“I have said that I have a goal to be able to bring our troops out of there within my first term, and I hope to be able to bring out some troops within the first year…” Kerry

Yet another position.

Posted by: Jim at September 14, 2004 11:43 PM

Since when hasn’t Kerry talked politics?

Posted by: Spade at September 15, 2004 02:00 AM

“I don’t know what you’re talking about in terms of the Bush bounce….”

AOL Straw Poll: Bush 535 EV, Kerry 3
Electoral-Vote.com: Bush 291 EV, Kerry 238
ICR Poll: Bush 52%, Kerry 44%
Rasmussen: Bush 213 EV, Kerry 175
LA Times: Bush 188 EV, Kerry 146
NY Times: Bush 228 EV, Kerry 179
Tripias.com: Bush 273 EV, Kerry: 265
Election Projection: Bush 285 EV, Kerry 253
Opinion Journal: Bush 190 EV, Kerry 168

Kerry is progressing through the 5 stages of grief:

1) DENIAL…………………Moving from Here
2) ANGER………………….To Here
3) BARGAINING
4) DEPRESSION
5) ACCEPTANCE

Posted by: Max Darkside at September 15, 2004 02:41 AM

Kerry hasnt talked to anyone in over a month. Or at least in a forum where questions can be asked. Now he takes a soft ball interview with a single sympathetic reporter over the phone.

Yeh this is the tough guy i want running our country.

Posted by: mark buehner at September 15, 2004 04:29 AM

Speaking of clarity…

Kerry talks about “countries”, says nothing, then jumps to Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, says nothing, then back to countries, again saying nothing.

How can he say the administration has not “made it in their intrests”, after calling them the “coalition of the bribed and coerced”.

Bring all the troops home in 4 years? Hasn’t every member of the administration said they would be there for 5 years? How is Kerry saying anything different?

Kerry would bring some home in the first year? So does that mean there are too many troops? Would he cut and run? Or does he mean less would be needed after Iraqi security is trained?

Well a NATO force of 10,000 scheduled to deploy shortly will train this force, thanks Mr President. Bringing home some troops is a given.

In a perfect world - after elections and with 250,000 more Iraqi security forces, increased international support and even the blessings of the UN may be in the future.

However, things could get worse. But in two more years, and with an additional 250,000 Iraqi security forces would keep a honorable though possible messy US extraction on track.

Kerry has morons working for him, who cant seem to put the right words in his mouth let alone his head. The President has the brightest minds ever assembled in US history.

Kerry has only one thing going for him. WMD. I hope to see the revelations about what has been found and their significance. The administration is probably reluctant to “educate” the public on this highly technical issue with just 2 months to go.

Posted by: Agrippa at September 15, 2004 04:49 AM

I only caught a few minutes of JFKerry’s appearance on Don Imus’ show this morning, but Imus asked him about WaPo’s complaint that it’s FOIA search turned up only 6 pages of Kerry’s military records and that at least 100 more could not be released by Dept. of Defense.

JFK: “All my military records are on my website except some medical records”

Imus: Surely WaPo has checked your website, are you saying those 100 pages are there?

JFK: “We put everything on the website that they initially sent us.”

Of course there was no follow up regarding signing Form 180 to release the remaining documents, but I thought this was an interesting response.

Shouldn’t we (or an interviewer) conclude that JFK has documents subsequently received from DoD and available for immediate release? Maybe someone will ask such a question, if JFK works up the courage for another “interview.”

Posted by: ter0 at September 15, 2004 10:08 AM

“There are all sorts of options with respect to Shi’ites, Sunnis and Kurds in the region that this Administration is not exploring. “

This, amazingly enough, parallels part of his speech to the VFW I wrote about before:

“Every Arab country has a stake in not having a failed Iraq. But they’re not at the table.”

Does he really think that getting Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia involved in Iraq will improve the situation? Hell, they’re the ones funding and supplying the insurgents and keeping the pot stirred up! As for the Kurd issue, the Turkish fear of Iraqi support of Kurdish rebels was so strong that they damn near invaded northern Iraq themselves. Do we really want to encourage Turkish Kurds to become involved in Iraq?

I’ll say it again: this line of thinking is so bone-shakingly thick-headed and stupid it almost defies comprehension. That noone is questioning it is even more amazing.

Posted by: submandave at September 15, 2004 11:21 AM

Kerry is counting on the American voter’s ignorance of the relationships between Middle Eastern countries. He’s painting a picture that not only are our “European Allies” not willing to help, but Iraq’s “friendly neighbors” aren’t willing to help. Therefore, the only hope is to change CiC, because they all like him better than Bush.

Posted by: TexasGal at September 15, 2004 11:46 AM

Mark said…

Kerry hasnt talked to anyone in over a month. Or at least in a forum where questions can be asked. Now he takes a soft ball interview with a single sympathetic reporter over the phone.

Yeh this is the tough guy i want running our country.

I’m not sure how a type of interview can be used to judge a president’s “toughness”?

But anyway, hasn’t the current U.S. president given the fewest press conferences of any administration?

Posted by: elvispresley2k at September 15, 2004 12:54 PM

“I’m not sure how a type of interview can be used to judge a president’s “toughness”?”

Ok, elvis - you are too intelligent not to see this. Kerry’s handlers have been very careful not to 1) unleash him before any forum at which he might have to answer questions with “tough” follow up; 2) place him before a public forum (e.g., town meeting) at which he might ad lib; 3) place him in any situation in which he might be asked an unanticipated question.

This is not because the campaign hasn’t developed canned answers for him (weak though they may be), but because Kerry goes off topic, has a hair-trigger temper, and couldn’t conduct a cogent, civilized debate to save his pre-nuptial agreement(s). In other words, Kerry does not think and act well on his feet.

I will give him this - 1) he has developed a “sound” which apparently he believes gives him an aura of authority and/or superiority; and 2) he does enunciate well. The problem with all of this is people have gotten rather bored with his “superior” tone. In fact, for months now that “tone” or speech pattern has become the subject of ridicule.

People do not want to listen to someone who seems to be talking down to them. And last, but most important, people get it - Kerry doesn’t have anything to say and can’t seem to keep his story straight.

No matter how well enunciated, all of these things come across as weak and indecisive. Americans do not need or want a petulant, pampered president - no matter how many foreign leaders like him.

Posted by: Jim at September 15, 2004 01:26 PM

Jim said,

1) unleash him before any forum at which he might have to answer questions with “tough” follow up; 2) place him before a public forum (e.g., town meeting) at which he might ad lib; 3) place him in any situation in which he might be asked an unanticipated question.

Do you realize the irony of this statement? You’re describing the Bush strategy to a “T”. Bush is a horrible public speaker, and terrible “off-the-cuff”. Worst of any president? Probably.

I admit Kerry is fairly boring. But heck, so is Noam Chomsky. I suggest listening to what is said rather than how it’s delivered. Bush’s stumbling/bumbling when caught off-guard just makes me wince.

As for debating skills, the Kerry camp can’t wait to get Bush under the lights. This has long been a Kerry strength (check out the old Kerry debates on c-span).

ok, ep

Posted by: elvispresley2k at September 16, 2004 11:11 AM

Elvispresley - re: my comment that the Kerry campaign can’t “…1) unleash him [Kerry] before any forum at which he might have to answer questions with “tough” follow up; 2) place him before a public forum (e.g., town meeting) at which he might ad lib; 3) place him in any situation in which he might be asked an unanticipated question.”

Just a few points.

- Watch the campaign appearances of the President. He’s really doing well in the question and answer public forums. He is energized and the audiences respond well to him.

- When the President has come up against a tough issue or series of issues during this past year, he has scheduled interviews with press people as well as press conferences. He hasn’t hidden from the press but has dealt with things head on.

- Kerry on the other hand seems to be playing hide and seek with the press. There are questions out there for him to answer, so what does he do? He goes on Don Imus for a softball interview. Now I hear he plans to go on David Letterman for an “appearance.”

This is not taking the tough questions. Their campaign has been a variation of speech and hiatus, speech and vacation, speech and wind surfing, speech and going shooting (clay pigeons or something), and on and on…

As far as Kerry’s strong debating skills are concerned, we’ll have to wait and see. As has been said before, the President has in the past and could again be the beneficiary of “low expectations” so much so that Kerry himself (and his staff) last week were touting Bush’s “debating skills.”

These debates will be all about appearances anyway centered on who do you trust to keep us safe. All the other issues take second place to this basic question. On this issue, competancy and having a consistent plan for what you intend to do stands for a great deal. Kerry’s seeming proposal to gradually withdraw from Iraq and hope for the best in the War on Terror does not show leadership. Further, passing off difficult problems to some other entity (i.e., the U.N.) and waiting to respond until we are attacked again is not a solution accepted by the American people. It’s this approach/avoidance tendency of Kerry’s that turns people off.

Posted by: Jim at September 17, 2004 08:23 AM