John Kerry: Wrong on defense

[Zhukov]

Z=Obvious? And precisely what are these obvious reasons I assume you have proof of?

L= Already asked and answered.

Actually you provided your opinions and called them obvious reasons.

Z= Perhaps he's waiting until Kerry is the Democratic nominee in fact, and not just in all likelihood. I haven't heard President Bush decline the offer to debate, have you?

L= Kerry's winning in Illinois puts him over the top for the Democratic nominee. So, are you saying Bush is ready to debate?

Has the Democratic National Convention come and gone already?

John Kerry's nomination at his convention will be an (perhaps the) acme of his popularity during this campaign season. There is no sense debating him until after that wave of support has subsided somewhat. This is not an obvious reason, this is my opinion.

L= Maybe you can't recognize negative campaign ads when you hear them

When all the ad does is describe a Senator's voting record, one either recognizes it as negative or truthfull depending on which side of the aisle they sit apparently.

L= Have you ever had those paranoia tendencies checked?

No.

Z= Any mention of Kerry's voting record as a Senator is automatically considered negative campainging. How convenient.

L= No... just the negative campaigning. If you want a substantive discussion of Kerry's voting record then use a forum where both sides can speak on it.

I just want to know why any questions regarding anything about John Kerry at all is labeled an attack. This isn't a question we'll see asked in any debate I'd wager.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by lilcountriegal
Thanks DK

welcome lil

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
I'm going to repeat the question becuase I'm really curious.
Did Kerry actually say foreign relations have stated to him they support the removal of Bush? If so please provide a source or link?

Sen. John Kerry ... claims that some foreign leaders privately back his candidacy.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/15/politics/main606353.shtml

John Kerry is being challenged to give up the names of foreign leaders he says want President Bush out of the White House

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114177,00.html

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by Zhukov

Actually you provided your opinions and called them obvious reasons.
Sure..... If you have any additional opinions as to why Bush hasn't agreed to debate Kerry, then I'm open minded enough to listen... I didn't list them all, I listed what I thought were obvious reasons.


Has the Democratic National Convention come and gone already?
The one reason that you've suggested so far is that the Convention hasn't come and gone.

Well.... In that case, based on your reasoning, why doesn't Bush and the Republican party wait until the Convention has come and gone, before he broadcasts ads about Kerry?

John Kerry's nomination at his convention will be an (perhaps the) acme of his popularity during this campaign season. There is no sense debating him until after that wave of support has subsided somewhat. This is not an obvious reason, this is my opinion.

When all the ad does is describe a Senator's voting record, one either recognizes it as negative or truthfull depending on which side of the aisle they sit apparently.

I just want to know why any questions regarding anything about John Kerry at all is labeled an attack. This isn't a question we'll see asked in any debate I'd wager.

Hmmm.... So are you suggesting that Bush is broadcasting these ads, because he genuinely wants the United States people to gather a potentially favorable understanding of Kerry and what he's about?

Wow! Bush is that open minded? In that case, George Bush is such a great guy. Maybe he really is a uniter and not a divider.

 

[Zhukov]

Sure..... If you have any additional opinions as to why Bush hasn't agreed to debate Kerry, then I'm open minded enough to listen... I didn't list them all, I listed what I thought were obvious reasons.

My point is reasons and opinions are two different things.

Well.... In that case, based on your reasoning, why doesn't Bush and the Republican party wait until the Convention has come and gone, before he broadcasts ads about Kerry?

I don't presume to know the reasons why President Bush and the Republican party does anything. Perhaps because he has a lot of money and he felt like spending some of it. Debates, after all, don't cost money.

Hmmm.... So are you suggesting that Bush is broadcasting these ads, because he genuinely wants the United States people to gather a potentially favorable understanding of Kerry and what he's about?

No, I'm not suggesting that at all.

When one calls the sitting President a deserter, a crook, a liar, or an idiot, that is an attack. These are statments based on no presented evidence for the explicit purpose of destroying a person's character.

The "Troops" ad does not fall into the same category as that. It is a series of statments concering Senator Kerry's voting record with respect to things Senator Kerry has said and the reality of the situation today.

Do you think these two, what I would consider disparate, methods of campaigning are in fact the same?

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by Zhukov

My point is reasons and opinions are two different things.
As has been discussed in this thread, there are obvious reasons why candidates typically refuse to engage in debates. Ultimately it all boils down to, the candidate doesn't think it's in his best interest.

While if the opposition wants to debate, it usually boils down to that they believe it is in their best interest. They believe debates would provide a favorable result.

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by Zhukov
The "Troops" ad does not fall into the same category as that. It is a series of statments concering Senator Kerry's voting record with respect to things Senator Kerry has said and the reality of the situation today.

Do you think these two, what I would consider disparate, methods of campaigning are in fact the same?

Maybe I'll just say this hypothetically. But somehow I don't think the intention of the ad is to divulge the full story with regards to the troops. Somehow I get the impression that the intent is to skew the facts in a certain direction.

If someone uses no additional information to base their decision, somehow I don't think that ad will give them enough information to formulate and unbiased decision.

 

[Zhukov]

Oh, I'd agree it's biased, but it's not not true, you see.

But of course that, in a way, relates to my original point I alluded to in my first post:

"This is just another jab by the vast-republican-right-wing-attack-conspiracy-machine. I'd like to talk about the issues. Blah, blah, blah...."

- (probable) John Kerry response

The thread ran off in between that post and my next and I completely forgot the reason I wrote it.

The point is there are claims made in the ad that John Kerry could address. There have been claims made in previous ads that John Kerry could have addressed. Instead, he labeled them attacks, changed the subject, and moved on.

My point was, he doesn't address the issues brought up in the ads, and then proceeds to say, "let's talk about the issues."

True, the purpose of a debate is (allegedly) to answer questions, but why must he wait? I suppose that goes back to our 'obvious reasons.'

Personally, I think most of his positions are indefensible, considering he has frequently taken both sides, so I don't know why he's so eager to debate.