I think John Kerry's speech may have just cost him the election

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Thump553
I don't support W at all, and personally detest many of his positions, but I personally think he is an extremely effective speaker. He's not a classical orator, but he is an effective speaker in his own way.

He was pretty effective against Al Gore in the 2000 Presidential debates. Everybody was saying that Al was going to annihlate him yet the Dub was able to handle himself well.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Originally posted by: glenn1

No, you've proven to be baseless in your criticisms. I doubt more from you would actually be fruitful.

That's fine. Seal yourself up in your echo chamber and don't listen to an honest opinion from someone who doesn't have an emotional stake in the race. Just tell yourself that everyone else in the country feels the same way you do and don't listen to a damn thing any of us undecideds have to say. Way to go :thumbsup:

I'm sorry that your expectations for the speech weren't met. For myself, I was very anxious for the speech and started realizing just how much I want someone to replace Bush in the White House. I'm with you, I LOVED the quote about being "on God's side"!


As for the "flip-flops", I'm of the mind that this is largely an out-of-context construct. I don't consider it exactly fair to say he flip-flops. It looks to me that it's simply opponents picking and choosing a few issues and giving the appearance that he came across wishy-washy.

I'm of a similar mind with Bush's "lies". I have faith in the office of the Pres enough to hope that he sincerely believed his reasons. The catch-22 comes when he is called to apologize. No, it doesn't appear that he told the truth, but is there the possibility of -more- harm if he comes out and apologizes? Personally, I'd like him to apologize, but again, I don't know the whole picture.

 

[element]

Originally posted by: Lazy8s
Yeah, my dad is in pharma and my internship is in pharma as well. The consensus is that no matter what the changes are coming and it will hurt. The problem is no one will know. The companies will cope, the difference will be that in 30years whenyou have some rare type of cancer you;ll die from it when, if the pharma sector stayed the same, you could have taken a pill for a few days and been cured, but if no one knows I guess it won't make a difference.

I hope it hasn't been pointed out before but the announcer yesterday evening on NBC (dunno his name) put it pretty well imho. John Kerry won't be loved, and he certainly won't be elected because everyone enamored by his charm. Kerry's selling point is an alternative to Pres. Bush. If he's elected it will be, for the most part, because people like the way he's going better than the way Bush is going, not because they like Kerry.

The pharmaceutical industry has had years and years of billion dollar windfalls, tax breaks, donations, massive profits from exhorbitantly overpriced new medications, and yet they still haven't found that magic pill cure for cancer you promise to come up with.

Try touting what they have accomplished so far rather than writing up fairy tales of new magic pills that you can't possibly be certain will ever come to pass.

 

[GeneralGrievous]

I agree that his speech was pretty bad, but what hurt him and Edwards more was the fact that Bill Clinton completely stole the show from them. Every democrat probably wishes Bill could run again.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: Lazy8s
Yeah, my dad is in pharma and my internship is in pharma as well. The consensus is that no matter what the changes are coming and it will hurt. The problem is no one will know. The companies will cope, the difference will be that in 30years whenyou have some rare type of cancer you;ll die from it when, if the pharma sector stayed the same, you could have taken a pill for a few days and been cured, but if no one knows I guess it won't make a difference.

I hope it hasn't been pointed out before but the announcer yesterday evening on NBC (dunno his name) put it pretty well imho. John Kerry won't be loved, and he certainly won't be elected because everyone enamored by his charm. Kerry's selling point is an alternative to Pres. Bush. If he's elected it will be, for the most part, because people like the way he's going better than the way Bush is going, not because they like Kerry.

The pharmaceutical industry has had years and years of billion dollar windfalls, tax breaks, donations, massive profits from exhorbitantly overpriced new medications, and yet they still haven't found that magic pill cure for cancer you promise to come up with.

Try touting what they have accomplished so far rather than writing up fairy tales of new magic pills that you can't possibly be certain will ever come to pass.

Oh yea and don't forget "Today's Medicine pays for tomorrow's Miracles" :roll: :thumbsdown:

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: element

The pharmaceutical industry has had years and years of billion dollar windfalls, tax breaks, donations, massive profits from exhorbitantly overpriced new medications, and yet they still haven't found that magic pill cure for cancer you promise to come up with.

Who's going to buy the drugs you're (pharma) selling when you've cured the disease? Way too luractive to prolong the disease(s) than get rid of them altogether.

 

[Ozoned]

"I think John Kerry's speech may have just cost him the election"


Do you still think it was just his speech, glenn1?

 

[glenn1]

"I think John Kerry's speech may have just cost him the election"

Do you still think it was just his speech, glenn1?

I think his speech was the tipping point in his campaign, yes. Obviously his speech isn't the sole reason for his subsequent declines but since the SBVFT controversy broke so soon after, it'll be hard to isolate one from the other. My view would be that his horrible convention speech left him more vulnerable to being damaged as he was by the SBVFT blowup, since the points they raised were hardly new, in fact I had posted on them months before in my thread here....

I'd be interested to know if all those in this thread who were pimping this as a "great" speech at the time still feel the same way now that the heat of the moment is off. I think my view of the speech was more accurate considering the pretty much non-existent bump he got afterwards in the polls.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: glenn1


I'd be interested to know if all those in this thread who were pimping this as a "great" speech at the time still feel the same way now that the heat of the moment is off. I think my view of the speech was more accurate considering the pretty much non-existent bump he got afterwards in the polls.

As would I....Thanks glenn1