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

[TheBDB]

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Jigga
Not personal? My favorite part of the speech was the jab he took at half of Bush's cabinet without naming names!

'A secretary of defense who listens to the minitary leaders, an attorner general who defends the constitution.' It was the best part!

:thumbsup:

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: element
Terrible indeed, at no point was there any comedic pronounciations like from our other nucular buddy. I like a good laugh every now and then and only Dubya provides that in droves. Make me laugh once shame on, wait no make me you giggle like a schoolgirl, wait no thats not it either. ah nevermind.

Reminds me of when Bush did a slide show (in a fundraiser I think) of himself searching in random places for WMDs with captions reading "Whoops, no WMDs here! *big smile*", "None here either!" "Nope!"

a barrel of laughs I tell ya

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: Jigga
I take it you've never heard G. W. Bush open his mouth?

LOL

 

[glenn1]

What about it that turned you off?

It'd be easier to point out what I liked. Which is about one thing, where he quoted Lincoln "we humbly pray we're on God's side." Perfect placement and choice.

Apart from that, what I didn't like:

His complete evasion of his reasoning for voting for than against the use of force in Iraq. Blew it off with a compliment to himself as being "complex" while bragging about "we don't fight wars because we want to, but because we have to."

Has not gotten beyond his main criticism of Iraq being about how many other countries are on board, and then compounded it by saying he was going to get more countries on board so we could "bring our boys home" like he's ashamed we're there and can't wait to get out, what's good for the Iraqi people be damned.

The lowest common denominator class-warfare appeal over jobs.

Being dumb enough to brag about how great his medical coverage as a Senator is, while talking about health care being a "right."

The wishy-washy pie in the sky laundry list of wish-list programs, like Head Start, "cars of the future," alternative fuels, cutting middle class taxes, etc etc etc.

Look dumbass, no one wants to hear about your plans for minutiae like inspecting shipping containers. That's why we hire a President, to look after trivia like that for us.

Deciding to pick a fight with the healthcare industry which just happens to be 1/7th of the economy, the Saudi royal family, anyone who's not in his definition of "middle class," etc etc etc.

Shall I continue?


In short, he proved himself to be exactly the caricature that has been proclaimed of liberal politicians over the years. He hit every bullet point on the list. Like I said, absolutely dreadful. I can't see this speech having any appeal whatsoever to the moderate voter.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Who cares if the drug industry votes for Kerry? It's one of the most inefficient industries in America compared to the resources it consumes. One of the most honorable of the lot (BristolMyersSquibb) is trying its best to hold on while arguably the most irreputable (Pfizer) has never been stronger. BMS gives Lance several million a year to talk about products 99% of Americans will never use. Pfizer drops $12million EACH YEAR on Roush/Mark Martin's NASCAR Viagra mobile . . . all tax deductible.

On a related note, the US Army spent $16m on their NASCAR ride with the hope of garnering 1200 new recruits . . . I wonder how much body armor that would have purchased?

It makes perfect sense for the world's largest purchaser of medication (Medicare) to negotiate prices with manufacturers. The complaint with importation/reimportation from Canada isn't that Big Pharma cannot make money. The complaint is they cannot make as much money. I can solve that problem. If industry ended ALL DTA it would save billions. It's not like MDs would stop prescribing b/c the Levitra guy has gone MIA.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: glenn1

What about it that turned you off?

It'd be easier to point out what I liked. Which is about one thing, where he quoted Lincoln "we humbly pray we're on God's side." Perfect placement and choice.

Apart from that, what I didn't like:

His complete evasion of his reasoning for voting for than against the use of force in Iraq. Blew it off with a compliment to himself as being "complex" while bragging about "we don't fight wars because we want to, but because we have to."

Has not gotten beyond his main criticism of Iraq being about how many other countries are on board, and then compounded it by saying he was going to get more countries on board so we could "bring our boys home" like he's ashamed we're there and can't wait to get out, what's good for the Iraqi people be damned.

The lowest common denominator class-warfare appeal over jobs.

Being dumb enough to brag about how great his medical coverage as a Senator is, while talking about health care being a "right."

The wishy-washy pie in the sky laundry list of wish-list programs, like Head Start, "cars of the future," alternative fuels, cutting middle class taxes, etc etc etc.

Look dumbass, no one wants to hear about your plans for minutiae like inspecting shipping containers. That's why we hire a President, to look after trivia like that for us.

Deciding to pick a fight with the healthcare industry which just happens to be 1/7th of the economy, the Saudi royal family, anyone who's not in his definition of "middle class," etc etc etc.

Shall I continue?


In short, he proved himself to be exactly the caricature that has been proclaimed of liberal politicians over the years. He hit every bullet point on the list. Like I said, absolutely dreadful. I can't see this speech having any appeal whatsoever to the moderate voter.

Heehe excellent summation.... letsee go fishing or go to the polls...crappie it is.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The complaint with importation/reimportation from Canada isn't that Big Pharma cannot make money. The complaint is they cannot make as much money.

If they source from Canada or anywhere else then this will cut away from US based R&D and plant facilities, as you said they won't be making as much money so why work in the US if they can produce outside and sell to the US for less.....I know that in Mass alone that would have a HUGE impact as Bio/Pharma is big now but also up and comming as it is supplimenting our dead Tech sector..Kerry talks of saving US jobs but this has the potential to kill a good amount of them, and all of them are white collar high paying jobs exactly what he said he wouldn't do.

 

[Painman]

I thought the speech was pretty good, not incredible but he delivered it better than I thought he would. I wasn't expecting anything revolutionary.

 

[element]

like he's ashamed we're there and can't wait to get out, what's good for the Iraqi people be damned.

I suppose you'd rather bankrupt this country doing what's best for the Iraqi people? Nice. Let's go into huge debt, give tax breaks to the wealthy and fix Iraq. The U.S. be damned. Did you stop to think how you'd be able to help the Iraqis and other similarly fvcked up nations in the future if the U.S. economy is in the toilet? Help begins at home. The good ole US of A ain't gonna help anyone if we can't even help ourselves.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The complaint with importation/reimportation from Canada isn't that Big Pharma cannot make money. The complaint is they cannot make as much money.

If they source from Canada or anywhere else then this will cut away from US based R&D and plant facilities, as you said they won't be making as much money so why work in the US if they can produce outside and sell to the US for less.....I know that in Mass alone that would have a HUGE impact as Bio/Pharma is big now but also up and comming as it is supplimenting our dead Tech sector..Kerry talks of saving US jobs but this has the potential to kill a good amount of them, and all of them are white collar high paying jobs exactly what he said he wouldn't do.

One, most of the drugs being imported from Canada came from either US factories or global production facilities (typically places like Ireland). Two, drug prices are set at whatever the market will bear. Hence Erbitux (Martha Stewart's Waterloo) came to market with an 8wk regimen costing $31,000 which would be over $150,000 for a year . . . if patients lived that long . . . which they typically do not. But that cost is not related to recouping the cost of development b/c ImClone absorbed that cost and then was paid handsomely by BMS. BMS will write off the cost of acquisition and marketing against its other income so they don't really pay for it either. Who pays? The consumer . . . or payer as the case may be.

If you want to save/develop US-based R&D and production facilities then advocate for full credit for such activities (including catastrophic healthcare costs) while giving no tax benefit for marketing. Somebody is going to lose but it's up to lawmakers to decide if it's going to be the people discovering/producing the drug or the people trying to convince you to buy it.

 

[mjrpes2]

Originally posted by: glenn1

What about it that turned you off?

His complete evasion of his reasoning for voting for than against the use of force in Iraq.

this reason for not liking his speech is not valid, as it's a given that:

1. any direct answer to that question would be awkward and would miss the mark
2. an acceptance speech is not meant to be awkward or to miss the mark

so why were you 'turned off' by something that couldn't have happened in the first place? you're saying that you'd only have been happy if Kerry had said something that would just about cost him the small chance he has at the presidency.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I thought it was a very strong outing. I can't really see why anyone with an open mind would have been so turned off by it that it would change their vote.

 

[Turgon]

I don't think Kerry and his wife appeal to that middle 10% that is often cited in all these election articles and stories. In my opinion Edwards and even Dean would have better national appeal. As a conservative I would have seriously considered Lieberman, and I have some Republican and moderate friends/family that would have considered Lieberman, too. Realistically Bush should running at 15 - 20% below Kerry in the polls considering the constant Bush bashing by the Democrats, Hollywood and the media. I really think that Kerry is such a weak candidate that Bush will beat him in popular vote by a convincing margin.

 

[glenn1]

I thought it was a very strong outing. I can't really see why anyone with an open mind would have been so turned off by it that it would change their vote.

Oh, don't worry, I have no doubt that Bush's speech will be even worse. I was looking forward to Kerry's speech and was severely disappointed it's true, but in comparison I'm looking forward to Bush's like I would getting a root canal and have no illusions about not being disappointed by it.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: Turgon
I don't think Kerry and his wife appeal to that middle 10% that is often cited in all these election articles and stories. In my opinion Edwards and even Dean would have better national appeal. As a conservative I would have seriously considered Lieberman, and I have some Republican and moderate friends/family that would have considered Lieberman, too. Realistically Bush should running at 15 - 20% below Kerry in the polls considering the constant Bush bashing by the Democrats, Hollywood and the media. I really think that Kerry is such a weak candidate that Bush will beat him in popular vote by a convincing margin.

What exactly is so weak about him?

 

[1cito]

Kerry exceeded my expectations tonight. He could have done without the ?Help is on the way? and ?reporting to duty? crap.

Picking Edwards and watching the DNC this week has put me at 80-20 voting for the Dems this year. GeeDub needs to show me something in about a month.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: element

like he's ashamed we're there and can't wait to get out, what's good for the Iraqi people be damned.

I suppose you'd rather bankrupt this country doing what's best for the Iraqi people? Nice. Let's go into huge debt, give tax breaks to the wealthy and fix Iraq. The U.S. be damned. Did you stop to think how you'd be able to help the Iraqis and other similarly fvcked up nations in the future if the U.S. economy is in the toilet? Help begins at home. The good ole US of A ain't gonna help anyone if we can't even help ourselves.

Well said, well said :thumbsup:

 

[Turgon]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: Turgon
I don't think Kerry and his wife appeal to that middle 10% that is often cited in all these election articles and stories. In my opinion Edwards and even Dean would have better national appeal. As a conservative I would have seriously considered Lieberman, and I have some Republican and moderate friends/family that would have considered Lieberman, too. Realistically Bush should running at 15 - 20% below Kerry in the polls considering the constant Bush bashing by the Democrats, Hollywood and the media. I really think that Kerry is such a weak candidate that Bush will beat him in popular vote by a convincing margin.

What exactly is so weak about him?

He's boring and has no personality. His political stances change on a weekly basis. Lately he could be mistaken as a neocon. The only issue that is seriously hurting Bush on a national scale (ouside of the far left) is Iraq. Kerry's current stance on Iraq and preemption is so similar to Bush that he offers no real reason to the undecided voter to vote Bush out of power

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: glenn1

What about it that turned you off?

It'd be easier to point out what I liked. Which is about one thing, where he quoted Lincoln "we humbly pray we're on God's side." Perfect placement and choice.

He can only cover so much in the given amount of time. Convention nomination speeches aren't for great detail of every issue.

Apart from that, what I didn't like:

His complete evasion of his reasoning for voting for than against the use of force in Iraq. Blew it off with a compliment to himself as being "complex" while bragging about "we don't fight wars because we want to, but because we have to."

His reasons are part of the Congressional Record. They've been posted up here numerous times. Time wouldn't allow a full discourse on his reasons again.

Has not gotten beyond his main criticism of Iraq being about how many other countries are on board, and then compounded it by saying he was going to get more countries on board so we could "bring our boys home" like he's ashamed we're there and can't wait to get out, what's good for the Iraqi people be damned.

That's not his reasoning at all. Kerry cares for our troops and for our country's fiscal soundness. Going it alone means more and more dead Americans and more and more billions spent.

Being dumb enough to brag about how great his medical coverage as a Senator is, while talking about health care being a "right."

Yeah, that was a weak point. As well as him stating he won't privatize Social Security. I hate knowing I'm paying plenty of money into something that I'll never see. But, Kerry's other positives FAR outweigh all of Bush's negatives.

The wishy-washy pie in the sky laundry list of wish-list programs, like Head Start, "cars of the future," alternative fuels, cutting middle class taxes, etc etc etc.

"pie in the sky"? What? Bush has cut funding to Head Start. Head Start has been shown to work. Alternative fuels are out there, we just need more mass production to lower costs and for car manufacturers to get on-board, too. With Bush gone, the love affair with the Sauds can be terminated. Kerry will not cut middle-class taxes. He will just permanently extend the Bush tax cuts to those making less than $200,000/yr.

Look dumbass, no one wants to hear about your plans for minutiae like inspecting shipping containers. That's why we hire a President, to look after trivia like that for us.

Hmm...first you complain he doesn't go into detail and then he starts going into detail and you STILL bash him! WTF??

Deciding to pick a fight with the healthcare industry which just happens to be 1/7th of the economy, the Saudi royal family, anyone who's not in his definition of "middle class," etc etc etc.

Healthcare costs need to be reined in. The time for the Saudi influence on our government is OVER. And, I don't recall Kerry stating his definition of "middle class" in that speech.

Shall I continue?

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

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: Turgon

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: Turgon
I don't think Kerry and his wife appeal to that middle 10% that is often cited in all these election articles and stories. In my opinion Edwards and even Dean would have better national appeal. As a conservative I would have seriously considered Lieberman, and I have some Republican and moderate friends/family that would have considered Lieberman, too. Realistically Bush should running at 15 - 20% below Kerry in the polls considering the constant Bush bashing by the Democrats, Hollywood and the media. I really think that Kerry is such a weak candidate that Bush will beat him in popular vote by a convincing margin.

What exactly is so weak about him?

He's boring and has no personality. His political stances change on a weekly basis. Lately he could be mistaken as a neocon. The only issue that is seriously hurting Bush on a national scale (ouside of the far left) is Iraq. Kerry's current stance on Iraq and preemption is so similar to Bush that he offers no real reason to the undecided voter to vote Bush out of power

Other than his position on Iraq, what EXACTLY has he changed on a weekly basis? Did you see his speech tonight? If you did, you wouldn't say that his stance on pre-emption is similar to Bush or that the label "neocon" applies to him.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Turgon
Kerry's current stance on Iraq and preemption is so similar to Bush that he offers no real reason to the undecided voter to vote Bush out of power

WTF???

Now I know you have no idea you're talking about. The two couldn't be much further apart. I take it you've never read Kerry's remarks in the Congressional Record re:his vote to give the President authorization to use force, if necessary, and only if diplomatic means and inspections failed?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Turgon
Kerry's current stance on Iraq and preemption is so similar to Bush that he offers no real reason to the undecided voter to vote Bush out of power

WTF???

Now I know you have no idea you're talking about. The two couldn't be much further apart. I take it you've never read Kerry's remarks in the Congressional Record re:his vote to give the President authorization to use force, if necessary, and only if diplomatic means and inspections failed?

Kerrys Current stance is more troops in Iraq. 2 more divisions worth if you heard his speech tonight.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Turgon
Kerry's current stance on Iraq and preemption is so similar to Bush that he offers no real reason to the undecided voter to vote Bush out of power

WTF???

Now I know you have no idea you're talking about. The two couldn't be much further apart. I take it you've never read Kerry's remarks in the Congressional Record re:his vote to give the President authorization to use force, if necessary, and only if diplomatic means and inspections failed?

Kerrys Current stance is more troops in Iraq. 2 more divisions worth if you heard his speech tonight.

And that makes him equal to Bush on pre-emptive strikes in *what* way?

 

[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:

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Turgon
Kerry's current stance on Iraq and preemption is so similar to Bush that he offers no real reason to the undecided voter to vote Bush out of power

WTF???

Now I know you have no idea you're talking about. The two couldn't be much further apart. I take it you've never read Kerry's remarks in the Congressional Record re:his vote to give the President authorization to use force, if necessary, and only if diplomatic means and inspections failed?

Kerrys Current stance is more troops in Iraq. 2 more divisions worth if you heard his speech tonight.

And that makes him equal to Bush on pre-emptive strikes in *what* way?

Well you right, Kerry would have waited to get approval from france before invading a country, even if it was in the best interest of the US to do so, but this is about current policy.