Dan
Posted on 10/05/2004 1:41:16 PM PDT by MplsSteve
PRESIDENT BUSH has already managed to lose the second debate with John Kerry -- the high-stakes argument over what happened in the first debate.
Dick Cheney can halt the slide tonight, and Bush himself can just as easily reverse it in St. Louis on Friday, but the steeper hill they face is one of their own making.
The Bush campaign put all of its post-Coral Gables eggs in one basket, called the Kerry Doctrine -- a made-up, cartoon version of the senator's foreign policy views. By contrast, Kerry was able to keep the debate going about credibility in the wars (which he finally managed to separate) inside Iraq and against terrorism worldwide, while focusing on the domestic policy themes that will be more prominent in the days ahead.
The "Kerry Doctrine" is classic Bush campaign think -- the belief that in the modern age of electronic communication and short attention spans, enough money and enough repetition can create any image, even a position that unlucky target does not hold.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Tom Oliphant? Tom Oliphant! I can't believe they still publish anything this LSS writes. Refer back to his activities defending the Clinton administration.
Dan
{"But I can do a better job of protecting America's security because the test that I was talking about was a test of legitimacy, not just in the globe, but elsewhere.
By elsewhere, he has to mean "outerspace beings."}
Just great... now we have to submit questions of warfare to the GREYS of the constellation Draco!
That's a horrible, horrible standard, because it begs the question of what happens if Americans think the reasons given are "legitimate", but the rest of the world does not. The only fair way to read that is that we shouldn't engaged in preemptive strikes unless the rest of the world agrees it was done for legtimate reasons. Because if it doesn't mean that, then the entire comment is meaningless.
The "global test" comment gave Bush some ammo, but I think they're making a mistake in the way they're using it.
Many voters have already bought into the troublesome concern that Kerry would bend to the U.N. and European "allies". I would like to see Bush/Cheney probe more into Kerry's seeming to blame AMERICA for the hesistancy of her allies. He seems to say this is all OUR FAULT. BC04 should resurrect the "blame America first" charge.
I wonder if it is the same poll showing registered then likely? Or with Nader and without.
This is written by the same idiot that wrote - back in August - a column headlined:
SMEAR BY VETERANS MAY HURT BUSH
It was about the Swift Boat Vets' ads.
He's a real prophet.
Tom Oliphant is a prissy little maggot. End of story.
"even a position that unlucky target does not hold."
That's just it, Kerry doesn't "HOLD" any positions. Willy was slick, but Kerry is polished smooth.
You can't get him mad by attacking something he truly believes in, since he doesn't really believe in anything.
The big mistake of the debate was agreeing to time limits. Bush looked like he ran out of thoughts while Kerry looked sharp by rambling to the red light.
Without the time limits his true boring personality would have been exposed, which is his real weakness - his flip flopping is a strength when avoiding the "liberal" tag is a necessity.
For about two days after last week's infomercial you could sense near euphoria on the part of the Kerry press. Then that drivel poll by Newsweek took Euphoria to Ecstacy to Nirvana.
I've noticed, though, as it became obvious that the infomercial had ZERO affect on the electorate that euphoria is giving way once again to hysteria.
Do these people have a point? No. This is especially true since it's but a single bit of evidence of the weakness of the Democrats with regard to defending this country. Is the editorial staff at the Boston Globe as hysterical as the staff at the Minneapolis Star and Tribune?
The editorial staff of the Red Star has always been liberal but in recent years, they've taken a very sharp and prolonged move to the far left.
They really show a lot of venom at anything involving Pres Bush.
In order for the left to win, they must convence the American people that Bush is a failure.
I can't keep up, I thought it morphed from a Global Test to an "Intergalactic test"
He's Dead Jim 
BLOWING SMOKE! The only time these people say this kind of stuff is to try to blunt the success of something the conservatives are doing.
It's called: planting a seed of doubt! The dems are good at it.
The Kerry doctrine is actually unconstitutional.... and needs to keep going... it definately has legs.... and if spun correctly will force Kerry's credibility to lead any response to a terror attack into the garbage can.. Oh its there already... OK enough said.
"But if and when you do it, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove it to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
You really have to admire Kerry's use of words here -- he will not cede the right to "preempt" -- what? What exactly will he preempt? The current commonly held meaning of "preemption," based on the explicity stated "Bush doctrine," is that we reserve the right to preemptively attack another country or faction within a country when we have judged a preemptive attack necessary to protect the U.S.
By using "prempt" without an object, Kerry uses the "both sides" subterfuge for which he is famous -- he can say that he clearly stated he would "preempt," while exactly what he would preempt is left to the mind of the listener, and allows plausible deniability in the event he decides to express an apparently opposite view in the future.
Another good example of the double-speak is another phrase he uttered in response to the opening question of the debate -- one he and his supporters used yesterday to prove that his "global test" remark was taken out of context:
I believe America is safest and strongest when we are leading the world and we are leading strong alliances.
I'll never give a veto to any country over our security. But I also know how to lead those alliances.
Exactly what does "security" mean in this context? Considering how much Kerry has concentrated on homeland security (mo' money) theme, he could be referring to building new firehouses, or prohibiting the award of airport security contracts to foreign firms, for all we know.
While we do know from the multitude of speeches, new conferences, interviews, etc., where he has spelled it explicity, exactly what Bush means by the terms "preempt" and "security," Kerry has to date intentionally clouded and shrouded his opinions in evasive verbiage which can be quoted to defend both sides of any issue, much to the satisfaction of the liberal apologists such as Mr. Oliphant, who know exactly, as we do, where Mr. Kerry stands, based on long Senate record and his actions in opposing the Vietnam war.
Intergalactic works great!
Oliphant hasn't said anything sensible in years.
Kerry's on the defensive because GW came out with the best one liner in weeks. To wit: I will never entrust America's safety to other nations. The buck stops in the oval office. I paraphrase, but that's basically what GW said. All Kerry could do was sputter, "Pathetic!" We know who's pathetic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.