Kerry: The horse has left the stable.

You're having a post count bounce.

For the world's sake, I really hope Kerry wins the election...
Now, I had doubts wether I shoud have used the phrase " the other candidate" in stead if "Kerry" , because I believe it's crucial that Bush is voted away, but I've been following Kerry's campaign lately and I must say that I've been pleasantly surprised by this appearances in the media I've witnessed so far.

On another note, I tend to think that we've ended up in some sort of state of decadence in politics lately, whereby a frusrated polulation, blinded by it's own well being compared to the rest of the world, gets to decide upon he fate of " the rest of us". For that matter, it reminds me of the last years of the Roman Empire and the last days of the " Ancien Régime" in France...
Mind you, and I specifically address the "long toed Americans" 'round here, I do notice the same trend here in Belgium.
People here haven't generally been off better since ages, but somehow some extremist right wing anti migration party seems to be winning election after election.

But anyway, i think it's crucial that Kerry distances himself as farr off Bush as possible.
Somehow, i think history will prove him right.
If we all live to tell that is.....
[/slightly intoxicated rant]

edit: sp

This is good good good. Kerry needs to hammer on this and not stop. I just hope that K/E can coordinate with the DLC to keep every friggin' democrat on the planet on this message.

Personally, I'm glad he seems to have stopped talking about Vietnam.

I wish I could say you're right. While it is obvious that Kerry has come out swinging the last few days, it's SHIT LIKE THIS that will turn voters away from the polls completely:

Dick 'FU" Cheney says that a vote for John Kerry is a vote for Bin Laden:


Elect Bush, no more terrorist attacks.

Elect Kerry, terrorist attacks.

10 out of 10 terrorists agree, vote Kerry.

Who would Osama vote for?

And so on. You expect the wingers to make these arguments. But the vice president?

Candidates that expect to win don't resort to such fear mongering. They're still running scared.

Kos
Atrios

Well I'm betting that the average voter isn't that dumb. Of the people I know personally there are many more who don't trust Bush or were once staunch Bush supporters ( and have turned around ) than those who still favor him.

I really hope the debates bring stuff to light. It's funny how noone has directly confronted Bush on these issues and demanded answers. It's time someone did.

The american people are dolts. Guys like Trumpt and SDW are counting on the uninformed vote to get their guy (re)elected. They and their party are banking the entire campaign on "perception" rather than "facts". They wouldn't put so much faith in this tactic if over 50% of the nation isn't uninformed, doesn't give a shit, and/or resides on CommonMan's simpleton logic of "blow these motherfuckers to kingdom come!"

I know it sounds harsh. But it's fundamentally true.

Actually, that's one of the things Kerry ought to be hammering away at: Bush is afraid to talk to the American people without a teleprompter or scripted questions.

Kerry could just start asking why Bush won't speak in front of anything but a hand picked crowd of people who have signed loyalty oaths, why he doesn't do press conferences, why he's already trying to limit the number of debates.

Call him out: "Don't the American people deserve candid answers?"

It's a way to start to chip away at this "regular straight-shooter" act. If he's such forthright guy, why can't he stand up in front of anybody or everybody and tell like (he sees) it is?

How come "steady leadership with a moral compass" can't handle talking to average Americans?

Too bad we'll never get a chance to challenge Bush's ability or willingness to give candid answers. People thought Gore would kill Bush during the debates, but they lost sight of the fact that the debates simply aren't deep enough to provoke original answers to questions. They actually play to Bush's advantages because he can simply defend himself with talking points. That's that. Maybe a follow-up-- but still well within his ability to simply repeat a talking point. We'll see nothing like that one press conference that seriously challenged the President. A sniping, probing press corps Leher and Ifill are not-- and will not be.

Some channel, for the good of the public, should set up weekly debates. I don't care if it's MTV. And if one of the candidates decides not to show up, it ends up being an hour of free Q&A for the lone candidate. Kerry could show up once a week and get a free hour of prime time advertising.

Yes yes keep hammering on the negative. That is going to work.

Go Johnny go.

Seems to be working for Bush.

it's been said somewhere that bin laden wants bush to win because he's a great recruitment incentive..

Hahahahaha.... I like this take on it.


Reading further here will even give you the exact links to the stories that support this wonderful pattern of twisted explanation.

I've been wondering why the latest Kerry ad was just a giant swirl with a swinging watch. Now I know which of you have watched them. What is left? The Kerry doing the Jedi mind trick on you? I'm sure it will work because it only works on the weak-minded.

Nick

Are you new to politics?

Are you new to the understanding that the LA Times clearly has an agenda that is distorting their reporting?

Nick

Nick, could we maybe have one thread that you don't try to turn into a pissing match for one of your stalking horses?

Liberal media, yadda yadda yadda. The thread is about Kerry going on the offensive.

Then this thread is a little late to recognize that the entire DNC along with the looneytunes left have been on the attack for almost 3 years now. The fact that Kerry is attacking now, is a non-story. He never stopped.

Again, this thread is about John Kerry pointing out the failed policies of this administration. Rather than talk about those challenges, you decide to throw up your favorite strawman, rail against the so-called liberal media, successfully moving the goal posts of the discussion about Kerry.



It's a clever way of not addressing the specific issues addressed, I have to admit. You should've been a politician.

What you call attacks, so far, have been merely 'reading the record' . . . . for three years, Bush's record has been his worst enemy

and he has been America's

Oh really?

AQ is not a worse enemy to America?
SH was not a worse enemy to America?
Iran?
N. Korea?

So when you balance it all out, just about any other rogue national leader or terrorist is better for the US than GWB could ever be?

I am not trying to put word in your mouth, but trying to illustrate what you are saying with such a brief but absolute statement.

Please just tell us that you are just a little testy because Bushie has a big lead in the polls right now, and that your statement is not reflective of your true feelings.

And you totally skirted the enemy issue.

Do you care to reply, or no?

Bush is not the worst directly . . he is the worst because of his bungling of the WOT . . .

where he has allowed AQ to literally grow in adherents, providing a densely fertile ground for the mass-hatred of the US
How?!
By lying, or allowing himself to be lead by the nose with 'bad info', into an invasion of the ME via the idiot invasion of Iraq

So yes AQ is a terrible enemy of the US but they have been given the 'day off' in their PR campaign by the bunglings of the Bush admin and their catastrophic 'foriegn policy'.

OH yeah, and NK is also bad, but Bush's policy there is what? 'glorious'?!?
What about his idea of simply removing the US forces? Good idea?

Iran is run by zeolots and funds terrorists and yet their population WAS resoundingly pro-US and pro-democracy, and was actually making headway, uphill, in that directiion . . . then guess what happened . . . . it wasn't 911, ecause there was an outpouring of support in Iran where that was concerned - it was the invasion of Iraq, which killed the momentum of the pro-democracy contingents within Iran . . . killed them dead: I know people from Iran and I know this is true, so before you answer some berely literate response, you bettter think.

So in all the cases mentioned, Bush has acted like an enabler and a prod to devolution rather than a 'beakon' or 'inspiration' towards Democracy . . . words and deeds buddy: different orders entirely.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...DHeJY&refer=us

and here...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...todaypolls.htm

did they say gallup?

this one shows an upward trend:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Pres...cking_Poll.htm

this story has some interesting numbers if you are interested in reading:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5926893/

here's gallup again:

http://www.gallup.com/election2004/

here's a battleground overview:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bus...erry_sbys.html
http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...-frameset.html

Here a little collection of polls for you to mull over and then we can talk about mirroring reality.

Your points fall mute...

Here is why:

1) According to many here (and you I think), AQ had no interest in Iraq. They were everywhere else in the world but not in Iraq. They were in NY and FL but not in Iraq. No, there is no proof of that and therefor they could not have been there. Iraq was a secular government and AQ is a radical religious movement - highly incompatible, no? UBL hated SH, right?

So why would AQ care if the US attacked Iraq? Unless maybe they are just looking for excuses to kill, which bring me to...

2) Russia. Weren't they one of the big boys along with france that opposed the invasion of Iraq, for many different reasons? Yes that is right. Now islamic terrorists have attacked children at school in that country. Wouldn't they want to NOT attack a country that has helped them?

Russia did everything that AQ could have asked, without helping them directly, and yet the school thing happened anyway. Opposing the war did not protect them from islamic fundamentalist rage. There should be a lesson in there somewhere.

AQ will recruit regardless of the blunders that you seem to cling to. Even if President Bush made the right decisions (according to you) on these issues there would still be more recruiting points for the likes of AQ, for other blunders as they see them.

If Kerry is elected he will face the same issue: appease or stand tall. You can't appease evil. Pure and simple.

So why not go to war against NY and Florida? Of course AQ was in Iraq! What's the point? And maybe AQ had a problem with us invading for a few reasons: we were attacking fellow muslims, it was perceived (and maybe rightly so) we were there for financial gain (read: OIL & reconstruction contracts), and obviously they are against ANY more US involvement in the ME! It doesn't take a genius to see why. AG has to be dealt with; but not through invading other countries to try and get some imagined foothold into the ME.

This answer misses the point entirely.

I am not talking about the growth of AQ inside Iraq. That was what Bush was hoping for, remember the 'lightning rod theory' amd the 'bring-it-on' . . . . (which, unfortunately, was then 'brought on' to over 1000 fine American soldier deaths).

People in the Middle East are very proud of their religion, their ethics and their rich history . . . the 'countries' that devide them are sometimes seen as merely artificial divisions put into place by ex-Colonial rulers . . . .
AQ says just that . . . they also say that what 'Mulsims' should recognize is that the US really wants to destroy Islam and/or simply take its possessions, and/or, expand Zionism to include much much more of the ME . . .

So, what happens to dissaffected or educated but not national individuals who identify themselves vaguely as 'Muslims' before they identify themselves with 'Syria' or 'Jordan' or etc, when it looks, for all intents and purposes, that the US invaded a country on false premises?
What message does that send to people who are feeling like they need an identity?
well, for many it answers a need complete with a story provided by BOTH Osama Bin Laden and GWBush . . . . the identity is 'Muslim for a larger Islamistan against the Crusading infidel devils'

Any moron could have seen this would be the response, Muslims are proud of their heritage and who they are . . . and pride can be a very easy to manipulate wedge that will pry open a person's alliegences . . . making someone forget reasonable thought and join up for the most foolhardy of causes: AKA: Al Queda . . .

as far as Russia . . . I will assume that you only now have followed what has been going on there:
Russia has been very lax in their security against an enemy that is ruthless and vicious.
BUT, if you know anything about how the conflict started and grew into the monster that it quickly became, you would see in it a serious ressemblance to what we are doing in Iraq.

Chechneya started out as a relatively peaceful seperatist/nationalist movement. Russia used extremely harsh military force to deny any form of autonomy for Chechens . . . Chechens fought back.
But Russians continued to fight with an absolute disregard for civilians, their army is/was completely corrupt.
Nightcrawler may be an extremist troll but he is right about his story of the Russian military in Chechneya: they kidnap on mass, they kill and torture and they simply level whole cities . . . there is virtually no respectable chain of command, and they are paid better through the Black market and crime than through state wages . . . these are all recipes for a disasterous war . . . and that is exacctly what they got . . . terribly executed, aimless, incredibly brutal and corrupt and seemingly interminable . .

So what hapened to the moderate Chechen seperatists?: they quickly became over-run by 'mujahadeen' and foriegn extremist fundamentalists . . . I remember before 911 reading about how the moderates thought that the foriegners were making it impossible for there every to be a resolution and perpetuating the brutality . . . and it continues today:

Moral of the story: take a situation where overt force-only scenerio will make things worse then that is exactly what will happen
&
Work with or against your enemy through diplomacy and tactful 'winning of hearts and minds' and nobody needs to find the extremist thugs make any sense
&
Kill the extremist thugs before they make a case for your viciousness to more moderate minds, and thereby they 'win the hearts and minds' of others first.

Russia went into a moderate scenario with fists of red-meaty mutton and they made a not necessarily-horrendous situation turn into this miasma of extremist murderers and Pan-Arab fundamentalists that will probably now only grow.

BTW: the US has recommended to Putin that he sit down and talk with the seperatists (who are not necessarily the extremists) and he lashed out incredibly harshly, with a brilliant sarcastic jab at the hypocrisy of the US with this regard

kudos to anyone who can find that retort and copy it here

"Would you invite Osama bin Laden to the White House or to Brussels and hold talks with him and let him dictate what he wants? But you tell us that we should talk to everyone, including child-killers."

Who was he responding to though?

To American's who suggested talks.

BTW: here is an excellent article about a great wave of denounciations taking part within Muslim countries . . . denouncing violence and terrorism . . . it is full of great quotes

This kind of article reveals what needs to take place . . . and the US could, theoretically, help in this by promoting the anti-violence and openness that is implied by these people and their thoughtful stances.:

Muslims Condemn Violence and Terrorism

This is the first real good sign that I have seen in a while . . .

[EDIT: added - you can register pass/ID as appleinsider]

Long winded nothingness...

So what do you suggest?

Should the only nation that has the resources and willingness to help, just stay home as to not offend anyone? That seems to be what you are implying.

The other problem you have is you keep referring to these evil people as if they were just run-of-the-mill, everyday shmos. They are not! Anyone that would PLAN to kill innocent people and especially children, are not right upstairs. They may be human, but they have the minds of animals. How can anyone just sit there and accept what these people do as natural. It boggles the mind.

You can't win the hearts of this new breed of evil. They want you and I and our families dead. That will win their hearts!

They want the US and all it's allies to turn their backs so they can decimate and murder all Israelis and their families. That will win their hearts!

They want the world to be like Afghanistan and other fundamentalist countries are/were. That will win their heats!

Check out some of the websites that are out there promoting this kind of thinking, then tell me how you win the hearts and minds of these people. I would really like to hear how you satisfy someone that sees you and I as vermin that must be irradiated, and for no good reason.

Are you willing to sacrifice your children or family to that way of life and thinking?

This is no longer a movement that is just confined to Israel or just the ME. It has spread like a virus and has given us a preview of things to come. It is coming here to this country unless our leadership is solid and unwilling to waver, and probably even then. This is not an issue to fluff off anymore. Both parties better get their collective head out of their collective ass, IMO.

This is WWIII wether some like the sound of that, or not.

I guess I made a mistake

again

when I assumed that I was conversing with a person capable of reading and/or thinking!!

No, we don't sit quietly: we attack WHERE APPROPRIATE and then use very strong cultural diplomatic means (as Rummy finally acknowleged need to be used)

and Yes I said repeatedly these people, the extremists, are crazy and can not be dealt with . . . but more people need to see that the extremist miasma is NOT an alternative . . . . many of these extremists started out as regular and even sometimes well educated and even nice people . . . they then get sucked into a self-reinforcing ideology that turns them into monsters.

The point is to change the climate that even begins to make that an appealing alternative . . . one good way to do that is to NOT play exactly into their hands by invading a Muslim country under false pretexts!!

Many many Muslims find extremist thugs to be as terrible as we find them . .. these people need to be encouraged, their moderation needs to be acknowledged and supported . . . their ambivalence towards the US does NOT need to be tipped towards further doubt by badly planned and terribly excecuted wars where the reasons were entirely based on faulty info!!

The 'approach' that says: 'force first' even before it knows what it is using force against will only make more enemies:
what needs to happen is intelligent discernment and a real knowledge of the region NOT bull headed 'Vision' politics.

And yes, of course it spread like a virus, that is its strength: self-replicating thought form that uses those it infects to perpetuate itself . . all ideology is like that . . .
the surest way to combat that is to
1. Destroy the host of the virus (get terrorists)
2. Critically destroy the virus's capability to reproduce: in other words, to think critically about the 'IDEOLOGY' as a self replicating thought-form that has a logic all its own yet is not in itself logical . . . (just like all ultra-______ Ideologies: they are best dealt with by showing them to be inherently wrong)
so, that means creating an environment/background where people question the foundations of such Ideological Viruses: working with governments to change minds by changing the ground upon which minds live)
--that doesn't happen when the force used in turn becomes, or comes from, such a blind-fanatical virus