The War Debate

[Wells]

Can Kerry win, based on the War Debate? Is DUHbya a failure as Commander in Chief? Has he 'really' made the world safer? Will DUHbya's foreign and domestic policy lead to more war? There should be no doubt that his administration is planning more wars; Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, prolonged conclict in the Middle East, Venezuela, Nigeria.

DUHbya is an iron-fisted tyrant and this should not be lightly excused. The USA has been forced into the 20th Century's wars by economic and financial interests of petroleum and transportation-related industries. Bush's energy policy, in service to these interests, predicts more wars.

Kerry can win on War debate. His speaking style is more commanding than propitiating. Kerry is more reserved and circumspect; an attitude that better reflects the seriousness of holding the office of President. He presents a strong, authoritative leadership presence. Kerry experienced both sides of the Vietnam conflict: soldier and dissident. Kerry must expand his campaign platform on his role as Commander in Chief.

[boobooday]

1. Dubya is a failure at everything

I think a sock puppet could beat him now. Or Miss Piggy.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[RafterMan]

2. Kerry can win the war debate

If Kerry will engage in the war debate.

So far, he's been too frightened of his IWR vote to take a firm stance. If Iraq is not clearly wrong, why isn't Syria?

[Walt Starr]

3. The war debate has been effectively neutralized

Nobody But Bush wins on the war debate since Nader entered the race.

[Monte Carlo]

5. Could you elaborate a bit?

That's a big statement. Do you think Kerry will have nothing to say in the general election?

[Walt Starr]

6. It's really very simple

Kerry has no credibility whatsoever with the anti-war movement on this issue because of his IWR vote. Now many anti-war folks, such as myself, are on the edge but are willing to overlook this HUGE deficiency in the character of John Kerry due to other issues.

If the issue comes up and Kerry starts trying to be more of a warmonger than * in order to run to the center, folks like me will start dropping off to vote for Nader because he's basically spitting in our faces. If he tries to say he regrets the vote in order to shore up the base, the center moves over to * and he still loses.

The war is a lose-lose situation. Kerry has lost his only edge with Nader coming into the race, being relatively close to the GOP on national security.

[RafterMan]

7. Well he certainly can't win it

By taking Bush's side!

I don't think the center is sold on this war. There seems to be a lot of suspicion out there. I think there are lots of solid arguments out there that can capture the center AND neutralize Nader AND be just plain right all at once.

In fact, it is *precisely* for that reason that I am so adamant that the candidate run on a platform that opposes the war. If both parties are for it, the fluid collective wisdom will gell around some form of "We done right", and we'll have to learn the lessons all over again.

It's not too late for Kerry to take a stand on this. Edwards, I'm afraid, is too far gone.

[Monte Carlo]

4. Kerry is trying to take Bush's main issue away from him.

It's a maneuver called capturing the center, and I believe that Kerry could pull it off; he's showing he can right now. Bush will not be able to push Kerry around on matters of patriotism and national security around easily. One on one, I think they compare very favorably - Kerry is a clear, loud, and intelligent speaker (if somewhat boring) while Bush drones on like the Catholic priest from my nightmares.