That speech by Gore didn't claim Bush's record as different than it really was. That speech didn't accuse Bush of things that are actually contrary to his stated plans and record. Gore presented Bush's deeds, and drew the conclusion that it was a betrayal of the U.S. values, and that our nation's integrity, and principles were betrayed. You can disagree with that conclusion, but there is a definite difference. Kerry specifically said that no nation or organization would ever have veto power over U.S security. Yet Miller in ranted that Kerry wanted U.S. policy to be decided in Paris. Kerry talked about expanding the military, and Miller screamed about Kerry wanting to arm our forces with spitwads. Again, during their time in Senate together Miller and Kerry have identical voting records on defense and intelligence spending. Miller was angry and if he believed the stuff he was saying, he either isn't very informed or he's delusional. When someone starts accusing of being for stuff your on the record as being against, and does so in an angry speech oozing with venom, I'd say that's worse of someone using your actual record and deeds to draw a conclusion.
Notice how the Republican "strateegerists" just resort to name calling instead of trying to counter the message. Could the reason be that they dare not run on their own record? mmmmmmm could be....
Bush's record is out there for everyone to see. He's been President for 4 years. Could it be that, based his lead in many of the polls, people approve of his record? FB, my point wasn't who was "right" and who was "wrong". That's all a matter of opinion. I just think it's funny that if you agree with the speaker, he's "fiery and energetic" but if you don't agree with him, well he's just a loon. With that being said, I think Gore is a loon.
How about those on your side who have to resort to the endless rehashing of GWB's national guard service? Hmmmmm.......
It's been pointed out that Miller's speech did not tell the truth. It certainly contradicted actual propsals, plans, and Kerry's own record.
And what has kerry presented as far as what he will change? Just broad ideas with very little specifics (which to me means very little planning). For the life of me kerry keeps mentioning the war in Iraq and I have no idea where he stands. He voted for it, against funding it, said Hussein should be taken down, etc. If it's about issues have kerry tell us what he will change and how. The liberals talk about issues but the bottom line is kerry is not focusing on issues in his campaign. He's too busy defending his past and attacking Bush to actually focus on issues. The one thing Bush is is clear (he may be wrong but he is clear). Kerry to me is unclear. Maybe alot of it is all the ads running in Ohio but I can tell you if his campaign is on issues, then his message is not getting through. Be clear and be specific. Bringing up issues and saying "trust me I'll fix it" is not a campaign on issues. Tell me how you'll fix it, and where the funding is coming from (or how much revenue it will produce).
Kerry has presented a lot, including specifics, and if you aren't aware of these facts then you have not chosen to look. Either that or you have gotten all of your information from Faux News. www.johnkerry.com has all the specifics you asked for. Educate yourself before you make these kinds of statements. In every single campaign speech, Kerry talks about his plan for America. If you haven't heard it, then you either haven't been listening or you have received your information from the RNC or Faux News. You are right about one thing, Bush is clearly wrong. www.johnkerry.com
Andy- Ok he has a website. Now let's hear him describe his issues in his ads. I've heard you reference his wesite several times, and that's my point he may have a decent campaign issues but his message is not there to tell people who don't go to his website what he is about.
Educate myself? So to learn about the candidate I have to visit his website? Can't kerry educate me in his ads, apparently not. Great campaign. go on tv, go on radio and in the end come back with "You don't understand, go to the website" And you wonder why Kerry is losing to the general public. Go educate yourself.
As opposed to the garbage that Bush is running in his ads? Puh-leeze. Watch the debates and see who talks about issues and who doesn't. If you watch with an open mind, I think you will be convinced.
Maybe you should listen to a speech or two. If you seriously think policy can be adequately described in a 30 second ad, you've been watching this administration too long. Has the Bush administration set forth a strategy to bring the Iraq action to a close? I haven't seen a detailed plan. Here's what Bush's website says: "In his second term, President Bush will build on his record of making America and the world safer." Other than relocating troops from places like Germany and South Korea to Iraq, I don't see a plan. Maybe I'm wrong. If so, please show me some details. I certainly didn't see them in any Bush ads...
I think it's true that Kerry's message isn't getting out. Too many people have said it. It may be THERE...but it's not getting out. Rove is good. Demented.....but good. It concerns me. (and Al should get a haircut)
Yep, you called it. Old Bullsh*t. Miller slams Kerry for opposing bombers, fighters, and helicopters. That WAS true – 20 years ago – but not lately. Sen. Zell Miller, the Georgia Democrat_who delivered the Republican National Convention's keynote address Sept. 1,_said_Kerry "opposed" weapons including the B-1, B-2, F-14, F-15, and Apache helicopters._"This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our US Armed Forces?" Miller exclaimed._"Armed with what? Spitballs?" Miller said "Americans need to know the facts" about Kerry's record, but his_applause-getting recital is a decade or so out of date. Kerry did oppose all the weapons Miller cited when he was a candidate for the Senate in 1984, and did vote against the B-2 bomber, Trident nuclear subs and "star wars" anti-missile system more than a decade ago. Kerry also voted_in three different years_against_the entire Pentagon budget. But_in his nearly 20 years in office Kerry's record has evolved. Kerry hasn't opposed an annual Pentagon appropriation since 1996. And he's voted for them far more often than against them. link to factcheck.org analysis.
That is exactly my point thank you bnb. Andy I'm not trying to rattle your chain Andy just saying Kerry's message right now is very distorted right now. And I fully intend to watch the debates. Problem is if Bush keeps the lead going into the debates all he has to do is stay near the middle of the political road, not say anything stupid and he'll have a hard time losing. Kerry has got to tighten the race up in the next week and a half to have a decent shot. If he doesn't W will play to the middle and make Kerry take a very leftist position (on some, multiple issues) to differeniate himself, and that in most instances is a no win situation.
