He didn't say she was on her deathbed when she said that. "He said she said" that when he told her he was going to run for president.


I will say this - I was not impressed with either of them on domestic issues.

ah, the liberal spin. . . :rolleyes:


Word for word:
"Can I say, if I could just say a word about a woman that you didn't ask about, but my mom passed away a couple years ago, just before I was deciding to run. And she was in the hospital, and I went in to talk to her and tell her what I was thinking of doing.

And she looked at me from her hospital bed and she just looked at me and she said, Remember: integrity, integrity, integrity. Those are the three words that she left me with. "

I wonder what Kerry was going for, with that.

Sympathy vote? (my mom died a few years a go . .. so can I be president now?)

Or perhaps he is trying to tell us that NOW, well, well in to his adult life, he has found new aspiration in life? (intergity)

Hmmm...I guess I got it wrong but I really did not get the impression that he meant on her deathbed.

its okay, mikester. We're quite accustom to handling liberals with their selective-hearing liberal-mind. :cool:

Like when Bush get's 20-40 nations to support taking out Saddam --Lib's hear "Unilateral" cuz France isn't with us.:rolleyes:

edit: actually France was "with us' . . . right up to the time when actual action had to happen. THEN they folded their poodle-poof tail between their legs and whined; "now is not the Tiiiiiimmmmme . .. we need more tiiiiimmmmme.

Lets all remind ourselves here that winning debate(s) is not a direct path to winning the Presidential election. This bears repeating.

Last night Bush and Kerry were solidifying and modivating their bases as much as looking for the "undecided" voter.. A random poll of the man on the street means nothing. Who is going to get out there and who is going to vote?

I think Kerry did well in scaring a few elderly on the topic of social security. And Bush did well as he talked about prayer and taxes.

Bush might have not "won" this thing, but for a lot of folks that would not have voted for him after the first debate debacle, he has raised their comfort level.

Yep. Not sure what he was after on that one. It was a stupid statement to make unless he felt that all anyone would remember is the integrity part.

So, what's your rational for Bush taking Kerry's statement on "terrorism as a nuisance" out of context? I thought I read where one of the generals had made a similar statement.

Michael

It is a known fact that polls don't vote but here's the data I have been compiling the last few weeks.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1097770014.jpg

What a bore-fest!
I was listening on the radio and for the first 30 minutes I kept checking that I wasn’t listening to excerpts from the previous 2 debates. Same old stuff.


Bush: “Kerry voted to raise taxes 370,000 times”. Of course that count to “raise” taxes includes votes to lower taxes by an amount less than what Republicans wanted. :rolleyes:
Kerry: “I voted to cut taxes 6,000,070 times”. Which conveniently counts separate cuts in the same bill as multiple votes. :rolleyes:

Me: “you are both full of *****”

I caught only the last bit of the debate. So, Kerry's statement on "terrorism as a nuisance" . . .missed it. But, yeah, I know others have spun that one.

In-context I see what Kerry is getting at. He even has a valid point. (for a change) The problem that I see is that Kerry is only trying to put on a face, which is polar-opposite to Bush .. ..pandering to the ABB crowd.

Sure Kerry can talk about how terrorism hasn't been successful here in the last 3 years. But that hardly means that we can pretend that it is gone.

One of the few thing that I believe that the Federal Govt needs to get right . . .be highly responsible for, is Defence.

Kerry seems to want ot say "eh . . lets talk about . .. focus our efforts, on moving our unemployment form 5.4% to 5.1%. :rolleyes: what good is super-low employment if your city is gone?

ANd What's the unemployment in Europe? . . ~15% (?)

Squawking about unemployment is just a red-herring for Kerry.

We have a lot of 'good' happening here. We all saw how much 9/11 threatened that. We all saw how willing and motivated these terrorists are to mass killings. I think Bush has the right priorities, AND he has shown that he can handle multiple priorities.

Whoa. I'm accustomed to reading posts full of mis-quotes, soundbites and cutsie little misleading quips, so imagine my surprize when I notice a substantive, relatively thoughtful post. Well, I'm sure we're back to cute, misleading stuff by now but I do appreciate the occasional surprize.

I heard quite a bit about Iraq during this domestic policy debate, but I expected to. I certainly did not expect to hear Dubya touting No Child Left Behind (you know, the pet program he turned his back on immeadiately after the last election....showing his degree of integrity), which he did tout many times. But I should have expected it. It's the domestic program he can recall. I think the others are mysterious to him.

Kerry clobbered Dubya.

Both missed opportunities. And the questions were VERY challenging, at least some of them were.

I only got to see the last part of the debate but I didn't think Kerry clobbered Dubya from what I saw.

I felt that Bush had more of a presence than Kerry. I'm not talking what they talked about, just how they acted in front of the camera. Bush has a way of smiling at the camera that seems genuine whereby Kerry always has this serious look.

I watched the debate via NBC and was interesting that of the 6 undecided voters before the debates, three were for Bush, two were for Kerry, and one was leaning Kerry but disenfranchised about the whole thing.



Michael

I would say that Kerry is moderately conservative. You want to see what is a real Liberal, come over here.

I only watched part of it but didn' see anything about the environement, Kyoto or the Star Wars program. Are those issues ?

Yeah, interesting that the neocons are calling everything they don't like "liberal." Cute, because if repeated often enough will lead to the presumption that "liberal" is a bad word. Very shrewd, very effective. But of course, dishonest. And then there's the neocon conclusion that the only objective, responsible news organization in the world is Fox News, and ALL THE OTHER NEWS ORGANIZATIONS IN THE UNIVERSE are slanted ultra-liberal. I hope you guys can take a close look someday at this conclusion you're asserting. In most of the world's countries, our democratic party would be the CONSERVATIVE party, and the liberal party would look to you like a bunch of communists. But of course, Dubya is right and the rest of the people on the planet are all wrong. So right is he, in fact, that dissenting opinion is not accepted in any fashion, let alone evaluated or considered. Man, this guy must be brilliant. (roll-eyes goes here)

No. "Dishonest" would be, pretending that John Kerry is not just about the perfect definition of "Liberal".

In this political spectrum, do-tell super, which politician fits the word "liberal" better than John Kerry? ...and don't give me a 'more effective' liberal . .. we all know how ineffective Kerry is. But on the mostly bipartisan efforts, Kerry seems to enjoy moving even further to the left, to confound matters, and to plant the LIBERAL flag. He want to out-liberal the majority of the liberals. --you should be proud; being an admitted liberal yourself.

Um...what exactly is wrong with being a liberal? If being a liberal is in some whay "wrong" as you seem to imply then I'm not sure I want to be what you would imply is "right."

Kerry would fit perfectly in our Canadian Conservative party, wich is the Right wing of our 4 party. We then have the Liberal party, wich did gouvern us for most of the last 20 years, and 2 left wing partys.

And Bush, well he doesn't realy fit anywhere.

Yeah, interesting that the liberals are calling everything they don't like "neocon." Cute, because if repeated often enough will lead to the presumption that "neocon" is a bad word. Very shrewd, very effective. But of course, dishonest. And then there's the liberal conclusion that the only objective, responsible news organization in the world is CBS News, and ALL THE OTHER NEWS ORGANIZATIONS IN THE UNIVERSE are slanted ultra-conservative. I hope you guys can take a close look someday at this conclusion you're asserting.;)

Well supe seems to want to distance Kerry from being catagorized as a liberal. Kerry is hugely liberal, but guys like supe want you to look away from the "liberal label" and pretend that Kerry is mainstream centric. (going after the mainstream centrics who dont really pay much attention to this kind of crap.)

So of course supe wants to be first to strike with the "Dishonest" label; when, in fact, HE is the one being HUGELY dishonest. ...hey he's liberal too. ;)


Big deal:

--The Kerry kamp has tried to paint Bush as a right-wing religious nut-job¹. (which some think he is)

--The Bush camp is fully justified in pointing-out Kerrys liberal-weener¹ status. (which is obvious to even the liberals)

note 1. per JibJab.com ;)

In NZ, Kerry would be centre - to the right of our govt.

I felt that Bush had more of a presence than Kerry. I'm not talking what they talked about, just how they acted in front of the camera. Bush has a way of smiling at the camera that seems genuine whereby Kerry always has this serious look.

That is so far away from how I felt (I have now seen the tv coverage). Bush smirked almost constantly - it is almost like he can't believe what he is saying ;)

(edit) on reflection, Kerry is a liberal - but he is still centre economically etc. He believes in striving for equality, eradicating poverty, some degree of affirmative action, etc etc. That is liberal.

It is a mischaracterisation of the word to use it to describe someone who doesn't choose tax cuts.

Also note - the Aussies just re-voted in their liberal party (your coalition partner in Iraq), which is right of their labour party.

Face it - liberal is a centre sort of thing.