Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (77444)	10/14/2004 10:53:44 AM
From: SBHX	Respond to of 793846

On delivery alone, I thought Kerry did well, not as outstanding as the first debate, but better than the 2nd. On substance, I have disagreements with many of his promises. Kerry said he will kill terrorists again. Notice the common theme of all 4 debates, Kerry and Edwards took great pains to tell the whole world, they will seek out and kill those pesky terrorists. If JK did not have the record of voting against the 1991 Kuwait liberation from Iraq, Grenada, steadfast resistance and activism against Reagan's anti soviet strategy, Kerry would have got away with it. But people who take the trouble to understand how he voted should have no trouble understanding where he really stands here. While Kerry was busy saying all the things required to win over the middle, Bush could have alienated many women and lapsed christians with his principled and religious stand. I respect that he is talking on principles instead of pandering for votes, but in an election, sometimes, there is a pool of middle that wants to hear certain things, and JK is able to promise everything under the sun. Technically, I think on the economy side, Kerry went for the cheap wins, but purely because it is hard to explain consequences of higher minimum wage in the rest of the world. On actual dollar costs, including healthcare, Bush gave dollar figures repeatedly and made pointed comments that you can't pay for this, but Kerry sidestepped the actual costs and talked about generalities, I don't know how the public will see this, but I suspect many just want to feel good and side with Kerry here. Bush is stronger on the social issues, you understand he means what he says simply because he often said things that are unpopular. I thought the low point was when Kerry went for the "did you know Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian?" trick. I don't think Kerry realizes how cold that assertion is to a parent with children, I cringed and suspect if he had a chance, Kerry would taken that line back, but perhaps Kerry doesn't understand the difference between personal life and public. Bush wins the social arguments. Bush speaks most passionately about better education as the solution, and made a convincing case that he has increased education funding by 40+% for the "No Child left behind" plan, Kerry notes it is not about numbers --- you spend whatever it takes. By any measure, 40+% is a high increase, but I think that was a positive point that many will understand. Bush is stronger on education, but trying to explain that a better educated public is required for the future is not easy for many to understand, especially since that is a longer term strategy, and not a quick fix. In every election I can remember, ever since Carter, americans generaly voted for the person they trust to be honest. When Bill Clinton said "I feel your pain", that resonated with the public. Is Kerry credible? His voting record does not match his current rhetoric.