first debate. The Bush campaign suggested that foreign policy would be a slam dunk for President Bush after his successful convention in New York. That didn’t turn out to be true. And the pundit class said the debate would be a dry restatement of talking points. Fortunately for voters, that also was far from true.

12:14 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Free JavaScripts provided
by The JavaScript Source