Image

Well John F. Kerry just gave his speech before the Democratic National Convention. The media considered this to be his make or break speech.

How did you rate this speech, and:

Do you think John Kerry delivered his speech well?

What did you think of the content of his speech?

What, if anything, did you think was missing from his speech?

I think he delivered it fine. I try not to dwell on the superficiality of how he came off on a personal level. I am tired of this desire of people to elect a friend instead of a politcian. I think he envoked god way to much but I understand why he did it. He painted (his daughters and Rassman did better) a nice portrait himself. The stories were great. Then again these are just stories the very type of superficial balogna men like Reagan used to endear himself why really saying nothing of importance. I feel sorry for people who vote on someone because that person feels personable. Like look he saved a gerbal or he ate a jelly bean

The Content was about all it could be. He spoke on the shortcomings of the president. He should have dwelled on Rumsfeld (who the republicans are hiding) and his arrogance pre and during war. He continued the optimism theme started by Clinton, Obama and Edwards (all much greater on the stump then he). He brought up his buddy John Mccain as much as possible. The content was marginal. He illustrated the shortfalls of the Bush team and noted some potential remedies. Mainly rolling back 200k tax cuts and ending corporate welfare. The greatest thing he got across was an appreciation for European nations even dropping the F word....France. Some European nations just need to be pampered (France) and as long as Bush is in office they will derail us every chance they get. He reemed home the stem cell and was given an extra boost by the old Hogey Fogie Zell Miller (making the talk show rounds) who made himself look like a moron (maybe just look normal?) when speaking on the issue. Just by the way he spoke of the international community it is evident that he has an understanding of the world and that is certainly something Bush cannot claim. (he never owned a passpot until he became president). I am glad he openly spoke against things the republicans accuse him of flip-flopping on. He will not allow himself to be cornered. He criticised some things he voted for and pleaded fro the necessity of some thing he voted against....which i think is smart. He will not let them decide who he is. The republicans cite how he voted for the patriot act hoping to make him afraid to use it.....boom attacks Ashcrot and the abuse on the constitution. Nice staying away from blaming Bush for 9/11.

What was missing? Well he really didnt get the point across that he is a war hero...... . I do think it is important but he is almost into the territory of overuse. He was pushing it. I ahte to fall into a republican argument but he didnt go deep into his senate votes (not even ones to use in his advantage). Chalk it up to time constraints. He needed to hammer Rumsfeld and Cheney but he stayed away...as much as possible.

All in all Kerry was a B on his speech...other speeches.
Obama and Clinton....A,A
Gore....B
Edwards....A-
Momma T......C-
Kerry twins......B+
Cleland......B
Dean......B
Sharpton....B+
Lieberman....C+...I like him but he sounds like Ben Stein
Gephardt....B-

Morgan Freeman voice over....A+. He has an awesome voice.

Overall, I went with "Good"

Do you think John Kerry delivered his speech well?
By all accounts, this is the best speech Kerry has every given. He showed more passion, energy, and enthusiasm than at any other time. Unfortunately for him, although good, it didn't "wow". There were no extended applause breaks. There were no "wow" lines that made the crowd go "Hell, yeah".

It was good, it just wasn't great.

What did you think of the content of his speech?
I can't say that I agree with most of what Kerry wants. I did get the impression that he may served in Vietnam, though... He pushed for protectionist economic policies (any mention of a "level playing field" when it comes to international trade should sound the alarm for free traders.) He proposed cutting middle class taxes (yeah me) and taxes on small business owners, while at the same time, raising taxes on those making $200k or more (I wonder if he knows that most small business owners would fall into this category ).

I got the distinct impression that Kerry thought "America can do better, help is on the way!" That one got to be droning to me. Kerry obviously thinks that hope comes in the form of government programs, something that I can't say I agree with.

He did say a few things that may have peeved some audience members. "I don't know if God is on our side, but I humbly pray that we are on God's side" was stolen from Abe Lincoln (a Republican) and seemed to turn the audience off. It was an obvious plea to the religious people who are still on the fence. Didn't seem to hit home with the base, though.

What, if anything, did you think was missing from his speech?
Most interesting to me was his avoidance of mentioning terrorism and glossing over Iraq. You would think he would address these very critical issues. He stayed domestic though. I think this could really hurt him.

This was also the first speech I have ever heard at a Convention that invited the audience to visit his web site for details... The guy doesn't want to explain his policies himself? Are those without internet access given only incomplete information? Lay out your policies, John. The American people want to know.

All in all a decent speech, but not the "wow" speech that he really needed.

I voted "Good". He's not Clinton with his charm and charisma, but he's a heck of a lot better than George "foot in his mouth" Bush.

Do you think John Kerry delivered his speech well?
Yeah, it was good. He stumbled a few times with it, but recovered fairly well. He definitely had passion and energy, more so than I've seen in the past. It wasn't fake nor was he talking down to the audience, as so many people think a Boston Democrat would do.

What did you think of the content of his speech?

I liked it. As far as details to fight the war on terrorism, if it's war, it's war: FIGHT THE TERRORIST AND HUNT THEM DOWN AND DESTROY THEM. Very simple and that's what he said. Bin Laden ISN'T in Iraq. I think Kerry talking about the 9/11 commission and being accepting and open to their recommendations is a good start.
Talking of unity in the nation, tax breaks for the middle class and rolling back the tax cuts for the top 2 percent is a VERY good thing. I was very encouraged by the content of his speech. ESPECIALLY his jab about faith and how it's not a Republican owned tool...

What, if anything, did you think was missing from his speech?

More talk on Iraq. OBL is easy, GO HUNT HIM AND HIS PEOPLE DOWN. But Iraq, understandably is more tenacious. More talk on how to heal the wounds with our allies and how we're going to get Iraq on the right track.

I gave it an excellent after reading the text online. Although delivery is important, I know how Kerry delivers speeches. He is no slouch with the spoken word.

Regarding content, I think he did well on touching the highlights of his proposals to the voting citizens. We can argue the details in separate debates. This entire campaign has been successful *due to* the Internet. People who do not have Internet access in their homes, apartments or other rentals can check out www.johnkerry.com from public libraries. Otherwise, I'm sure newspapers (including free independent papers) will be hashing out the details.

Let's just say that had Kerry gone into detail, he'd still be talking right now (7/30/04 8:18 AM MDT) and through next week.

Did John Kerry tell the nation who he is? That I don't know. I know who he is, and I admire the man. I suspect committed Kerry supporters have at least the major points worked out. Republicans probably know who he is (dag nabbed liberal), and the conservative attack dogs only want to know about things to hammer upon.

Undecided voters probably have a better idea now, especially since Time and Newsweek are featuring Kerry this week.

What the heck is up with that? They don't seem to be separate news weeklies any longer. Oh well, side issue. Our "free" subscriptions (bought with FF Miles) are about to run out, and let's say extensions are not in our futures.

Let's see, anything missing? I don't think so. He gave a nod to his former Demo opponents, indicating Demo unity. That's different for the party (don't belong to an organized political party, I'm a Democrat -- Will Rogers). He tried to short-circuit the inevitable Republican attacks to come. Nice try, doubt it'll be effective. I thought that could have been dropped, but I do understand the tactic.

After all, now the Repubs have a full month of free-wheeling spending to do before their convention. This is like tipping over a chair to slow down the charging bull.

I voted "good". Text I would give an excellent to but I think he could have worked the content better if he had slowed down a little and let the audience carry a bit more. For example, this part would have gotten a standing O for about 2 minutes


I also think the "reporting for duty" line would have been a TON more effective at the end of the speech. The content of the speech was outstanding. Especially if he wrote as much of it as they are claiming he did.


This is the age of the Internet Amlord, why wouldn't he say that? God forbid he encourage people to seek out more information on a candidate because it can't be delivered in a 30 second sound byte. He laid out his policy agenda in as much detail as an average American could handle in a 1 hour speech. Any more and eyes would have started glazing over.

Encouraging folks to check the internet is extending an opportunity, not punishing those without. Can you deny that the folks on this site are more informed because of it?

If you want to know why Kerry voted for the $87billion for Iraq then voted against it? Check the web site. Kerry voted against it because he wanted the appropriation paid for by repealing a portion of the tax cuts as opposed to continuing to inflate the deficit. But you can rest assured his opposition will continue to rake him over the coals for denying body armor to troops as if he said specifically "No, I want our troops without body armor." Used properly, the internet is the greatest asset an informed citizen has in the age of soundbyte attention spans. I see nothing wrong with encouraging them to use it in his speech.

Doc

Do you think John Kerry delivered his speech well?

For John Kerry, it was an INCREDIBLE speech. For Clinton, it would have been a bad night. Overall: good delivery. I think he was watching the clock, trying to get it all in by the 11 o'clock news (it ended just a few minutes after), which is too bad, because he really could have milked the applause lines better had he slowed down to appreciate the audience's appreciation.

You can tell he got a new speechwriter and has been working on making his text more rhythmic to get the crowd into it.

What did you think of the content of his speech?

Better than expected. Hit the right notes and the right level of detail. Didn't put a "hate" Bush, just a bit of "hurt". Good zig-zagging through the landmines already laid by Republicans.

And Bush is already on the attack this morning asking "what has he done in the Senate that's so special?"... a line of attack we've already debunked here on AD!

What, if anything, did you think was missing from his speech?

Details, but who cares? This was a pep rally and not a symposium.

Considering that an entire career and his life’s work came down to a single speech I’d give him a good+ or excellent-. He looked just a bit pressured which is understandable and thought the pace of the speech was a bit fast (he did finish 4 minutes ahead of schedule).



I heard several references to both Iraq and terrorism, here's just a few:



It’s the approach I preferred from the beginning, but of course that wouldn’t have been as profitable for the over charging self-indulgent off shore tax exempt war machine and their connections to the current administration.



Imagine, a unilateral approach. And I thought the following was effective and to the point.





Not from the statistics I’ve seen, if you’d like to offer proof I might agree with you.



Stolen is an awfully strong word to use when in fact he did mention that he’s paraphrasing Lincoln.



I will agree, it wasn't a WOW, but I'd give it a WOV.

I thought it was pretty ho-hum. It was the usual mix of half truths and soundbites, with names of a few ordinary citizens interspersed to make him look like he cares about the average Joe. He was selective in his biography. We somehow didn't get much on his glorious anti-war activities. But did you know he served in Vietnam??? What a revelation! This guy has paved the way for my speechwriters if I ever run for office.
I'm sure it revved up his base and was designed as a pep rally speech, but it didn't impress me much. He's not that dynamic of a speaker.

But Bush isn't going to do any better, or any different in NY at the Republican convention.

Fair.

I was a little disappointed. The substance was really good, but frankly, not many people care about that (I would say most here would because we care about the issues. But your average Joe Sixpack could care less).

I think his job was to get people excited about him, not lecture us. And it was a hurried lecture to me. He planned it very poorly and I hope that's not a reflection on how he will do once we vote him into office (jab jab).

Instead of rushing the speech, he should have given a shorter one so he could work the crowd more. It was a good call not to go long as he may have been cut off (even though the pundits say it wouldn't happen), but it was bad to put substance over style on national TV.

He could have worked that crowd into a frenzy with the excellent content of his speech, but he didn't. That excitement would have certainly carried over into the living rooms of America.

But DR, if he would do that, talking head on TV would KILL him on lack of substance! Just look what happened to Barack Obama - he gave an excellent speech which sparked a fire in the crowd and all across the country, but he was given poor marks on FNC (and here by some of our more conservative friends) because he didn't talk about issues that much. You just can't win... so given a choice between issues and pep rally, one would think that the presidential candidate would go for substance... which he did.

I beleive that is a fair point. Good observation.

I also voted Fair. He's tall, looked sharp, and delivered his speech in about three tones instead of the usual one, but the positive notes end there. Did anybody notice that he was sweating quite a bit? He had to reach for a towel part way through to dry his face. Did anybody else also notice where he nearly fell off the stage after his speech while shaking hands to the people below?

As for the substance of his speech, it had a number of contradictions that bothered me. For example, he said, "Let's build unity in the American family, not angry division. Let's honor this nation's diversity; let's respect one another..." But earlier in his speech he spoke with an angry tone about conservatives, saying that they are anti-family, pro-Enron, anti-health, and anti-police. He also spoke with an angry tone about wealthy working Americans, with calls to take more of their income away. Is John Kerry setting the example of building unity and respect for all Americans with these comments?

You pulled an example of unity, but you failed to pull a quote where he specifically dinged all conservatives as you're alleging. Or is it just some conservatives who are anti-family, etc. and you took what Kerry was saying that it meant all? Please bring some quotes to the table. We've already posted links to the speech in this thread, so that shouldn't be too much trouble.

Overall, I was very impressed by his speech. I've read a few of his other speeches in the past so I had a general idea of what to expect.

I knew he would not have the oratory skills of Clinton ( for very few do ), but I thought the content of the speech was outstanding. He covered almost all of the points that I believe needed to be touched.

Luckily I also watched most of the convention on CSpan so I didn't have the cynical comments spewed out by CNN and NBC after each speech was given trying to tell me how to think. So I really enjoyed what I heard. And it gives me hope for not only America, but the world.

[quote]I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war. [/quote]

Mr. Kerry, are you saying that Bush mislead the American people? But what of your vote, sir? Are you not the Senator from Massachusetts who voted for war in Iraq? You and your running mate believed there was enough intelligence to vote for the war resolution. In fact, Edwards sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so he probably had the same info Bush did. You both agreed to send our troops, didn’t you?

Should I go get your words about Iraq prior to the war? Should I pull John Edwards interview with Chris Mathews? Now you want us to believe you didn't mislead us, and never would. Which is it Mr. Kerry, did you, Edwards and Bush mislead us, or not?

[quote]I will have a vice president who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws. [/quote]

Polluters? That’s an extremely uniting statement.

[quote]And I will appoint an Attorney General who actually upholds the Constitution of the United States.[/quote]

I’m confused, sir. Didn’t you say, "One would be hard-pressed to find a single grieving relative of those killed in the bombings of the World Trade Center in New York or the federal building in Oklahoma City who would not have gladly sacrificed a measure of personal privacy if it could have saved a loved one."

[quote]And on my first day in office, I will send a message to every man and woman in our armed forces: You will never be asked to fight a war without a plan to win the peace.[/quote]

Are you trying to imply that there is and was no plan for the peace?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0040524-10.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/

Your policy is basically a rip off of Bush's.

[quote]I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security. [/quote]

You would wait until we are attacked? No thanks.

As to your assertion that you would never allow another country or the UN a veto over our national security, you really have no say in how they vote. You could play the diplomat, but that doesn't ensure a unaimous vote at the UN.

Weren't these your words?
“I’m an internationalist. “I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”

[quote]You don't value families by denying real prescription drug coverage to seniors, so big drug companies can get another windfall.[/quote]

Amazing rhetoric. Bush has provided a prescription drug coverage plan to seniors. It may not be perfect, but at least it was a huge step forward and you didn’t even vote.

[quote]As President, I will not privatize Social Security.[/quote]

Well, neither would the President. He is offering a choice.

[quote]You don't value families if you force them to take up a collection to buy body armor for a son or daughter in the service, [/quote]

If you were so concerned about this, why didn’t you vote for the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004?

[quote]if you deny veterans health care,[/quote]

That has been debunked thoroughly:
Cut in Veterans Benefits, Myth or Truth

[quote] or if you tell middle class families to wait for a tax cut, so that the wealthiest among us can get even more.[/quote]

Huh? The middle class didn’t get a tax cut? I could have sworn I did. I saw my paycheck go up.

[quote]So here is our economic plan to build a stronger America:
First, new incentives to revitalize manufacturing. [/quote]

Is that the so-called "corporate welfare" that the left loves to complain about when proposed by Republicans?

[quote]Second, investment in technology and innovation that will create the good-paying jobs of the future. [/quote]

Business does that every day. Where exactly in the US Constitution is business investment an authorized Federal expenditure?

[quote]Third, close the tax loopholes that reward companies for shipping our jobs overseas. Instead, we will reward companies that create and keep good paying jobs where they belong — in the good old U.S.A. [/quote]

More corporate welfare?

[quote]And we're going to return to fiscal responsibility because it is the foundation of our economic strength. Our plan will cut the deficit in half in four years by ending tax giveaways that are nothing more than corporate welfare — and will make government live by the rule that every family has to follow: pay as you go.[/quote]

Wait a sec, there's that corporate welfare thing. Now he's opposed to it.

[quote]And let me tell you what we won't do: we won't raise taxes on the middle class. You've heard a lot of false charges about this in recent months. So let me say straight out what I will do as President: I will cut middle class taxes. I will reduce the tax burden on small business. And I will roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals who make over $200,000 a year, so we can invest in job creation, health care and education.[/quote]

Why not let the wealthiest individuals invest in job creation? That does seem to be what they do best, if you leave the money in their hands. Those small businesses you are speaking of reducing taxes for are the ones making $200,000 a year of which you intend to roll back the tax cuts. How are you going to do both?

[quote]Our education plan for a stronger America sets high standards and demands accountability from parents, teachers, and schools. It provides for smaller class sizes and treats teachers like the professionals they are. And it gives a tax credit to families for each and every year of college.[/quote]

And this will be paid for how? Right now Bush has provided the money to the states for the No Child left Behind program and the states are hoarding it.

[quote]When I was a prosecutor, I met young kids who were in trouble, abandoned by adults. And as President, I am determined that we stop being a nation content to spend $50,000 a year to keep a young person in prison for the rest of their life - when we could invest $10,000 to give them Head Start, Early Start, Smart Start, the best possible start in life.[/quote]

Pre-school won't do much for kids who have parents who don’t get involved in their education.

[quote]And we value health care that's affordable and accessible for all Americans. Since 2000, four million people have lost their health insurance. Millions more are struggling to afford it. [/quote]

You know what's happening? Your premiums, your co-payments, your deductibles have all gone through the roof. Would you like to gander a guess at why? Just look to your right. He’s name is John Edwards.

[quote]Our health care plan for a stronger America cracks down on the waste, greed, and abuse in our health care system and will save families up to $1,000 a year on their premiums. You'll get to pick your own doctor — and patients and doctors, not insurance company bureaucrats, will make medical decisions. Under our plan, Medicare will negotiate lower drug prices for seniors. And all Americans will be able to buy less expensive prescription drugs from countries like Canada.[/quote]

I have a hard time buying that turning over anything to the Feds will result in less waste, greed, and abuse.

[quote]The story of people struggling for health care is the story of so many Americans. But you know what, it's not the story of senators and members of Congress. Because we give ourselves great health care and you get the bill. Well, I'm here to say, your family's health care is just as important as any politician's in Washington, D.C.

And when I'm President, America will stop being the only advanced nation in the world which fails to understand that health care is not a privilege for the wealthy, the connected, and the elected - it is a right for all Americans. [/quote]

A right? Where is that in the Constitution? Mr. Kerry, I too believe that people should have access to affordable health care; health care that will allow for preventative care. But, don’t mess with my insurance coverage. If you are going to create a socialized health care system, let it be optional and don’t do anything to mess up what I have now. I don’t want to wait for months to go to a specialist.

Cute . The Iraq resolution was to give Bush the option of going to war, if he so chose, based on intelligence collected by agencies under his control, reporting to him in a matter he had pushed for months. The President's team is essentially saying he was duped by mean ol' George Tenet and his CIA- a claim for which there's plenty of reason for skepticism. Neither Kerry nor Edwards were "sellers" of the bad intel as opposed to "consumers", while there is support for allegations of the admin. cherry picking or influencing the intel.

Kerry, at that time, voiced what measures he felt were necessary to properly use that authority. Now he's blasted for being equally as at fault as the chief executive, and accused of flip-flopping for repeating the necessary measures. Maybe Kerry meant he'd wait for solid intelligence for trying to sell the nation on a nuclear armed Iraq with connections to Al Qaeda.



Yeah, it is. I'd place good money on most of the populace being against the method in which the admin.'s energy policy was formed and later kept secret from taxpayers.



If I'm not mistaken- no context was offered in most places I found this quote, including here- this springs from a question on encryption in Wired. The threat of strong encryption is somewhat different than an Attorney General who's repeatedly championed laws and tactics the Supreme Court has found unconstitutional. Kerry didn't say that citizens would be willing to forget the Constitution to save lives; Ashcroft has been on the wrong side of decisions by the final arbiter of constitutionality in our government- literally not upholding the Constitution.



I guess we all dreamed administration statements about ecstatic greetings, the declaration of "Mission Accomplished" many deaths ago, and the persistent lack any estimation of cost or duration given to Congress when asking for "blank checks".



Ah, 1970. The Harvard Crimson. I'm sure you meant to post the fact he said that 10 months after returning home from Vietnam, 14 years before he became a Senator, and 34 years ago overall.

Wonder how authoritatively Bush could speak of foreign policy in those days. Of course, in 2003 he said "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council." eleven days before changing his mind, but I suppose it's only a flip-flop when it involves a Democrat and three decades.

And I missed where Kerry addressed in that quote what he'd do if he had credible evidence of attack- although, as noted, he voted to authorize the President to make that decision when told it was necessary.

Some one else can take this up from here, if so inclined. Anyway, I voted "good"- he exceeded expectations, put in a little of everything in it ("a little" being all that is possible in a rush to finish during the network "window" of coverage), but it wasn't the near-flawless level I'd give "excellent" . I'm glad to see *cough* some Bush supporters gave a strait forward, open-minded opinion, as opposed time-consuming compendium of attacks that shrivel before the blessed light of context.

Mainly because he disagreed with the way that money was funded. He co-sponsored a bill that would fund the 87 billion by rolling back some of the Bush tax cuts. Rolling back those cuts was the fiscally responsible thing to do; limiting what has become a large deficit.

So, no, Kerry doesn't hate our troops. Nor did he send our troops to war. Besides, if this bill was introduced in 2004, it meant Bush sent our troops into war without armor in the first place.

I voted that the speech was "good." The content made me a little worried (how are you going to cut middle class taxes, Kerry?), but he definitely showed his his strong side. Hell, I'll vote for him simply because of stem cell research. We need a president who believes in science

You use a link from a speech a year after the war supposedly ended to "prove" that Bush had a plan for the peace that was supposed to have started a year earlier with that "Mission Accomplished" banner? What's up with that? Where's your "A-Game", Bela?

You also forgot to mention Kerry's "pandering" to the scientific crowd over stem-cell research instead of supporting Bush's faith based nonsense.



Yep, all it took for Bush to do this was to suppress information about the plan's true costs, subsidize HMOs (corporate welfare) to compete with Medicaid, put insurance companies in the middle of the plan so they can make money on it, and make sure that the government couldn't negotiate lower drug prices for the people on this plan. All without raising any revenues to pay for it. And the slice of the population that really needed this plan was small enough that a more targeted approach to providing this benefit would have made more sense, as even you agreed back then in this posting. Go Bush!



I'm not the "left" and yet I used the phrase just above. Oops! Must be more fun when you get to apply labels to stuff. Anyway, incentives don't have to be "welfare" and they don't have to look like tariffs, which Bush actually has used a bunch during his term (socks from China now have a tariff. Socks.). You drew a conclusion based on nothing. I haven't seen a plan either, so I can't comment on what the plan is, but you don't have any facts posted about it either, but yet you claim it's "corporate welfare". Maybe it would be a good new debate thread, since this one was supposed to be about the speech and not the policy.

You can try to split this hair, but the fact is, John Kerry and John Edwards authorized the war in Iraq. Don't you see? It isn't me twisting, it's Kerry. He's the one pretending he didn't authorize war when he did. The public should hold both candidates accountable for their votes, don't you agree? Why hold Bush accountable and not Kerry? Kerry is now misrepresenting how he voted.



But the policy plan isn’t a secret and anyone who wishes to view the plan can do so by visiting the White House web site.

The crux of the argument seems to be based on the fact that Cheney met with Enron. It all ties back to what many were hoping would be a Bush – Ken Lay scandal. Unfortunately for many, that hasn’t panned out. Mr. Cheney and the task force held a series of meetings with as many as 400 people from 150 corporations, trade associations, environmental groups and labor unions, to devise a new energy policy for the nation. The real argument here is whether the White House has the ability to seek confidential counsel on issues.



Really? Would you mind explaining how? From what I’ve read:

Janet Reno, wanted to force companies to create a "clipper chip" for the government—a chip that could "unlock" the encryption codes individuals use to keep their messages private. When that wouldn't fly in Congress, the DOJ pushed for a "key escrow" system in which a third-party agency would have a "backdoor" key to read encrypted messages.

Then it was Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.) who argued alongside the ACLU in favor of the individual's right to encrypt messages and export encryption software.



No, I didn’t mean to post that fact. Most people here are studied enough to know exactly where it was from. Furthermore, if the main point in his campaign is his service in Vietnam over 30 years ago, then anything he has said or done between then and now is fair game.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Your argument is flawed because Bush did not declare the war over in that speech. I am not a military expert, so perhaps someone with experience can tell us if every conflict we’ve ever been involved in had an exit strategy up front. Somehow, I doubt it, because you can’t begin to know what you’ll be dealing with when you enter the conflict.



I support stem-cell research, amf. But, I think Kerry should be real careful when arguing for it and then dissin’ pharmaceutical companies in the same breath. He needs to remember that today’s medicine finances tomorrow’s cures.



And I still do, thus the built in caveat in my statement, which read, “it’s not perfect”.

Bela, you are absolutley right, not on all you said, some stretches, but on this it is clear. Edwards has always defended his vote for the war, Kerry voted FOR the war, there was no misleading. They all voted for an illegal war. They all misled the public. They kissed butt to the President and let it go down. Not a one of them can claim to have missed the boat or been in the dark as to the reality of the matter, they each had something to gain. Each and every one had access to the same information and made the same corrupt decisions, which means they are all liars. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Kerry, Edwards, the entire lot. There were no wmd, we saw that, the Powell presentation was childs play, it was shameful they could present that and think anyone would take it seriously.

Ive always said the US government is a corrupt bunch of self interested liars for profit, and the Dems are as well, it just takes some objectivity, Kerry is War Party, no different than Bush.


Now Bela, you need to be careful not to repeat (ad nauseum) television commercials from pharmaceutical companies. Or do you incorporate into your beliefs 'GE brings good things to life' (paying No taxes). Todays medicines make a lot of CEO's rich, and Canada and Mexico pay 2/3 less for their drugs than we do, basically we 'nice fat rich americans' are being ripped off.

You can't possibly be saying that when -- in his "Mission Accomplished" speech -- he used the phrase "major combat operations have ended" that the war was still happening, can you? Or how about after we caught Saddam? Was the war over then? Even then, Bush didn't have a strategy for dealing with winning the peace. But his appointees in the Pentagon were crowing beforehand that the war would pay for itself with Iraq's oil and that they would welcome us with open arms. It took nearly a year before Bush finally came up with a plan... and the plan looked a lot like what Kerry and other Democrats were stating should happen. So who stole from whom (to get back to your original assertion that Kerry stole his plan from Bush)?



You're changing your story now. You took issue with this line from Kerry's speech:



Not that the policy was secret, but the meetings definitely were. And the attendees definitely were. But you pointed out that using the phrase "polluters" was divisive. So be it. You for polluters these days?

Actually no, I don't see---or concede your point, Belladonna.

What I do see is a marked propensity of Bush-backers to attempt to absolve the President for his stupid escapade of American imperialism by spreading the blame around to Kerry and Edwards for their mistaken trust in Bush that even he wouldn't take the nation to war recklessly.

They were wrong. Bush did take America to war without just cause. If Kerry and Edwards had not given Bush their backing the armchair generals would have yelped, "They're soft on terrorism!" So they wimped out and gave in to political considerations. On those grounds Kerry and Edwards can be legitimately criticized.

At the end of the day though, the final responsibility for the pursuit of the war rests upon George W. Bush's shoulders. Nobody else. Or need I repeat Harry S. Truman's admonishment?

Kerry, and 99 other Senators are accountable for their vote. That doesn't mean Bush gets a pass for his inept prosecution of the war.

It's a bit disingenuous to take a speech of over 5,000 words and parse it down to a handful of quotes taken out of context, but to the extent it unites Zell Miller Democrats and Left-fringe liberals in their disdain for John Kerry I guess a larger purpose is served. If both extremes of the Democratic Party feel disconnected then the unstated purpose of positioning Kerry in the political mainstream was a success.

I'll extrapolate one paragraph from Kerry's convention speech and I hope it stands on it's own without commentary, parsing or spin.

I want to address these next words directly to President George W. Bush: In the weeks ahead, let's be optimists, not just opponents. Let's build unity in the American family, not angry division. Let's honor this nation's diversity; let's respect one another; and let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeche..._2004_0729.html

I said: But the policy plan isn’t a secret and anyone who wishes to view the plan can do so by visiting the White House web site.

Amf said: You're changing your story now. You took issue with this line from Kerry's speech:



Amf said: Not that the policy was secret, but the meetings definitely were. And the attendees definitely were. But you pointed out that using the phrase "polluters" was divisive. So be it.

To address your first assertion, I was not changing my story. I was responding to a point penn derek made about Cheney's secret meetings. The rest of my response to him was this:



I am not denying the meetings were secret. I was addressing his point about them being secret.

It was MY point that was ignored and the conversation diverted to Cheney's secret meetings. MY point was that Kerry's use of the term "polluters" to describe corporations is a very divisive statement.

Amf asked: You for polluters these days?

amf, of course not. But I understand the issue is much more complex. I also wonder why you would ask such a question.

Speaking of being divisive, although I agree wholeheartedly with this statement...



...it goes directly against Mr. Kerry's promise to "restore America's respect and leadership — so we don't have to go it alone in the world." Did you know that Al Jezeera was covering the DNC, broadcasting those words to the Arab world - to the Saudi royal family?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I said: He needs to remember that today’s medicine finances tomorrow’s cures.

Artemise said: Now Bela, you need to be careful not to repeat (ad nauseum) television commercials from pharmaceutical companies.

Well, actually, the quote from the commercial that you speak of is, 'Today's medicines finance tomorrow's miracles" and making a statement that is similiar to a commercial is not repeating it "ad nauseum". How about this, why not debate the content of the post. Do you have information that refutes the claim that phamaceutical companies use money from the sale of medicine to finance research? Research that leads to new medicines. Medicines that save lives. Allowing Americans to buy less expensive prescription drugs from countries like Canada is a great idea, but it isn't the answer. I fear it will actually hurt us all in the long run because it will take money away from research.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

nighttimer said: What I do see is a marked propensity of Bush-backers to attempt to absolve the President for his stupid escapade of American imperialism by spreading the blame around to Kerry and Edwards for their mistaken trust in Bush that even he wouldn't take the nation to war recklessly.

The how do you explain these quotes from John Kerry? Was he being mislead by the Clinton Administration too?

Feb 23, 1998: "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East." The Disgrace of John Kerry by Kevin Willmann Saturday, April 05, 2003

Oct 9, 1998: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others.

He continued these same types of quotes, even stronger in some cases in the years leading up to the Iraq war.

Edwards had access to the intelligence directly as he sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. In addition, both the Senate Intelligence Committee and the 9/11 Panel have concluded that Bush did not mislead the country.

Mislead implies intent. Basing a decision on bad intelligence does not equate to intentionally misleading.



In other words, since I had the opportunity to rack you over the coals tonight AND since I can't run ads for a month, let's make nice.

Perhaps "basing a decision on bad intelligence does not equate to intentionally misleading" but it does definitely constitute bad leadership. Acting on bad intelligence that the Bush Administration was predisposed toward accepting is bad leadership---and misleading the nation into a unnecessary war.

While you're tarring Kerry and Edwards for trying to have it both ways, save some for Dubya while you're at it. At least you didn't dispute that the final responsibility lies with the president.

Your cynicism overwhelms even my ample reserves, Belladonna. You think Kerry offered a olive branch to the President in one hand to conceal the club in the other? When it comes to negative ads Kerry is a rank amateur compared to the shredding he's getting from the Bush ads I get bombarded with here in a battleground state.

Most Americans desire elections that focus on ideas, proposals and a civil discourse which reflects a positive, not a negative, vision of the future.

Most, not all. Some people like their meat red, raw and bloody. They like negative attack ads. They like demonizing and destroying their opponents. They like campaigns that keep people turned off by politics and disengaged. They like 60-second soundbites that whip up the faithful into a frenzy. They believe in the philosophy, "It is not enough that I win. My opponent must completely fail."

I really feel sorry for people like that.

I gave John Kerry a excellent rating.

He surprised me by showing more emotion and charisma than I thought possible from Kerry. One of my disappointments with him before the convention was being too much like Albert Gore. But I am very pleased with his speech.

He also displayed a person who would not be pushed around, either by the terrorist or Bush's lackeys. There will be no backing down from Kerry and Edwards. HOORAH!!!!!

[quote=Beladonna,Jul 30 2004, 06:38 PM]Polluters?  That’s an extremely uniting statement.  [/quote]
It also happens to be a completely true statement. The Bush administration has hanicapped or dismantled every single peice of environmental legislation since 1992. Sometimes hard words are necessary.

Kerry by the way isn't the candidate that ran on the catch phrase "I'm a uniter, not a divider".
[quote=Beladonna]I’m confused, sir. Didn’t you say, "One would be hard-pressed to find a single grieving relative of those killed in the bombings of the World Trade Center in New York or the federal building in Oklahoma City who would not have gladly sacrificed a measure of personal privacy if it could have saved a loved one." [/quote]
So, are you saying that we should run our country based on the desires of roughly 3000 families Beladonna?

I think Kerry was right, if you lost someone in 9/11, you probably would be willing to sacrifice personal privacy for security. That view however isn't representative of the entire country and there are plenty of us that do not believe we need to give up anything, nor should we be forced to because people are "scared". Nowhere did he imply otherwise.

I fail to see how that is confusing.
[quote=Beladonna]Your policy is basically a rip off of Bush's.[/quote]
Actually, Beladonna Bush formulated his plan after Kerry's suggestions. Kerry was telling everyone about his plan in his speeches (some of which I have linked in other threads) since he cast his vote to authorize the funds for the war. Bush on the other hand came to this policy when he realized his policy wasn't working.
[quote=Beladonna]You would wait until we are attacked? No thanks. [/quote]
I find it funny that you completely ignored the first sentence of that quote: "I will never hesitate to use force when it is required." This doesn't rule out pre-emptive strikes, but the use of the word required suggests Kerry would base his decisions on fact and not conjecture.

Given the choice between a president that got us into an illegal farce of a war and Kerry's suggestions, I'll take Kerry every time.
[quote=Beladonna]Amazing rhetoric. Bush has provided a prescription drug coverage plan to seniors. It may not be perfect, but at least it was a huge step forward and you didn’t even vote.[/quote]
How so Beladonna? How is lining the pockets of drug companies "doing something" to alleviate the problem. If you consider that "doing something", then I guess you have a different definition than I do. This legisltaion should have helped out people in need, not the rich constituents of the Bush administration that don't want cheap Canadian drugs in the country. I expect nothing less than protectionism and corporate handouts from the Bush administration.
[quote=Beladonna]Huh? The middle class didn’t get a tax cut? I could have sworn I did. I saw my paycheck go up.[/quote]
And this has also been debunked thouroughly in this thread here on AD.
[quote=Beladonna]Is that the so-called "corporate welfare" that the left loves to complain about when proposed by Republicans?[/quote]
No, actually he is talking about Outsourcing which is something President Bush has vigorously defended when even some economists feel it is a flawed policy.
[quote=Beladonna]Business does that every day. Where exactly in the US Constitution is business investment an authorized Federal expenditure? [/quote]
Respectfully, I hardly think you have portrayed your self as a strict constitutionalist in many of the threads here (at least not to the extent of someone like Mike and Jaime). Here Kerry is talking about investing in technologies to get us off Middle East Oil, something the Bush administration simply cannot do effectively without comitting political suicide.

I suspect this also alludes to lifting the completely bogus ban on stem cell research which the Bush administration imposed to throw a bone to the religious right constituents.
[quote=Beladonna]More corporate welfare? [/quote]
Hardly Beladonna, I can't possibly see how you would see this as corporate welfare. Companies are currently given tax breaks and incentives for shipping work overseas and hiring people with H1-B visas. If a company wants to ship operations overseas that is fine, but they damn sure don't deserve a tax break for doing so. This is the equivalent of our government encouraging them to ship work overseas.
[quote=Beladonna]Wait a sec, there's that corporate welfare thing. Now he's opposed to it. [/quote]
No, he is consistent, because you mistakenly identified other parts of his speech as "corporate welfare"
[quote=Beladonna of ]Why not let the wealthiest individuals invest in job creation? That does seem to be what they do best, if you leave the money in their hands. Those small businesses you are speaking of reducing taxes for are the ones making $200,000 a year of which you intend to roll back the tax cuts. How are you going to do both?[/quote]
The effect wealthy individuals investing has a negligible effect on the economy. When the middle class has more money it has a much larger effect. See the thread I linked above.
[quote=Beladonna]And this will be paid for how? Right now Bush has provided the money to the states for the No Child left Behind program and the states are hoarding it.[/quote]
No Child Left Behind is an unfunded mandate. It didn't work in Texas (I was there, I know) and it doesn't work for the United States. Some AD members give some good suggestions on how the education problem could be solved in this thread. Perhaps that is a more appropriate place to continue that discussion. However, in the abscense of a detailed plan in this speech, what reason do you have to believe it isn't possible Beladonna?
[quote=Beladonna]Pre-school won't do much for kids who have parents who don’t get involved in their education. [/quote]
The speech doesn't suggest otherwise, but programs such as Head Start could certainly be expanded to areas that don't have them.
[quote=Beladonna]You know what's happening? Your premiums, your co-payments, your deductibles have all gone through the roof. Would you like to gander a guess at why? Just look to your right.[/quote]
Bzzzt. Wrong. Take a look at this thread. Lawsuits are a relatively small reason why insurance is expensive, it is a common myth and something the right loves to parrot. Insurance is expensive because insurance companies are in business to make money, not to provide you health care. Insurance companies are also not subject to anti-trust laws so there is no authority that examines their prices to make sure they actually represent supply and demand or whether they are arbitrarily high.
[quote=Beladonna]If you are going to create a socialized health care system, let it be optional and don’t do anything to mess up what I have now. I don’t want to wait for months to go to a specialist.[/quote]
Yet another myth Beladonna, please check out the aforementioned helath care thread.

But I thought Kerry was going to bring us all together? “I will be a president who truly is a uniter, not one who seeks to divide our nation.” Do you think calling big business polluters is uniting? I certainly don’t think so.



True. But he is certainly running on that very thing now!

That was the ENTIRE point of my post. Not that big companies aren’t polluters, but Kerry’s choice of words. He was, of course, feeding his base. You have to be really careful though. I know his goal is to keep big business in America. Words like this and threats like the ones he is making may end up hurting America more.



Not quite so fast, CJ. Kerry was advocating a "clipper chip" for the government that could "unlock" the encryption codes individuals use to keep their messages private. That would have affected ALL of us. That could be seen as an invasion of privacy. He wasn’t making a general statement about the 93’ WTC and Oklahoma bombing. He was trying to push legislation FOR the clipper chip.



First, Kerry cast his vote NOT to authorize funds. Confusing, I know.

Second, like every other subject on this board, we differ in opinion about who moved to what position and for what reason.



Well, I am glad I amuse you. But, this is what Kerry said, CJ.

"I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response.

The use of the word “required” is directly linked to “any attack will be met”. I personally do not believe Kerry would EVER consider pre-emption. I am not so sure he would allow us to ever become involved in ANY war with or without UN approval. Trying to remember, did he vote for Desert Storm?



I think you read WAY more into my posts than I intend. I have no problem with allowing people to buy scripts from Canada. But I’ll ask you the same thing I asked Artemise. Do you have information that refutes the claim that pharmaceutical companies use money from the sale of medicine to finance research? What will we do when the pharmaceutical can no longer afford to fund research? Are we going to fund it through our taxes?

I said: The middle class didn’t get a tax cut? I could have sworn I did. I saw my paycheck go up.

CJ said: And this has also been debunked thouroughly in this thread here on AD.

You all discussed my paycheck? Wow, I missed that conversation. The bottom line is, my taxes were cut. I saw it in my paycheck. You can claim to debunk that all you like, but my paycheck will tell you a different story.



You mean, I don’t interpret some parts of the Constitution like you do?

To your next three points, Kerry is proposing providing incentives to corporations. How is it corporate welfare if it’s used for one purpose but not corporate welfare if used for another. And just for the record, I suggested this very thing in another thread. I fully support giving incentives to corporations to stay in America.



He was? Do you have footnotes or something, 'cause I don’t see a reference to Middle East Oil in that paragraph.



You are absolutely right. I concede this point. I was confusing insurance. John Edwards was responsible for making doctors pay half their money towards malpractice insurance.

.

That is not true. The federal taxpayer contribution to K-12 education in the last 3 years has been increased dramatically. $387 million in 2002 alone.

Then I might suggest that you check out Bush Tax Cuts and The Economy and make your points there, because to go any further into that topic here would be off topic.


But what proof do you have that he would NEVER consider it. I don't claim to remember Kerry's every word, but I'm pretty sure he has never said anything to that effect.

The UN approval thing is also a very typical myth being spun by the right wing. Kerry advocates forming alliances -- you know something Bush Sr. did for desert storm -- instead of going it alone like Bush Jr. From Kerry's Website:

The phrasing here seems to imply pre-emption is not off the table as an option, but Kerry would approach the issue in a much different way than president Bush.


I'll give a short answer here, because as with other things I have responded to, deeper discussion warrants a separate topic. Yes, I'm sure some of the money goes to research, but have you check the stock market lately? Drug Companies and BioTech companies are hot and have always been a good investment. This implies that they are doing more than using their money for research, they must be making some profit and paying their shareholders too.


But that runs counter to what you are denigrating Kerry for. If you read (pdf) Kerry's detailed plan on this subject you'll see that nothing in there could be considered "corporate welfare".

I don't see how you could consider anything in that plan "corporate welfare".


Nope, but I don't consider a generic speech to be the basis of any kind of plans or policy. I have researched the issue on Kerry's website. The quote above mentions it, but you might consider checking out Kerry's website as well.


Come on Beladonna, you don't honestly believe that do you? First of all, your blame of lawyers is misplaced they are doing a job the same as anything else and they didn't create the system. Secondly, the problem is again insurance companies and to a certain extent doctors themselves (because bad doctors don't usually get their licenses suspended). Again I would suggest checking out the Universal Health Care thread. That issue is touched upon as are many others. Discussing this deeper in this thread would start to take things off topic.

As for the rest of your points, we are just going to have to agree to disagree or continue to debate them in other threads (or start new ones for that matter). As a general point I somewhat disagree with the premise of this thread because it allows for overly broad responses. There are plenty of comments on the quality of the speech but only so much can be said before people just start sniping at Kerry policies of their choice. I think the last page of this debate pretty much proves that -- there are probably 10 or so separate issues being discussed here in this one thread and I'm not sure how that is supposed to work. That being said, I don't intend to respond here again on specific issues, there are specific threads dealing with some of them and others could certainly be started.

He didn't use the term "polluters" to refer to "big business". He used it to refer to the group of energy executives who met with Dick Cheney in secret to create this country's energy policy. So, if you know enough to label those same executives as "big business", then I have to ask:

Who exactly was it who met with Dick Cheney and how did you come by this information?

You don't know. I don't know. Only those at the meeting and the VP's staff know and they're not talking.

So how do you know that "polluters" is the same as "big business"? Or did you just make that up to support your view of Kerry?

amf, how do you know then they were "polluters", are you saying energy executives are the same thing as polluters? More importantly, how does Kerry know they were "polluters" when he wasn't there either? He wasn't a member of the VP staff. Did John Kerry make something up? Did he, ::::gasp:::: lie to the American people in order to advance his political career?

I personally don't know. I said that.

Does John Kerry know? Beats me. Maybe he does, since he's in Washington a whole lot more than I am. Maybe he doesn't. Prove the lie, please. Good luck. Truly. I'd sure as heck like to know who Cheney is protecting other than his own backside by keeping the information about this meeting a state secret.

Yeah, but one of the main reasons AMERICANS pay more is because pharm companies are allowed to advertise directly to the consumer, which is not the case in Canada LINK. So, you are correct in saying some money goes to research, but some (I tried to do a quick google search to see the ratio between ad dollars and research dollars, but I couldn't) also goes to marketing and advertising to the AMERICAN people, because it makes complete sense for an uneducated consumer to request medicine, right?


Sorry, this was just one point that EDITED TO REMOVE ATTEMPT AT BYPASSING PROFANITY FILTER (don't want to offend anyone with EDITED TO REMOVE ATTEMPT AT BYPASSING PROFANITY FILTER me off, I might get a warning, or worse, a strike......) me off about your refute to Kerry's speech.

That is all, continue.