BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: Nerd
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 12:55 PM

You're being, shall we say, slightly intemperate, GUEST.

You're saying they are war criminals because they DIDN'T go to war?

Many people personally could have gone to Rwanda to try to help a single person or family who was being attacked. Yet we didn't. Does that make us all criminals?

I agree our government should have done something. But the way you throw around terms like "war criminal" is pretty harsh. You could call every president who ever was and ever will be a war criminal by these standards. Lincoln? Huge War Criminal! Roosevelt? (Take your pick)! Giant War Criminals!

Being sworn in as President would almost automatically make you a war criminal, if in order to avoid it you had to participate in every just action and refrain from every unjust one.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 09:35 AM

Yes. But Colin Powell said last evening that the US had no intention of going there.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Sep 04 - 12:44 AM

The important point to note for Kerry, is that he isn't calling for the US to send in it's own troops. Which is the same thing the Bush administration is saying. Kerry is using his usual "send in the international troops" without saying who, how, when, or where he is getting them from, giving a timetable for action (which is of the utmost importance on the ground in Sudan right now).

The Bush administration is saying it will support sending in more African troops.

Neither man is calling upon NATO, for instance. Or even the blue helmets, for that matter.

It isn't looking good for the Sudanese of the Darfur region, if what the two candidates are saying is anything to go by. Both are mouthing the same rhetoric the Clinton administration mouthed during the Rwandan genocide they easily could have prevented, but chose not to, because it would entail too much political risk for Clinton/Gore at home. Which makes them, like Kofi Annan, the UN official with the responsibility for doing something about Rwanda who stood by in silence, war criminals in my book.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 07:25 PM

Easy enough to get some idea:

Google News:

    Bush + Sudan

    Kerry + Sudan

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 07:18 PM

see the Genocide thread for the administration's efforts....

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 07:13 PM

What is BUSH saying about Sudan? That will then allow us all a barometer by which to judge Kerry's statements. Bush is, after all, the leader of the American people.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 07:09 PM

and what is Kerry saying about Sudan? I would really like to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 06:49 PM

Kerry is talking about the economy, heath care, education and jobs. You just won't hear about it on mainstream media. The Press have become whores.They no longer print truth and are disreputable in their facts. In order to really know what's going on, you have to go to other sources such as smaller publications that don't have an economic investment or are beholden to corporate owners. Even PB-Mess has been corrupted. Forget ABC, CBS or NBC, CNN and Fox. "Sixty Minutes" has a modicum of credibility as does "Now" with Bill Moyer. That's about it for mainstream news.
   A good source of information comes from Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now". Other sources can be found on the Net.
   Fortunately, there are a lot of good books out there today. "What's the Matter With Kansas", Thomas Franks, "Intellegence Matters" Senator Bob Graham, "Unraveled" by Paul Krugman, and there are others.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 08:41 AM

Kerry won't complain seriously about imbalanced coverage between his campaign and Bush's because if he were to be elected, he would enjoy the same advantage when up for re-election in 2008 and again (if Edwards ran) in 2012.

The imbalanced coverage does give the advantage to the incumbent. Which is why we have a government of incumbents. But it is the system that gives the incumbents most the advantages so they accept it as is.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 06:35 PM

Genie

yes, I noticed that error too. No one ever said Kerry was perfect!

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 04:32 PM

Search deeply within yourselves and be sure you know what you really want.....then go for it...but BE SURE!!!!!!!
Best wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are so many voters clueless?
From: Genie
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 03:34 PM

Back to the issue of who's "clueless," it's primarily the voters who are, because so many people rely on TV sound bites and slanted campaign news coverage for their information.

The mainstream channels (other than C-Span and PBS) covered a lot more of the Republican than the Democratic convention, not to mention that CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc., gave as much air time to their talking heads (including some right-wing commentators) during the Dem. convention as to the actual speeches. The Rep. keynote speaker, "Democrat" Zell Miller, got his speech aired on most networks. Barack Obama's keynote speech for the Democrats got almost no air except on PBS and C-Span.

When the network and cable "news" channels are not displaying blatant partisanship -- usually pro-Bush -- they shirk their main responsiblity by playing sportscaster rather than referee. If the "news" media will not call a lie a "lie" or a distortion a "distortion" -- regardless of which side is responsible -- who the heck will?

There is precious little investigative journalism and critical analysis of the campaign rhetoric of either side. It's mostly stuff like "Kudos to Carl Rove and Cheney! That last blow was below the belt, but it sure was effective!"

If the networks are going to accept campaign ads regardless of their truth, the least the press could do, if they really care about democracy, is point out the lies and deceptions when they see them. E.g., the second round of "Swift Boat Veterans" ads blatantly distorted Kerry's post war testimony on behalf of the Winter Soldiers, and I rarely saw anyone (other than John McLaughlin) express any outrage about the public being misled that way.

Kerry and Edwards hardly got any media coverage of their campaign before the Dem. convention and relatively little since then. How on earth can someone say what a candidate is or is not talking about when the media pick and choose the teeny soundbites they want to air?

PS:
Does Kerry's website really say "Peddling and back peddling is something America can't afford. " LOL
Someone needs to tell their website gurus not to rely on SpellCheck to edit what they post! :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 02:47 PM

Ooh, that didn't go so well, did it? Let me try that one again!


I was going to comment that I too registered for the draft, as I turned 18 after 1980. This does not mean that I was in danger of being drafted to serve in Viet Nam.

Thus, the registration of Edwards and/or BeardedBruce is not sufficient to answer the question "did he have to seek a deferment to avoid the draft?"

Thus, the whole question of Edwards and Beardedbruce is another right-wing red herring.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 01:37 PM

I was going to comment that I too registered for the draft, as I turned after 1980. This does not mean that I was in danger of being drafted to serve in Viet Nam.

Thus, the registration of Edwards and/or BeardedBruce is not sufficient to answer the question "did I have to seek a deferment to avoid the draft?"

Thus, the whole question of Edwards and Beardedbruce is another right-wing red herring.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 01:20 PM

Incidentally, the thread title is one of those "do you still beat your wife" questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 12:41 AM

In 1973, the draft ended and the U.S. converted to an All-Volunteer military.

The registration requirement was suspended in April 1975. It was resumed again in 1980 by President Carter in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Registration continues today as a hedge against underestimating the number of servicemen needed in a future crisis.

Taken from the following site:

usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/bldrafthistory.htm

or google

History of the Draft


Beardedbruce turned 18 in January of 1974. The registration of people was still proceeding. Just in case.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 04:18 PM

BB - you participated by signing up for a draft card. The U.S. went to an all volunteer army in 1973. The registration for the draft continued up until April of 1975.

I suppose that there may have been lotteries, just in case, but I could not find any record of one.   Perhaps there are other Mudcatters born in 1954, 1955 and 1956 that could confirm?

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 04:05 PM

I checked SSS... but I have found errors on web sites before...EVEN government ones. My objection was the phrase " Well, the number was meaningless in any case, because no one from that lottery was ever called up, and the entire draft was abolished in 1973." I may not have been inducted- but I did participate. Meaningless, anyway, as I had two nominations to the AF Acadamy by that time...

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 03:59 PM

Nope your card wasn't a fake. But, you're just going to argue cleverly with me rather than checking SSS for their official history aren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 03:56 PM

Again, you should have a card if you were born in 1956. You would not have been part of a draft lottery which ended in 1973.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 03:52 PM

My birth date is in January... And I still have the card, somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 03:51 PM

You had a draft card BB, but you were not in the draft. The last draft was held in 1973. Draft cards stopped in 1975. I'm not sure what lottery you are looking.

If there was a draft for people born in 1956, it would have occured in 1975. It did not.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 03:40 PM

ANd my birthdate came up 108 in the lottery... but you are saying that the draft had ended. I thought that my year was the first that noone was actually drafted.


So I guess that draft card telling me I was 1-a was a fake...

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 03:29 PM

BB, you really are confused. Don't take my word for it. Why don't you go to to the Selective Service System website (http://www.sss.gov), and see if you can find out when *they* say the draft ended. They are probably a decent source of information since they had a little bit to do with it.

And don't worry, I wasn't there either.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 03:21 PM

Beardedbruce - you were registered for the draft, but you were not in the compuslory draft which did end in 1973. Registration for the draft ended in April 1975 - two months before I would have had to register.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 02:52 PM

Guest, TIA,

"and the entire draft was abolished in 1973."

Then why was it that I ( born in 1956) had both a draft card, and my birthdate came up 108? This is very confusing- I guess I must not have been there...

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 02:47 PM

There will be plenty of time to rest once Bush is defeated.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 02:39 PM

Nerd, you need to get some rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: Nerd
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 02:29 PM

DougR,

(1) As many have pointed out, national polls are meaningless because as we saw in 2000, the national percentages don't elect a president.

(2) In the battleground states polls, Kerry is in the lead, but a slim lead. Still, it translates to a commanding victory in the electoral college if he holds onto it.

(3) Conservative estimates (not the estimates of conservatives) are that Kerry HAS lost about 4-7 points in polls with margins of error around 4 points. This probably reflects a real fluctuation, but it doesn't necessarily represent a trend. We are seeing "post convention bounce" of a few points for Bush, which had to come from somewhere, and with so few undecideds it all came from Kerry. Those bounces are rarely long-term effects.

So at worst, we have Kerry losing 5 points in polls with a margin of error of 4. Would you really consider that a reliable trend to say "he is sinking?" I don't.

Obviously, he has to shore up his support, but he isn't losing large numbers of supporters

(4) there is no such word as "misfacts," but then you knew that, you miscreant :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: DougR
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 02:03 PM

"Kerry is not sinking in the polls." Nerd, why do you persist in stating misfacts? Perhaps Kerry is not sinking in your hometown poll, but in the national polls, there is no doubt about it!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: saulgoldie
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 01:43 PM

Nerd,
I couldn't have figured that out, as I, too am clueless. Clueless as to how this country can embrace a leader (Shrub) who is so very bad for the future of the country and the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 01:24 PM

LarryK-

John Edwards was born on June 10, 1953. The first and only draft lottery for which he was eligible was on February 2, 1972 (you can see the results at http://www.sss.gov/lotter4.htm). He was assigned number 178. Note that the previous year, the highest number called up was 95 (see http://www.sss.gov/lotter3.htm). Well, the number was meaningless in any case, because no one from that lottery was ever called up, and the entire draft was abolished in 1973. So, you're right, John Edwards doesn't have a war record.

But, unlike Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Limbaugh, Rove,… he faced the draft. No deferments, no "other priorities", not even the remotest chance of political maneuvering by his mill-worker father.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: Nerd
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 12:59 PM

Sorry about that last post: the quotation marks and apostrophes from Kerry's statements must have been fancy unusual curly characters, as they've been converted to "?" by the forum! I trust you able and intelligent members and GUESTs will get it, though!

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: Nerd
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 12:57 PM

GUEST, you are wrong.

Health Care:

Kerry's detailed plan is here. He has talked about it on numerous occasions.

Here's a piece of their message: "John Kerry and John Edwards will move America in a new direction with a plan that puts America?s seniors first and ensures that they have access to affordable, quality, and reliable health care. The Kerry-Edwards plan will create a real, meaningful affordable drug benefit, and take steps to bring down prescription drug costs, including reimportation from Canada."

Kerry on 9-11 commission:

?I?d like to say a few words about the 9-11 Commission Report that was just released. The commission has done an extraordinary job. It has issued a clear set of recommendations to protect us from terrorism and make America safer.

?Now that the 9-11 Commission has done its job, we need to do ours. We understand the threat. We have a blueprint for action. We have the strength as a nation to do what must be done. The only thing we don't have is time.

?Leadership requires that we act decisively to protect America. That is why we created this commission in the first place. And it is why when the commission issued their report it called for immediate action. Not talk. Not vague promises. Not excuses. Peddling and back peddling is something America can't afford. It will take real, bipartisan leadership and real action to protect America. The stakes are too high to treat this commission?s report as something to just go away. The threat will not just go away. The commission's recommendation should not just go away. It is time for leadership.

?We must act on the commission's recommendations now, and keep working, without pause, until we have done everything possible to prevent another terrorist attack.

?That is why I support the 9-11 Commission's commitment to continue pushing for progress and make sure its recommendations are implemented without further delay.

?The commission should stay on the job for at least another 18 months and, beginning this December, the commission should issue a status report every six months to address the following questions with absolute candor: First, are we doing enough, fast enough, to strengthen our homeland security? Second, are we reorganizing our intelligence agencies to meet the terrorist threat? Third, are we building a true global alliance to fight the terrorists and their extremist ideology? Fourth, are we leading and uniting the world, so that we isolate our enemies, not ourselves? Fifth and finally, are we doing everything we can do to make America as safe as it can be?

?The president and Congress have it in their power to make the commission's first progress report a hopeful one. The president has the authority to implement many of the comission's recommendations by executive order. And Congress must do its part where legislation and funding are needed. We simply must act, not as partisans, but as patriots, not to win an argument about what was done or not done in the past, but to win a war upon which our future depends. So I hope the president will now take the necessary steps.

?So I hope the president will now take the necessary steps. If he does not, then the day I become president I will lead, in a bipartisan manner, to ensure that the commission's recommendations are implemented immediately. These are common sense ideas from a bipartisan commission -- and we can't continue to ignore them, as doing so would be at our peril.?

Kerry on Abu Ghraib:

?Yesterday, the Schlesinger panel released their report which found that much of the responsibility for setting the conditions for the abuse at Abu Ghraib can be attributed to failures at highest levels of our government. Today the Fay report will be released and will recommend punitive action for those in our military who were directly involved.

?But what is missing from all these reports is accountability from the senior civilian leaders in the Pentagon and in the White House. From the bottom of the chain of command all the way to the top, there needs to be accountability. The Schlesinger report makes clear that Secretary Rumsfeld was responsible for setting a climate where these types of abuses could occur.

?By failing to plan to win the peace, by failing to make sure our troops received the proper training, equipment, reinforcement and command guidance, and by failing to take corrective actions once all of this became apparent, Secretary Rumsfeld did not demonstrate the leadership required from a Secretary of Defense.

?That is why today I am calling on Secretary Rumsfeld to resign effective immediately. In addition, I call on the President to appoint an independent investigation to review the entire decision making process that led to these abuses and provide a comprehensive set of reforms so that we can ensure that this never happens again.

?As Harry Truman said, the buck stops here. The time has come for our Commander in Chief to take charge.?


I could go down the whole list. But the point is, GUEST, yes, you've missed something. In every case.

Do you think it's just possible that it's YOU who are clueless?

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: Nerd
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 10:49 AM

Carville and Begala are not impartial news analysts at CNN. Maybe you've never watched that show. They have one guy "from the left" (Carville or Begala) and one "from the right" (Novak, Carlson, etc.) So they are identified from the outset as leftist commentators. The fairness and balance comes from having one of each.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 10:02 AM

Bush is the incumbent.    Therefore, all he has to do is be presidential.    It is Kerry who must convince the public why he should be president.   Instead, he got mired in the mud about Viet Nam and is still trying out of it.    During August he tried to ignore the story and hope it would go away.   He was wrong.   Now Kerry has reorganized and brought in Clinton attack dogs Carville and Begalla to respond.   

It is amazing that they still are working as "impartial" news analysts on CNN and the press says nothing.   Could you imagine the uproar if Sean Hannity went to work for Bush and stayed at Fox?

I thought the Bill Oreilly idea was a briilliant idea.   Instead they are attacking bush on 30 year old national guard duty....again for the 5th time.   Only this time it appears as if they used forged documents.   Kerry will not win unless he changes the agenda and gives us a vision for the future.   "W" may be for wrong but "F" is for failure.

Oh- about the money.   Bush has the least money of the 4 candidates on the ticket.   (Bush/Cheney/Edwards/Kerry)   And while were on the subject- lets talk about John Edwards war record in Viet Nam- Oh thats right.   He didn't serve either.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 08:55 AM

Edwards is eminently more electable than Kerry, who apparently is content to rest upon his 30 year old medals, and his and his wife's combined fortunes.

For a man the Democrats keep heralding as so intelligent, the man doesn't appear to have any political savvy whatsoever, regardless of how many high paid, high powered former Clintonistas and Kennedy aides he has on staff.

He has squandered the issues that inflamed voters, and made Bush the biggest lightning rod president of my lifetime. The short list of issues he has squandered (besides the economy) are:

1. Health care-which he has no plan that he has given for reforming a behemoth of a system which is draining the consumer economy, by devouring worker paychecks. Slightly more than 60% of American workers have health insurance, and of those, the average annual premiums (and we aren't talking actual health care costs, just the premiums to get access to the discounted care insurance provides) is now well over $2,500 per year per family.

What is the Kerry message on health care? He does town hall meetings, he has staff write his policy papers, but what is the Kerry/Edwards message on health care? Did I miss something?

2. 9/11 Commission-did Kerry say something about this? Did I miss something?

3. Prisoner torture scandal-did Kerry say something about Abu Ghraib? Did I miss something?

4. Homeland security-as just one example, we need a paltry $6 billion (Iraq has already cost $200 billion) or so to protect US train travellers and commuters from Madrid style terrorist attacks. Did Kerry say something about this? Besides tsk, tsk that is? Did I miss something?

5. The Iraq and Afghanistan insurgencies-very poor execution of the Bush/Cheney war on terrorism is a given here. Any specifics on this one from Kerry? Did Kerry say something about this? Did I miss something?

6. The Democrats KNEW the Bush/Cheney strategy was going to be attack, attack, attack. So why didn't the Democrats pre-emptively strike? It isn't like there is a shortage of material to bludgeon this administration with: Abu Ghraib corruption all the way up the chain of command to Rumsfeld; Halliburton and fiscal mismanagement of the $200+ billion being spent in Iraq to enrich the rich buddies of Bush/Cheney at the expense of the Iraqi and American people; the secrecy of the administration and lack of transparency in their administration; the debacle that is the Homeland Security department; the 9/11 Commission's report and criticism of the administration's handling of post-9/11, including the hated Patriot Act.

I could go on for a long time. The simple matter is, Kerry's messages on these issues isn't known by American voters. There are only a few weeks left before Election Day. The Bush/Cheney campaign is already starting to back out of the debates, as I predicted they would in another thread.

So just when will the Democrats get their house in order?

Or is this campaign just a Democratic smokescreen for their strategy to lose, and come back with a lot more money in 2008, when they might even be able to provide the American voter with a viable candidate?

That's what I'm wondering now. Is the Democratic strategy for the 2004 election to lose, in hopes of winning it all back in 2008?

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 03:26 AM

As far as I can make out, there isn't a single "clue' between the pair of them. Kerry's "saving grace" lies in the fact that he'd have great difficulty in finding a more gawdawful cortege of morons than those that pull the Bush strings.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: GUEST,peedeecee
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 11:34 PM

What I think might do Bush a lot of harm is that he is now refusing to take part in the second scheduled debate, because he doesn't like the fact that it is a "town hall" format, in which (shudder) UNSCRIPTED questions might be thrown at him.

(Would someone be kind enough to tell me how to do italics, bold, etc. on this forum? Thank you!)

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 10:28 PM

You've bought the Bush camp's spin on the polls, GUEST. Kerry is not "sinking in the polls." Bush picked up a couple of points from the convention, far fewer than anyone expected and far fewer than he would have liked.

There are whole threads about this. Numerically, Kerry's bounce was as big as Bush's, if not bigger, but the media reported Kerry's as tiny and Bush's as big. When things settle down again, we'll know where the candidates stand.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 08:54 PM

OK Nerd. I agree with what you are saying in the above two posts. But it still doesn't address the problem of Kerry badly failing to connect with voters, and his current (I know it's likely not permanent) sinking in the polls.

I'm not ready to claim Bush has turned the corner on Kerry. But Kerry's failure to get his messages across isn't just the fault of the media, IMO. It is also a problem with the messages themselves, and an obviously failed "message of the day" strategy on the part of his campaign. Which he shook up last month by bringing in even more former Clintonites.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 07:59 PM

Also, GUEST, as I have pointed out on other threads, an American election after one presidential term is NEVER the challenger's to lose. It is ALWAYS the incumbent's to lose. There is healthy portion of the electorate that almost always votes for the incumbent. As all the news analysts will tell you, elections after one term are essentially referenda on the incumbent. The identity of the challenger is less important than the public's feelings about the incumbent. If Bush can make people feel good about him, he will win, no matter how brilliant the challenger is.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 07:47 PM

If this election is Kerry's to lose, so far he is doing a great job of losing it. That is all I'm saying.

If that's all you're saying, you're using a buttload of words to get there, GUEST!

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 07:39 PM

Kerry is also bombing in the polls. For goodness sake, the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll shows that only 39% of those planning to vote for Kerry like him or are enthusiastic about him being president. In fact, Peter Jennings even referred to as the "Anybody But Bush" problem coming back to haunt him on tonight's news.

If this election is Kerry's to lose, so far he is doing a great job of losing it. That is all I'm saying. This doesn't have anything to do with what Bush/Cheney sleaze story is currently being thrown at Kerry/Edwards. Bush/Cheney went way over the dirty politics line decades ago. Everybody knows that.

What isn't so good is that not everyone who hates Bush is actually going to vote against him in November by voting for Kerry. They may just vote against Bush by staying home, if Kerry can't get his act together, and fast.

How bad is it? Here's a few blurbs from the Post article on the poll:

"For the first time in a Post-ABC news poll this year, a majority of likely voters now say they plan to vote for Bush. Among those most likely to vote in November, Bush holds a 52 percent to 43 percent lead over Kerry, with independent Ralph Nader receiving 2 percent of the hypothetical vote. Among all registered voters, Bush leads Kerry 50 percent to 44 percent."

The convention bounce for Bush was roughly equivalent to Kerry's (4 points for Bush), so that isn't enough to account for Kerry plummeting in the polls. Sure, he plummeted as a result of the Republican attack dogs. But why didn't he attack back? Did the campaign staff go on vacation for the month of August, or what?

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 07:16 PM

Kerry has said that he would hold monthly press conferences when elected.   One of the conversative radio hosts apparently picked up on this today and is now accusing Kerry of not fullfilling his promise. I am sure Kerry would be glad to honor that promise if Bush steps down today!

Kerry continues to meet with local reporters during campaign visits. While not an official press conference, he has been trying to schedule interviews as tie allows.   The last time Bush took a question from a reporter was on Sept.1. As president, Bush has held only 12 official press conferences since he took office. During the campaign, Bush rarely talks one on one with reporters.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 06:34 PM

As to press conferences---it is my understanding the a Pres. should be holding them. The candidate, who is not the incumbent, makes stump speeches that voice his views. So Kerry has done. So Edwards has done (with great charisma).

The Bush people slung mud and now it is coming back to haunt them---unfortunately we are fighting the last war in this campaign thanks to the Bushies.   Cheney, however, has finally stepped over the line and one hopes that people realize that his claims of un-Americanism and danger to us if Kerry is elected is the most un-American cut of all---or as Maureen Dowd might say---Darth Vader speaks again.

As to money---Kerry and wife are not paupers---all a question of degree. Does one honestly think the Oil rich Bushes who just fell out of bed (for public consumption) the the Saudis are paupers.

It IS the economy, stupid. But, it is also our current ill advised escapade that is costing us American lives for the benefit of our Oil Happy FIrst Family. But there are more nuances than that---I know---dirty word "nuance" all of a sudden.


Bill Hahn


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 06:14 PM

Anyone who has confidence in either the Democrats OR the Republicans is probably clueless. :-) I gather that includes Guest?

Guest, there is no use fighting over Tweedledum and Tweedledee while the ship of state sinks under your feet and your democracy vanishes into the maelstrom.

Oh...but you don't really HAVE anyone else to vote for, do you? Realistically speaking, I mean. That's a darned shame. No wonder so many people don't bother to vote anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 06:07 PM

Actually, in this little fraternity rivalry bwtween the Repubs and Dems, Kerry is *not* clueless. Taking a page out of Bush's (acrually Karl Rove's) game plan, Kerry is attacking Bush's *strenght*. No I'm not into polls but pollsters do and they say that other than "security" Kerry competes well in other areas with Bush. So, Kerry is doing the politically expedient thing in trying to shore up the area he does not poll well with...

If you are running a campaign this is the right kind of move... Plus, Kerry gets a second benefit from attacking Bush's Iraq policy. He will most likely chip away a few progressive votes from Nadar...

Not mine unless he throws a few more bones to the progressives but his criticism of the manner in which the Bush went to war, is somewhat refreshing...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: GUEST,peedeecee
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 05:55 PM

The point is not whether Kerry is clueless -- he may be clueless, he may not be. But the one in power now is clueless AND greedy AND vicious AND dim, and anything is better than that, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 04:18 PM

That may be so, GUEST, tarheel--I assume the same tarheel who likes Bush and is therefore overlooking the fact that the same holds true for his candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: GUEST,tarheel
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 03:39 PM

KERRY does not have to worry about the economy and that's why he cannot express himself about it correctly! how can he relate to it when his precious little Tereasa owns $$BILLIONS! do you really think he cares about the rest of us? i can't, for the life of me, understand why he even wants to be president!...but,if you live in the millionaire/billionaire society,i guess you might get Bored once in a while and have a need to let someone know that you are alive and well in the world,somewhere!

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 02:45 PM

When was Bush's last press conference Larry?

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 02:32 PM

Maybe Kerry is clueless because he has the same advisors that have run the democrats for the past 8 years.   Dick Morris said it proves how much Clinton wants Kerry to lose that he sent Kerry the advisors he fired from his own campaign.

To win, Kerry must change the focus to domestic issues- economy, healthcare, jobs, etc.   Instead he keeps bringing up 30 years ago.   To those of you who think the recent attacks on Bush in the national guard are beneficial to Kerry- think again.    It only reinfores that Kerry is 30 years in the past.    Most people want to know what he is going to do in the future.    I predict that these national guard attacks (and Kitty Kelly bood) will aid Bush.   It only distracts from his domestic agenda.

AS Dick Morris says- all Bush has to do now is look presidential and stay out of the mud.   Let his surrogates fight Kerry in the mud.   Bush looks presidential.   Kerry looks lost.

In the midnight rally, Kerry attacked Cheney for not serving in Viet Nam.    Nothing could have helped Bush more.   Maybe Kerry thought he was still part of the republican convention.   It was the icing on the cake.

Bill Oreilly has the best suggestion for Kerry- hold one (count em) one press conference, explain viet nam, answer all questions, and never mention it again. The problem is that Kerry has not held one press converence in over one month.   In the last one he said he wanted to fight a more "sensitive" war on terrorism.   After the incidents in Russia last week that seems even more absurd than it did a month ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: DougR
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 02:05 PM

John Kerry is clueless because he is clueless.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: kendall
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 12:41 PM

Anyone who saw 60 minutes last night knows that at last something is being done to expose the creep.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 11:27 AM

Why is GUEST clueless? Why doesn't he ever mention President Bush's deficiencies?

And before you provide evidence to tell me that he's CONSTANTLY mentioning President Bush's deficiencies, let me head you off by saying that I won't accept that evidence. Because I don't remember him saying certain things, that means he isn't saying them, even if he can PROVE to me that he IS saying them. And it's HIS fault that I never hear it.

See how silly you sound, GUEST?

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: Peg
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 10:42 AM

Um, maybe because Bush and Cheney keep talking about everything BUT the economy, accusing Kerry of lying about his record in combat, and implying that somehow America will not be safe from "attack" if Kerry wins? (that last disgusting fear-mongering tactic courtesy of Dick for brains Cheney).
Kerry has to keep answering to these lies or voters will think he has something to hide...and "the war on terror" keeps taking the fornt seat because of the horrors taking place around the globe.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 10:26 AM

I'm getting depressed about the whole election thing. I'm afraid too many Americans don't have the patience to listen to anything complicated. I heard a quote the other day: "If you have to explain your position, you've already lost the debate." People only want sound-bites. That's why it's so easy to brand someone a flip-flopper. The election will be won by slogans and catch phrases, not by issues.

Eight—or was it twelve?—years ago, Ross Perot did what I thought was a brilliant thing. On 2 or 3 occasions, he bought a full half-hour of network television time—he said it cost him the same as two 1-minute commercials—and explained the economy to people, principally to impress people with the enormity of the national debt. He presented charts and graphs and explained them with great clarity. People (myself included) didn't vote for him because they didn't trust him personally as a leader, but I think he succeeded in impressing people with the fact that the debt was indeed a big problem. Soon afterwards, we had a balanced budget. Now, it's unbalanced again.

I expected to see other candidates follow his campaigning technique, but it didn't happen. Why not? Well, I think I know why not, but it depresses me.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 10:25 AM

However, despite my remark to GUEST above, s/he makes a point that Kerry should be made aware of. Electioneering is much like chess or fighting: it's really about timing and tempo. If you allow the opponent to establish the 'pace' of events, and if you are always responding, you will eventually lose. The way for Kerry to win this, IMO, is to unleash a devastating piece of filth about Bush--shouldn't be too hard to come up with that, given Bush's track record of lies and bullshit--just enough time (but not too much time) before the election that the spin doctors cannot refute the allegations. Quid pro quo. You may not think that's fair, but really, given the Bush 'trail of deceit', who friggin' cares? There are no rules in a knife fight, and the Bush team make the rules as they go along anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 09:58 AM

GUEST,

The crucial question is not why Kerry is not talking about the economy; rather, it's "Why is the media NOT reporting it when he does?" Smart guy/gal that you are, I'da thunk you'd a figgered that out fer yerself. Glad to help though.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 09:41 AM

Spare us Guest. We do not have to prove anything to you because no matter what evidence we present you will put your own spin on it.

The problem with Kerry is that he is talking about the economy, but he cannot articulate his message clearly. The media loves the Vietnam/Iraq material because it stirs controversy. That is where they keep the focus.   Kerry has not been able to figure out a way to make the economy a sexy issue.   "It's the economy stupid" was a great catch phrase that brought the issue home. When Kerry talks about plans to create incentives for keeping jobs at home or reducing the deficit, the reporters and audience zone out. Too dry.

Subject: RE: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 08:05 AM

And please spare me the cut and pastes to "prove" that Kerry is talking CONSTANTLY about the economy. If that were the case, we'd all know that by now. We don't. We don't have a clue as to what the hell Kerry is droning on about at his campaign appearances, or his campaign's "message of the day".

He isn't getting through to anybody, so the only people who end up listening to him are his own choir.

Apparently, Kerry considers his personal "honor" over the military service thing more important than winning in November.

Subject: BS: Why is Kerry Clueless?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 07:59 AM

Seriously. He keeps talking about Iraq, when Americans keep telling pollsters, quite consistently for over a year now I might add, that "It's the economy, stupid".

Yes, Bush does better in the polls on the commander in chief question. But so what? It's the economy, stupid.

Why isn't Kerry hammering away at Bush on the economy? There is no other issue that will unite American voters more than their own pocketbooks. So what gives, here?

For a guy everyone claims to be so smart, why is he acting so stupidly?

This makes no sense.