Oh, God…
It cuts both ways. It means that both right and left might be wrong about the man (for entirely different reasons). It means that Kerry might be neither a flip-flopper nor refined diplomatic genius. In fact, all the evidence points that Kerry is very strong-headed and plain spoken. Neither right or left are interested to dwell on that.
If you are stuck on a certain point doesn’t mean that I should.
No, it means that both the right and you are setting up different kinds of straw men. I haven’t heard Kerry claim to be a “diplomatic genius.” He has simply said that Bush botched the pre-war diplomacy and, for various reasons, he would not have botched it.
His claim is simply that he would have succeeded where Bush had failed and it is not dependent on his being a genius, nor is it simply dependent upon his powers of persuasion. Kerry’s position is that he would have started with a completely different attitude and strategy to handling the Iraq problem, not that he would have done exactly what Bush did but nevertheless have ended up with more allies going into the Iraq invasion.
I am not setting any strawmen. I never said that Kerry describes himself as a “diplomatic genius.” You are inventing words I never said. What I said was exactly the following,
Those who peddle such image of Kerry come both from left and right (for different reasons).
That is meaningless.
To discuss whether the “right” and “left” are right or wrong, we must first identify what the right and left are saying. You have mischaracterized what they are saying. You seem to think that the LEFT is calling Kerry “nuanced” as a selling-point, when in fact, the RIGHT is calling Kerry “nuanced” as an insult.
One cannot be wrong about a claim if one NEVER MADE the claim. That’s what we mean by a “strawman” argument.
It would be like ME saying, “Why do republicans keep bragging about Bush being a liar?” It’s nonsensical.
Not true. Throughout the campaign, the right has been calling Kerry a “flip-flopper”, while the left has been saying that he is NOT. Democrats would in fact be quite pleased to hear republicans refer to Kerry as “plain-spoken”.
The reason we are stuck is that you refuse to address my point, but continue to talk around it.
You quoted yourself? Maybe we should just stand back and let you argue with yourself. 
Perhaps it will help if you read this article.
<hijack>
I’d just like to comment that the title of this thread is stupid.
Nothing that Kerry has done needs defending as much as what the Bush Administration has done in the last four years to our allies. Instead of diplomacy and cooperation, we’re now reduced to cheap taunts like “Freedom fries” and “Old Europe.”
</hijack>
(Just wanted to get that off my chest)
Great - a long, meandering, pointless editorial. Yes, that really helps.:rolleyes:
Would it be too much trouble for you to just tell us your point?
It was you who said, “we must first identify what the right and left are saying”. I think the article I referenced lays out a lot of detail about what Kerry and Bush are saying, how their aides spin it, how media interprets it and how people understand all this chaos. Yes, it is extremely complex picture.
As it comes to Kerry, this thread provoked a very strong and entirely unexpected suspicion that the man is really extremely blunt, not ‘nuanced’ or ‘complex’ at all. Just listen what Kerry is really saying,
I have no doubt now that he means it (I had before). The question is who would he fight to build a coalition? Those who didn’t want to join? Chirac and Shroeder? Fine by me.
As far as offending our real allies, he is involved in the most serious political fight in the world and he has to keep punching all the time. Bush was using many cheap shots in his battle with Gore, too.
Overall, I think now that Kerry might make a good President and I wish him the best of luck.
Luck be damned! Vote!
Am I speaking English here? YOU contend that the left TOUTS Kerry as “nuanced”. I said that no, the RIGHT calls Kerry “nuanced”, and it’s not as a compliment. THAT’S what I was referring to when I said “identify what the right and left are saying.” Where on EARTH did you get the idea that I was asking you for a lengthy article on the subject? It’s like you print out the thread, cut each sentence into it’s own isolated piece of paper and put it in a box all by itself.
That has nothing to do with the current argument. We’re talking about whether the left is touting Kerry as “nuanced”.
irrelevant.
irrelevant
irrelevant.
You keep saying: “The democrats say Kerry is nuanced, but he’s not.”
And I keep saying: “But the democrats aren’t saying that.”
And you keep responding, “But he’s not nuanced.” :smack:
Are you just screwing with me now?
Are you one of those Internet predators, lurking to exploit my insecurity and excitability? Ma warned me about people like you.
Did you even read the NYT article?
Just one more Nuance
Yet another obfuscatory response. :rolleyes: