Kerry Beats Bush Under Pressure--At the Debates and On September 11
Early polling data shows an edge for Kerry, with his lead greater among swing voters than the general public. In discussing the debate, as in my previous post, I initially concentrated on the numerous factual errors, and dishonest statements, from George Bush. Of course, although I hope otherwise, I realize that such facts are not what is going to affect many votes. If people were going to vote against Bush based upon debates, the first debate would have done that. Bush certainly did not do well enough to get those voters back either.
We see from the debates, both historically and this year, that it is not the issues but factors such as make up and smirks which seem to drive voters' reactions. I doubt the second debate will have much impact in changing the dynamic of the race started after the first debate.
Looking at these factors, Kerry also wins due to looking confident and in control--what we want from a Commander in Chief. Kerry controlled the debate as he showed his superior knowledge on a variety of issues. In contrast, Bush was repeatedly on the defensive, forced to resort to his stump lines as he lacked the knowledge to discuss the issues.
There is one factor in the debate which has a chance, depending upon how it is reported--Bush's anger. We saw what the perception of being angry did to Howard Dean. If the right clips are repeated on the news, Bush could suffer some further harm from his debate performance.
Just as Kerry showed superior ability to handle pressure during the debate, accounts of September 11 show the same. We are all aware of how George Bush responded, avoiding responding to the country being under attack as he read a children's book for seven minutes, and then took his time to leave. It took George Bush two days to give the appearance of being back in control.
In contrast, the New York Times this weekend describes John Kerry on September 11:
We see from the debates, both historically and this year, that it is not the issues but factors such as make up and smirks which seem to drive voters' reactions. I doubt the second debate will have much impact in changing the dynamic of the race started after the first debate.
Looking at these factors, Kerry also wins due to looking confident and in control--what we want from a Commander in Chief. Kerry controlled the debate as he showed his superior knowledge on a variety of issues. In contrast, Bush was repeatedly on the defensive, forced to resort to his stump lines as he lacked the knowledge to discuss the issues.
There is one factor in the debate which has a chance, depending upon how it is reported--Bush's anger. We saw what the perception of being angry did to Howard Dean. If the right clips are repeated on the news, Bush could suffer some further harm from his debate performance.
Just as Kerry showed superior ability to handle pressure during the debate, accounts of September 11 show the same. We are all aware of how George Bush responded, avoiding responding to the country being under attack as he read a children's book for seven minutes, and then took his time to leave. It took George Bush two days to give the appearance of being back in control.
In contrast, the New York Times this weekend describes John Kerry on September 11:
As New York and Washington were under attack on Sept. 11, 2001, a film crew happened to come upon John Kerry leaving the Capitol. The brief moment of footage, included in a BBC documentary called ''Clear the Skies,'' tells us something, perhaps, about Kerry in a crisis. The camera captures Congressional aides and visitors, clearly distraught and holding onto one another, streaming down the back steps of the Capitol building in near panic, following the bellowed instructions of anxious police. Off to one side of the screen, there is Kerry, alone, his long legs carrying him calmly down the steps, his neck craning toward the sky, as if he were watching a gathering rainstorm. His face and demeanor appear unworried. Kerry could be a man lost in his thoughts who just happens to have wandered onto the set of a disaster film.
''I remember looking up at the sky as I walked down the steps,'' Kerry told me recently, when I asked him about the film clip. He said that he and other members of the Senate's Democratic leadership had just watched on television as the second plane hit the World Trade Center, and shortly after that they heard the sonic boom of an explosion and saw, through a large window, the black smoke rise from the Pentagon. ''We'd had some warning that there was some airplane in the sky. And I remember seeing a great big plane -- I think it was a 747 or something -- up there, but it wasn't moving in a way that, you know, I was particularly concerned. I remember feeling a rage, a huge anger, and I remember turning to somebody and saying, 'This is war.' I said, 'This is an act of war.'''
After leaving the Capitol on that terrible day, Kerry walked across the street to his office in the Russell Senate building, where he made sure that his staff had been evacuated and was safe. Reluctant to leave Capitol Hill, he watched TV coverage in his office and saw the second tower fall. He called his older daughter, Alexandra, who was living in New York, and his wife, Teresa, who was in Washington. Those who saw Kerry that morning recall mainly that he was furious, an emotion, those close to him say, that comes easily to him in times of trial. He thought it was a mistake to shut down the Capitol, to show terrorists that they had the power to send the United States government into hiding.
''You know, my instinct was, Where's my gun?'' Kerry told me. ''How do you fight back? I wanted to do something.'' That evening, sitting at home, he called an aide and said he wanted to go to New York that very night to help the rescuers; he was ultimately convinced that such a trip was logistically impossible. In the days ahead, Kerry would make two trips to ground zero to see what remained of the carnage.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/magazine/10KERRY.html?oref=login)
10 Comments:
The writer of the above comment is clearly misinformed about Kerry on both domestic and national security issues, falling for the Bush's campaign's misinformation.
The Bush campaign has put out extremetly exaggerated estimates of the costs of Kerry's proposals. More realistic estimates show they can be financed by a roll back on the tax cuts for those making over $200,000, along with cost cutting moves.
On defense against terrorism, John Kerry warned about this problem well before 9/11. John Kerry's investigations in the Senate resulted breaking up some of the money laundering used to finance terrorists.
In contrast, George Bush failed to take terrorism seriously before 9/11. Bill Clinton reversed the policies of Reagan and Bush I of ignoring terrorism, and left Bush recommendations for fighting al Qaeda. George Bush totally ignored these recommendations. Bush's own intelligence briefings warned about an imminent attack, but Bush ignored these warnings. Leadership was needed in Washington, but George Bush was on vacation much of his first year in office.
Even after 9/11, George Bush failed to act responsibly. Bush froze for the first 48 hours, being incapable of taking charge. Bush waited too long to go into Afganistan, and than used insufficient troops to go after Bin Laden. He left Afganistan prematurely to take up his pre-9/11 goal of invading Iraq.
As a result of George Bush's incompetence, the 9/11 attacks which investigations showed could have been prevented did occur. As a result of George Bush's incompetence, we are involved in a quagmire in Iraq which is just playing into al Qaeda's hands. Al Qaeda operatives have increased from 6000 to 18,000 thanks to George Bush.
At home little has been done to defend us from future terrorist attacks, with George Bush stating in both debates that we cannot afford what needs to be done for homeland defense.
Sadly, Mr. Bush and his conservative henchmen have killed actor Christopher Reeve, who would be alive and walking if stem cell research were not barred from these shores.
Saying Bush killed Christopher Reeve is a bit of an exaggeration as it is unlikely that, even without Bush's restrictions, it is doubtful there would have been a cure quick enough to help him.
The real point is that Christopher Reeve is an even better example than Reagan of where stem cell research can save lives for people in similar situations in the future. Hopefully Reeve's death will increase discussion of stem cell research in the media. I note that First Read opened with this, and John Kerry has issued a statement on this.
Kryptonite couldn't kill Superman, but GW Bush could. Now GW talks of the fixed, corrupt "elections" in Afganistan. The Afgan people had their own government and are now forced to submit to Western standards.
How can America permit free elections in Afganistan or anywhere else. In their last election, seven millions black and asian voters were disenfranchised by Bush brother Jeb with the help of the police and KKK.
To: njfreen1
Financial burden on the taxpayers that make $200,000 and over a year, are you kidding me? Kerry never said what percentage he would tax the individuals who make that much money. It could be 1%, 2%...etc... Kerry has said over and over that he is supporting the middle class people. If it takes 1% of the upper class's salary to help take care of the deficit and Kerry's plans, then so be it. I'm so tired of the rich getting tax breaks and the middle class people running this country on our own. The small businesses are suffering and the big money makers are the only ones benefiting from Bush's tax plans. No one enjoyed September 11th, what are you smoking? Bush was warned time and time again about possible terrorist attacks in which he CHOSE to ignore. And if you think that Bush can possibly get EVERY terrorist you are crazy! Seniors are losing healthcare, jobs are pretty much slim pickins, and our troops are dying for the freedom of Iraq, and all you can think about is terrorists??? What about what's going on in THIS country?? Bush seems to have forgotten all of the issues that's going on in America, because he's too involved in thinking about who we should go to war with next. And you say that Kerry is arrogant, cocky, liberal, and negative? Well, let's see Bush is a liar, unintelligent, sneaky and quick to push that "NUCULAR" button! Bush is a man of his word??? He promised to make this country safe, you go ask the families of the victims of 9/11 if he kept that promise. Go ask all of the folks who have searched and searched to find weapons of mass destruction and haven't found any yet. Go ask all of the seniors who have no healthcare benefits and will die if they do not get their medicine. If Bush wins this election I guarantee that this country will go down the tubes (even worse than it is now) before his 4-year term is up. Then you can kick yourself in the ass for voting for him.
Thank you,
Sarah
I've been listening to politicians of all parties tell me they are going to tax the rich. Not the middle class, but the rich. I haven't seen it happen yet.
The numbers crunch in this country to large middle class. So you can't get much from the lower incomes. The rich have powerful lobbies in congress and most of the senators and congressman (wealthy themselves) aren't going to vote against the wealthy. Is anyone really fool enough to believe any politician is going to hurt himself for you?
Wake up.
Remember, Kerry has a very specific plan for "taxing the rich." He is talking about rolling back the Bush tax cuts on those making over $200,000.
Of course rolling back taxes to the levels under Bill Clinton would still be rather low rates by historical or international standards, but this does represent a realistic way of increasing taxes on the rich rather than others.
It's not about any politician "hurting" themselves for us. The president's job is to look out for America, not just the rich. And since Bush has done such a crappy job looking out for the middle class these past 4 years, why not give Kerry a chance to change things. Bush is going to go with the same old "saving the rich" schemes. Soon, there will be 2 classes of people: royalty and the poor.
From Catholic World News:
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=32830
Kerry said to be excommunicated
Los Angeles, Oct. 18 (CWNews.com) - A consultant to the Vatican has said Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has incurred the penalty of excommunication from the Catholic Church.
The consultant made his statement in a highly unusual letter to Marc Balestrieri, a Los Angeles canon lawyer who formally sued John Kerry in ecclesiastical court for heresy.
Balestrieri, who launched his case earlier this year by filing a heresy complaint in Kerry's home archdiocese of Boston, told EWTN's "World Over" program on Friday that he had received an unusual, indirect communication from the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding the pro-abortion stance.
That communication provides a basis, he said, to declare that any Catholic politician who says he is "personally opposed to abortion, but supports a woman's right to choose," incurs automatic excommunication. It also provided a basis for Balestrieri to broaden his canonical actions and file additional complaints against four more pro-abortion Catholic politicians: Democrat Senators Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Tom Harkin of Iowa; Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine; and former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, a Democrat.
The current action could be significant as it could undercut the entire debate over denying Communion to pro-abortion politicians. An excommunicated Catholic may not receive any of the sacraments of the Church, including the Eucharist, marriage, and even Christian burial. The type of excommunication outlined in the new information is called latae sententiae, which means that it occurs automatically and does not require a formal pronouncement by any Church official.
Balestrieri said he went to Rome in late August to discuss his canonical case with experts, including an official of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Less than 10 days later, he received a letter from Father Basil Cole, a Dominican theologian and consultant to the congregation based in Washington, DC, who said he had been "delegated" by Father Augustine DiNoia, undersecretary of the congregation, to give an unofficial response to the question that Balestrieri had submitted.
"I went to Rome in person to submit two critical questions to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith," said Balestrieri. "The first: Whether or not the Church's teaching condemning any direct abortion is a dogma of Divine and Catholic Faith, and if the denial and doubt of the same constitutes heresy. The second: Whether or not a denial of the Church's teaching condemning every right to abortion also constitutes heresy. Father Cole, an expert theologian who studied the matter carefully, responded in the affirmative on both counts."
Father Cole wrote, "If a Catholic publicly and obstinately supports the civil right to abortion, knowing that the Church teaches officially against that legislation, he or she commits that heresy envisioned by Can. 751 of the Code [of Canon Law]. Provided that the presumptions of knowledge of the law and penalty and imputability are not rebutted in the external forum, one is automatically excommunicated ...."
Balestrieri said the response was unusual in several respects: that a response was provided to a layman at the request of the undersecretary in only 11 days, that the response was in writing, decisively clarifying the matter, and that it was in far greater detail than a typical official reply. "Normally, only a bishop may request such clarification of doctrine from the CDF, such responses usually take a much longer time to be received, and they are rarely made public," he said.
He also said that the original canonical complaint of heresy against Kerry had received so much response from the public that the tribunal of the Archdiocese of Boston has been deluged with thousands of letters from ordinary Catholics who wish to add their names to the complaint. The head of the archdiocesan tribunal reportedly told him that the case had not been rejected and was "now in the hands of the archbishop," that is, Archbishop Sean O'Malley of Boston.
Balestrieri, a self-identified political independent, says that his actions come as a defender of the faith and Holy Eucharist from sacrilege and scandal, not as one focused on an electoral outcome. "Our victory can come as early as today: It would be for Sen. Kerry, who publicly calls himself a Catholic and yet in violation of Canon Law continues to receive Holy Communion, to repent of his grave sin and publicly recant his abortion advocacy."
The complete text of Father Cole's response as well as other details of the pending cases are available on the DeFide.com web site.
Post a Comment
<< Home