Interesting way of painting Kerry tonight

[jbooma]

During the RNC one of the speakers was talking about all these bills that Kerry voted against, turns out they were for all the new planes, helicoptors, missles, primarily military equipment, that without them we wouldn't be able to defend our nation now and in the past. Then to finish it they said you don't find out about someone's politics in a couple of months, you look back at their entire years in office and go by that, that is where the truth lies, not what you hear now.

[luckydevil]

It was over the top

[afkidd]

the protests were definately not over the top tho

*turns off his sarcasm*

[TheSteve]

Michael Moore's film was definately not over the top either.

*turns off sarcasm*

[jbooma]

can we have a legit debate about something instead of crying old war tunes :doh:

we are at a time of war, and they painted him as someone that never voted to improve our military, that is a pretty strong statement

[twa]

To me the most damaging point is Kerry voting against the first gulf war,He may be able to explain his votes against weapon systems,But to vote nay after even the UN gave the OK to me shows a lack of reason.

[flashback]

Were those the same bills Cheney voted against, or a different set of bills?

[Art]

I thought Zell Miller was an absolute assassin. I couldn't believe how hard he was. That speech will define the election. That speech gives Bush a bounce, and Kerry and Edwards have to fight back. It was a tremendous political assassination by a former friend. Miller has nothing to lose at his age with a limited political career. But, he might just be the man who made a second-term president.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Art

I thought Zell Miller was an absolute assassin. I couldn't believe how hard he was. That speech will define the election. That speech gives Bush a bounce, and Kerry and Edwards have to fight back. It was a tremendous political assassination by a former friend. Miller has nothing to lose at his age with a limited political career. But, he might just be the man who made a second-term president.

I didn't see the whole thing or name of the person speaking but was that the one bringing up the bills I mentioned??

[Art]

Originally posted by flashback

Were those the same bills Cheney voted against, or a different set of bills?

FB,

Let me frame things in a way you may appreciate.

Don Rumsfeld is currently the Secretary of Defense. Am I correct in stating you find him to be a fairly hawkish guy who's strong on defense? I ask, because, do you know, in 15 years or so, someone could look back on Rumsfeld and say he wanted to gut the American military. How you ask? Because he believes in a smaller, more mobile military rather than a set-piece, trench warfare military. The move to which began in the late 80s.

There is a difference between a Secretary of Defense attempting to restructure the nation's armed forces into something different than it's been and a voting record of ANY U.S. Senator on various military issues. In some cases Kerry may have been quite correct to be against some funding.

Let me say, for example, I fully agree with Kerry on NOT supporting the $87 billion. I just have a reason for it, and Kerry doesn't. Kerry can't figure out why he voted how he did and he can't frame his disagreement in a way anyone can grasp. I was against that bill because funding for our troops was lumped in with money for Iraq. I, as many, believed Iraq should be paying for Iraq. We should pay for our troops. Hell, they should reimburse us for our troops, but that's a different debate.

The problem Kerry has long had is he can't explain how he votes against various things in a way that sounds like he means it, even when he might actually have a real reason that would be reasonable if not totally agreeable.

[Art]

Originally posted by jbooma

I didn't see the whole thing or name of the person speaking but was that the one bringing up the bills I mentioned??

Yes. It was Zell Miller. Miller is a Democratic Senator from Georgia. Formerly a Democratic Governor from Georgia. He's clearly a DINO (Democrat in Name Only) right now. But, Miller's open and sustained support of Bush is what caused Kerry to woo McCain so hard. Like Miller considers Bush a friend, McCain considers Kerry a friend. Kerry wanted to trump the Republicans with McCain coming over to support him and given McCain's greater national recognition, it would have worked had McCain believed in it.

The key difference, in the end, may be that McCain still has political ambitions best served as a member of the Republican Party. Miller is pretty much done, so, he has nothing to lose for doing what he did.

[visionary]

Bush also has more liberal Democrats supporting him and promising to campaign for him all over, like Ron Silver and Ed Koch, as well.

[Thiebear]

Yes, I believe Cheney was against a lot of the same things at the same timeframe.. Although I dont think he was in a position to "Vote" against them was he?

Your comparing apples to __________ nothing because Kerry decided not to bring up all of the important issues up during his 15 mintues...

The difference between the DNC and RNC is devastating right now... You might not agree with the Politics but the Tactics and Flanking and overwhelming force is definately visible.

[Burgold]

Interesting, I thought Zell's speech was terrible. I only caught the last ten minutes or so, but that part of it seemed pretty rote. He seemed angry, but just angry in general. He didn't give a specific. Just I'm a democrat and I hate this guy kind of stuff. Well, for a keynote speaker I did not find that inspiring. Shouldn't the keynote speaker inspire a vision... either a positive one of the country to be or a negative one of what the country should become if the other guy gets there? Thought Obama was better.

[Skinsfan1966]

Originally posted by Burgold

Interesting, I thought Zell's speech was terrible. I only caught the last ten minutes or so, but that part of it seemed pretty rote. He seemed angry, but just angry in general. He didn't give a specific. Just I'm a democrat and I hate this guy kind of stuff. Well, for a keynote speaker I did not find that inspiring. Shouldn't the keynote speaker inspire a vision... either a positive one of the country to be or a negative one of what the country should become if the other guy gets there? Thought Obama was better.

I saw Zell Millers whole speech, and I agree he is angry. He started his speech out talking about what the Democrat party he joined as a young man represented. He talked about FDR, JFK, Truman and Johnson. He talked about how they were men who put the good of the country over the good of the party. He talked about how the Democrat party had turned to the left. Thats why he is angry.

I think he see's John Kerry and the far left in the Democrat party as whats wrong with his party.

He is right, John Kerry's record in the senate is important.

[Burgold]

I agree that the Senate record is very important. I think actions speak more loudly than words. I understand why Kerry played the war hero card, but that should have been the overture, play it, get the idea out there, and then talk about his statesmanship, policies, and how this will lead him into creating a better future. Kerry and Bush's Vietnam history have some relevance, but not much and don't really speak in totallity to the people they have become. I think if Kerry spoke more on the economy, health, education, and the war he would be doing better or if the press reported more about what he was saying on these issues it would be better for him. I do find it odd that Bush is still playing the compassionate conservative angle... he too, should be talking about his policies, their strengths, successes and where America is heading. That they don't really... only say he is steadfast and a strong leader doesn't speak that well to me.

[Skinsfan1966]

Originally posted by Burgold

I agree that the Senate record is very important. I think actions speak more loudly than words. I understand why Kerry played the war hero card, but that should have been the overture, play it, get the idea out there, and then talk about his statesmanship, policies, and how this will lead him into creating a better future. Kerry and Bush's Vietnam history have some relevance, but not much and don't really speak in totallity to the people they have become. I think if Kerry spoke more on the economy, health, education, and the war he would be doing better or if the press reported more about what he was saying on these issues it would be better for him. I do find it odd that Bush is still playing the compassionate conservative angle... he too, should be talking about his policies, their strengths, successes and where America is heading. That they don't really... only say he is steadfast and a strong leader doesn't speak that well to me.

Kerry and Edwards really brought the whole question about his vietnam sevice on themselves. When Edwards said "If you have any question about what he’s made of, you need to spend three minutes with the men who served with him then and stand by him today."

Many people who served with him are speaking out, of course Edwards only wants you to talk to the ones who "stand by him today" but there seem to be quite a few that stood with him, yet dont stand with him now.

Kerry speaks about education the economy and health care all the time. The problem is he speaks mostly in generalities, there is very little specific. He says he will help small business, but he is going to raise the taxes on small business (thats what a tax on the top 2% is). He says he is going to lower healthcare costs, but alomost 1/3 of health care costs are insurance related, until there is malpractice torte reform happens prices are going to continue to spiral up. He talkes about creating 12 million new jobs, but the Government doesnt create jobs it only creates conditions where job growth can happen. He talks about "net job losses" (this one really gets me) yet more americans are employed now than ever have been in our history, (net jobs are the total number of jobs, which is higher than when Bush took office. The number of unemployed has risen, but thats because the population of work age people is higher)

Bush will lay out the plan for the future tonight (I think at least) it wouldnt be right for others to get out ahead of him on new issues

[jbooma]

Southern-fried ridicule

While Cheney’s rhetoric was hard-hitting, his low-voltage manner muted the message. He paled in comparison to the vivid, Southern-fried ridicule of Sen. Zell Miller, D-Ga., who preceded Cheney on the platform. Miller clearly was the star of the night, with his sardonic attack on Kerry’s votes against weapons such as the B-1 bomber.

“This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces? U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?”

This is a potentially dangerous juncture for Kerry.

Only three months ago — before Vietnam War service preoccupied Democrats — the Democrats’ message machine was synchronized and in high gear with Kerry’s surrogates attacking what they called Bush’s “incompetence” and “mismanagement” of the effort in Iraq.

That theme has been lost in the Vietnam hero-Swift Boat cacophony of the past month.

And that lost message seems to have cost Kerry: In a new Washington Post poll this week, Bush has gained ground on the terrorism issue. Fifty-six percent of voters said they trust Bush to better handle terrorism; only 38 percent trust Kerry. Back in early August the poll found the two rivals virtually tied on this issue.

[Art]

Originally posted by Burgold

Interesting, I thought Zell's speech was terrible. I only caught the last ten minutes or so, but that part of it seemed pretty rote. He seemed angry, but just angry in general. He didn't give a specific. Just I'm a democrat and I hate this guy kind of stuff. Well, for a keynote speaker I did not find that inspiring. Shouldn't the keynote speaker inspire a vision... either a positive one of the country to be or a negative one of what the country should become if the other guy gets there? Thought Obama was better.

Burgold,

Miller's speech was the most powerful political speech given since Reagan's message to Moscow to tear down the Berlin wall. This was scathing. Remarkable for what it was, where it was by WHO it was. No question Miller has more in common with Republicans than with Democrats right now. But, this is a life-long Democrat who thinks he's stayed mostly the same while the party has drifted away from him.

Miller is something of a "Clinton" Democrat. Kerry is something of a "McGovern" Democrat. Different parties within the same party really and both are major while the right has one big party with several smaller sects within that lack the power. In any case, a keynote speaker can convey any message. It doesn't have to be one you've outlined. It can be exactly what Miller did. This speech will be ALL that's talked about out of this convention. It will be what all liberals respond to for weeks. It's the overriding image and defining speech of this convention. Obama's wasn't that for the Democrats. Clinton's may have been, but the terrible nature of Teresa Kerry's speech may have made it the most memorable.

Miller's speech will carry through. Bush would either have to bomb terribly tonight, or soar to heights he's never seen as an orator to take the focus of one Democrat killing another at the Republican convention.

[flashback]

I think Kerry has explained that he wanted to take the $87 billion out of the tax cut, rather than just borrowing the money.

[Art]

Originally posted by flashback

I think Kerry has explained that he wanted to take the $87 billion out of the tax cut, rather than just borrowing the money.

As I said, Kerry can't specify a reason anyone can understand. Wanting Iraqis to pay the toll for rebuilding Iraq is one thing people can understand. A liberal U.S. Senator pretending he hasn't approved countless ideas that spend more taxpayer money and suddenly developed a fiscal side rings hollow. It's why he can't seem to project a message that makes anyone appreciate his reasons. The problem with Kerry is he couldn't even figure out the reason he has settled on for weeks after. Which is why it led to such statements as he voted for it before he voted against it, which hurts him more than actually voting against it and explaining why in a coherent fashion.

[NavyDave]

Excellant old school speech by Zell non of this touchy feely focus group metosexual crapp

[Joe Sick]

I think it is hiliarious and highly hypocritical when Republicans call Kerry a flip-flopper, yet don't mind Miller contradicting EVERYTHING he said about Kerry from years earlier.

Please check out

http://www.listentothisvoice.com/

and hear the hypocrite in his own words.

---

Art-you said "Miller's speech was the most powerful political speech given since Reagan's message to Moscow to tear down the Berlin wall."

That is just a wee bit over the top.

Also, you (along with countless others) says "he voted for it before he voted against it". You do realize that all Republicans voted against it before they voted for it, right? What is the difference?

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Jackson's Ward

I think it is hiliarious and highly hypocritical when Republicans call Kerry a flip-flopper, yet don't mind Miller contradicting EVERYTHING he said about Kerry from years earlier.

he isn't running for president

i think it is funny all the liberals are spending more time attacking a fellow dem even if they fail to realize it :laugh:

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by Jackson's Ward

I think it is hiliarious and highly hypocritical when Republicans call Kerry a flip-flopper, yet don't mind Miller contradicting EVERYTHING he said about Kerry from years earlier.

Please check out

http://www.listentothisvoice.com/

and hear the hypocrite in his own words.

---

Art-you said "Miller's speech was the most powerful political speech given since Reagan's message to Moscow to tear down the Berlin wall."

That is just a wee bit over the top.

Also, you (along with countless others) says "he voted for it before he voted against it". You do realize that all Republicans voted against it before they voted for it, right? What is the difference?

I think it's funny that you discount the fact that when asked about his comments on Kerry's heroism, he answered back that he was wrong and was blinded by a real hope that the face of the party was changing and that he should have done more research on Kerry's voting record. In short, he did change his mind (as many are crying that Kerry has the right to do, and I agree) but he coupled his change of mind with an admission of error and with real rationale for his thoughts.

I havnt heard much from Kerry explaining his flip-flops.

Interesting that you desperately hold onto this one "change of mind" as justification for your remarks but ignore hundreds of documented examples from Kerry.