I think you lost the debate at this point. Objective reality intrudes. Bush’s history of outrageous lying kinda damages your argument. Actually it does a bit more than damage it. It’s like you just drove your argument off a cliff.
cite : http://www.alternet.org/election04/19608/
This post answers the charge of Kerry’s lacklustre record - perhaps this is why this post [above] has been ignored by the Kerry bashers.
What are the high points of Bush’s record again? I just can’t think of them at the moment …
Well, I’ve read the OP, and Starving Artist’s spirited defense of the status quo, and will now weigh the issue. The argument seems to be that we should stick with the Bush administration because Kerry has been insufficiently detailed about what he would do differently. Fair enough.
Now, I will mention that I cannot point to a single positive or negative thing, not one, that has affected me personally over the past four years that can be laid at the feet of the current administration (I don’t personally know anyone currently in the military or who might be in Iraq). So, from that very narrow standpoint it frankly doesn’t matter to me who’s president.
Neverthless, there are two major issues that, while they haven’t affected me personally as yet, have had such an effect on so many people and so much potential for harm to me at a later point, that even if all really I cared about was myself, I would probably still be concerned about them. These issues are:
-
The launching of an unprovoked war that has killed and wounded many thosands of both US citizens, more than ten thousand innocent Iraqi civilians, and which has been shown to be completely unnecessary;
-
The running up of a collossal deficit from a previous position of surplus, without any apparent gain for me or for other citizens.
There are of course many other issues of varying importance; without going into them one by one, I find Kerry’s positions more palatable on most of them than I do those of Bush.
Kerry may not have provided detailed plans as to how his presidency may be different than the current one, but he has at least shown that he understands the nature of the issues I’m most concerned about. That’s good enough for me; the current administration has a proven record of incompetence; its performance has simply been too poor to justify a second term, IMO. Kerry’s may turn out to be equally imcompetent, but I seriously doubt it could be worse, so I’ll give him a chance, and vote to throw his ass out in four years if his admin doesn’t cut the mustard.
So, sorry, MadSam, S_A, I find your arguments insufficiently compelling to change my mind on this issue. My vote goes to Kerry.
My guess is that it’s been ignored for a couple of reasons. First, it still doesn’t seem like much of a resume for someone who has been in the U.S. Senate for twenty years. But most importantly, it doesn’t speak to the discussion at hand, namely Kerry’s continued harping about his countless “plans” to fix virtually every problem that currently exists regarding not only this country but much of the rest of the world as well, but without giving a shred of detail as to how he’s going to go about accomplishing them.
How are we, as voters, to evaluate the likelihood of his being successful in all that he claims he’s going to do if we are being so obviously and stubbornly and condescendingly left in the dark as to how he’s going to go about accomplishing them? Words are cheap; where’s the beef? To me, the simple fact that he doesn’t want to reveal the details of his so-called plans indicates that he either doesn’t have any real plans at all, or they are so weak, tenuous and full of holes that he doesn’t want them scrutinized. So he’s trying to get elected by having us vote for plans we know nothing about…which I think is highly suspect, as I’ve said. It’s analogous to someone trying to sell you a car while at the same time trying determinedly to convince you there’s no need for a test drive. It smells fishy!
Very well said, El_Kabong. I can’t quarrel with you at all in this regard. If you feel Kerry understands the nature of the issues you care about and you want to vote for him as a result, then that’s the way it should be.
What I’m objecting to is Kerry’s attempt to pursuade the electorate that he has the answers to all the problems he claims to have the answers to, but without revealing what those answers are. This is a red flag to me. Why won’t he explain himself?
The only things I can think of are that he either doesn’t really have any such plans and is simply trying to con the electorate; or that he does have indeed have some sort of plans but no confidence that they will withstand scrutiny; or that they will be so expensive (or otherwise troublesome to the electorate) that he feels there is no way he’ll be voted into office if everyone knows what they really are. None of these scenarios give me a warm and fuzzy feeling about a Kerry presidency, and the fact that he’s trying to do such an obvious end-around and get elected on the basis of having plans that he will reveal nothing about is, I think, insulting to the electorate.
I wasn’t accusing, I was asking for clarification - because his point wasn’t clear to me.
It’s not just his demeanor, which, however, has been egregious. He’s also been criticized for his vacuuous mantras: “Hard work, it’s hard work, definitely hard work.” No better than frickin’ Rain Man! He’s been called to task for his lies, too.
You’re right about Kerry not dancing circles around Bush. And people have taken away points for Kerry’s not going for the jugular of the pathetically wounded beast.
[blackadder]
I have a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel!
[/blackadder]
Speaking of negative campaigning, it’s interesting to note that all the anti-Bush ads are coming from groups not officially affiliated with the Kerry-Edwards campaign, whereas 30% of the Bush-Cheney campaign advertising are directly attacking the opposition.
From the Wisconsin Advertising Project (PDF, page 5):
Which is worse, Kerry leaving the mud-throwing to his supporters, or Bush throwing the mud himself?
Sorry, I’m gonna have to call you on this. I need specific cites for things that Kerry is going to “flat out” change, and then an explanation of why you think no other candidate has ever made a similar statement. I mean, this is just ridiculous. It’s like saying ducks don’t quack.
Oh, sorry you wasted that 30 seconds.
Look, if you want a more detailed response, you need to provide something to respond to. So far, all you’ve done is criticize Kerry for “having goals”. This is laughable. You still have failed to provide one iota of evidence that Kerry has done anything that any other politician hasn’t done since the beginning of time. If you want a response, we need some specific examples of what you’re talking about.
To borrow a phrase, now you’re “flip-flopping”. First, your criticism was that Kerry’s plan wasn’t specific enough. When I showed you to be wrong, you changed your criticism to saying it’s too specific. I suspect you would pretty much say anything, just so long as it’s anti-Kerry.
Oh, they’re not “plans”, they’re “things he will try”. Does that distinction even make sense to you?
Yes, Kerry doesn’t have a “plan”, he has a course of action that he intends to implement if elected president. But it’s sure not a “plan”.
Exactly what elements do you contend that he has left out?
You’re just repeating your vague charges, but you still haven’t explained specifically what is different about what Kerry is doing compared to what all politicians do.
Oh, no! Kerry breathes air and processes food into waste. Let’s kill him.
The point of this thread and the answer is also for those of you who defend Kerry’s actions with the use of sarcasm is:
Anyone can say I have a plan for this and a plan for that.
Hell, I have a plan for everything. What is tiring is: Kerry: I have a plan to bring the troops home…Bush doesnt…we need new leadership
I have a plan to give health care to all citizens. Bush is “an idiot”
I have a plan to give students better schooling from poor to rich…idiot Bush and his kind doesn’t.
He has not been able “to turn lead into Gold” I can (mephor)
Then the trial atty, John Edwards, the suer of Drs. comes along and says we have plans for everything and Bush is out of it, not in the real world etc.
This Kerry/Edwards messiah-like attitude may convince some but hopefully not enough to swing the election his way.
I still don’t get it. Bush is, of course, saying the exact same kinds of things about Kerry. Not to sound like a broken record, but why is it so awful to you when Kerry does exactly the same thing that all politicians do?
And let me also point out that if Kerry weren’t saying he had a plan, you guys would be saying:
“Where’s Kerry’s plan? He doesn’t have a plan. How can he be a good president if he doesn’t even have a plan? All he does is talk about “goals”. We need results. It’s not good enough just to say what you’re gonna “try” to do. Kerry is a planless flip-flopper with no plan.”
Lets assume that Bush DID NOT KNOW prior to the invasion of Iraq by the US, that there were NO WMD.
Lets further assume that the intelligence available DID make Bush believe that Iraq had WMD
And lastly we know that 9/11 did produce about 3000 dead people.
Question # one: If Bush DID not invade Iraq and months later 47,000 Americans were murdered by terrorists and it was felt that Iraq HAD WMD, what would the Bush bashers say then:
Why the hell didn’t he go into Iraq when he knew that they maintained an arsenal of WMD? Had he gone in and flexed his muscles perhaps the 47,000 American deaths would not have occured. Its very easy to be a Monday morning quarterback.
Please answere the above with thoughtful non sarcastic comments.
Well, as Kerry said during the debates, his plans are laid out in detail on his website [www.johnkerry.com , as far as I can remember] - or do you expect him to go into detail in the 2 minutes/90 seconds allotted in debates.
Also, I’ve watched all the debates, and I don’t see Bush laying out any plans for the electorate - his tactics seem to be attacking Kerry and ‘more of the same’. I heard him give a speech in which he said that he and Cheney were running on their record. I haven’t been impressed with his record, myself, but YMMV.
OK, not being sarcastic here, but you appear to be demanding answers to a question completely unrelated to your own OP. Personally, I believe in clarity, not confusion, so it seems to me if the real issue you want to argue is whether or not Bush can justifiably be held responsible for the misadventure in Iraq, you should say so up front, rather than posing it as a question about Kerry’s plans, or lack of them.
To address your latest question:
Your hypothetical question is meaningless, IMO. 47,000 Americans have not been killed in another terrorist attack, there is not the slightest indication that such a thing would have happened if Iraq had not been invaded, and as we now know, if such a thing did happen, it is highly unlikely the weapons used in the non-existent attack would have been sourced from Iraq.
It’s up to the President, and the intelligence agencies that supply him with information, to determine whether said information is correct. We know, without any ambiguity, that elements within the White House strongly desired to replace the Iraqi regime, well prior to 9/11. We also know without any ambiguity that the intelligence information supplied to the President on the status of Iraqi WMD programs after 9/11 was questionable at best. We furthermore know that the office of the President chose to believe only that intelligence which supported its rationale for invasion, and ignored or downplayed any intelligence that did not. Lastly, we can see there were no such programs existent in Iraq. The buck stops at the president’s desk. There was a major intelligence failure, and probably willful deception of the American people on the part of the White House. The very least that should happen is that the person who either sanctioned or condoned, or even simply ignored, the deception, gets to look for another job.
Lack of sophistication doesn’t become you.
Every politician has plans; every politician has goals. and even the President who you Kerryites have been bashing has plans and goals.
But Senator Kerry and Edwards are attempting to convince the people that their plans or goal as you prefer will "cure all" and that sstupid Bush and his gang do not have any idea what miraculous plans that Kerry has.Personal insults are not allowed in Great Debates. And I’m sorry that you chose to do so rather than actually post a cogent argument.
Way to come up with specifics. :rolleyes:
Your recollection is incorrect. The following is from Bush in the first 2000 debate:
Hell, I stopped counting halfway through. The fact is, talking about “plans”, wihtout necessarily having back-up, is a standard thing for a Presidential candidate to do. How on earth can you deny it?
Uh oh, if he’s planning on “spreading” peace in the same way he did with Iraq, we’re going to need a lot more coffins. Are those currently made overseas, or does this mean more manufacturing jobs here?
As long as their walk of life includes wealth and a nice health-care package.
Is this code for “Charity good, welfare bad?”
Is a vision half plan/half goal, something drug-induced, or is he getting messages from above as thanks for his “Faith-based Initiative?”
As long as one works with the assumption that we were pointed in the wrong direction to begin with, I guess you could call it going forward.
Hell, conservatives jump all over Kerry for saying the exact same thing, minus the lawsuits addendum.
Woot, I’m guessing a tax cut will come with this package.
Ah, like the peace we’re currently experiencing in Iraq?
Which recovery is that?
We’re creating a ton of jobs, just not in our own country. Was that part of the “promise?”
As long as they aren’t gay.
And my favorite rebuttal to your arguments against Kerry’s use of “I have a plan”…