Did Anyone See Kerry's Speech Last Night?

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by La Flames Fan@Jul 30 2004, 04:15 PM

On a side note....Did anyone watch the CNN coverage of the speech??? They had the producer of the convention's mic on and the balloons weren't falling. He was frantically trying to the get the balloons to fall and came out with this line...."Where the **** are the balloons!?"

CNN obviously didn't have a delay on, so watch out for the FCC! Powell and his cronies will come down on CNN hard I bet.

A story on the SNAFU

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/GMA/ap20040730_281.html

Cowperson

[Bertuzzied]

I guess Fox news carried it live but not the main Fox network. Considering NBC,CBS, and ABC had it on live..... hmmmm. I guess it's ok. If Fox carried it they would have declared a Bush victory 3 months before the election.

[Cowperson]

Economists rate John Kerry.

John Kerry, the Democratic candidate for president, has promised to create 10 million jobs, cut the federal budget deficit in half and stop U.S. companies from moving jobs overseas.

But many economists think economic and political realities could make Kerry's job extremely tough.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/30/news/econo...kerry/index.htm

And this interesting point from the article:

Former Reagan economic adviser Bruce Bartlett, in an opinion piece for the latest issue of Fortune magazine, put it more bluntly, citing profligate spending and the fact that all of the recent tax cuts are due, by law, to expire anyway:

"All you really need to know -- and you tax-abhorring, Bush/Cheney pin-wearing conservatives, pay attention -- is that taxes are going up next year, no matter who's elected in November."

Cowperson

[Cube Inmate]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Jul 30 2004, 07:57 AM
If you believe image is more important than substance, he probably needed better TV makeup because he looked like he was sweating a bit (or a sheen on his face) and seemed to lick his lips a lot. :P I switched to a few different stations just to see if the sweaty look just happened to be one camera. It wasn't. Does image matter?

Some sources I've read believe that the debate between Kennedy and Nixon in '60 was a major factor in the outcome of that election, where Nixon looked clammy and nervous while Kennedy looked calm and cool. The explanation: Nixon refused to be "made-up" for the TV cameras...

Image is something, for sure.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Jul 30 2004, 01:03 PM
I'm looking for solid opinions. If you are incapable of viewing these issues in an unbiased manner, please do not reply.

My question is this...

Did Kerry lay out any kind of solid platform? Did he talk at all about what he wants to do if he becomes Presdient? Or was it more focussing on the past and what he would have done differently or the old Bush is bad, I'm not Bush so a vote for me is good logic?

So far there has been very little of substance coming from the Kerry campaign. I didn't get to see the speech so hopefully some folks who watched and can actually be objective on the subject can answer the questions above....although I have to say, I'll be shocked if it wasn't more of the same.

Lol, despite asking for an 'unbiased manner', i think there's some evidence of bias in the post. I doubt many of us could be completely neutral on this topic, given that we've all been inundated with US political views, through mediums such as Farenheit 911, Fox newsbreaks between Simpsons episodes, etc.

Also interesting to note above that fiscal responsibility (pure buzz wordiness) is a 'conservative' value. Clearly fiscal irresponsibility must be a Democrat thing. This has obviously changed recently, as Bush' handling of US finances is completely haywire. Hundreds of BILLIONS in taxcuts right before hundreds of BILLIONS in war expenditures. I'm sure its not his fault though, Iraq brought the fight to him

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Cube Inmate+Jul 30 2004, 06:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cube Inmate @ Jul 30 2004, 06:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Jul 30 2004, 07:57 AM
If you believe image is more important than substance, he probably needed better TV makeup because he looked like he was sweating a bit (or a sheen on his face) and seemed to lick his lips a lot.# # :P I switched to a few different stations just to see if the sweaty look just happened to be one camera. It wasn't. Does image matter?

Some sources I've read believe that the debate between Kennedy and Nixon in '60 was a major factor in the outcome of that election, where Nixon looked clammy and nervous while Kennedy looked calm and cool. The explanation: Nixon refused to be "made-up" for the TV cameras...

Image is something, for sure. [/b][/quote]
From an account (link below) of the Nixon/Kennedy debate:

For many who saw the 1960 debates on television, especially the first match-up in Chicago, the most apparent image remains a sickly-looking, perspiring Nixon juxtaposed with the handsome Kennedy. "I remember Nixon sweating," said Clif Webb, the Washington television news anchor who produced the Radio Smithsonian program. Recounting his childhood memories, Webb pointed to what many experts say was a disastrous error for the Republican nominee in the first debate: his decision not to use make-up. Having just recovered from a brief illness and forever battling his 5 o'clock shadow, Richard Nixon appeared gaunt and slightly haggard. In contrast, the younger Kennedy proved much more telegenic than his counterpart, immediately giving him the edge among viewers.

Kennedy was actually the first to turn down cosmetic help, according to Larry Bird, a Smithsonian curator of political history. "Nixon declined make-up because Kennedy declined," said Bird. And although declining make-up was probably not a strategic move on Kennedy's part, some say Nixon's poor image in that first debate helped push the Democratic nominee over the top in his razor-thin victory.

Yet image wasn't the only thing that carried the day for Kennedy in the first debate. His aggressive style eclipsed Nixon's more conciliatory posture. To many, Kennedy appeared more presidential. And in a strategic move designed to neutralize Nixon's advantage as Vice President, Kennedy addressed his opponent only as "Mr. Nixon," instead of the customary "Vice President Nixon." Bill Clinton used the same device in his 1992 debates with President George Bush, drawing criticism from Senator Bob Dole in their 1996 debates.

http://www.si.edu/i+d/debate.arc.html

Cowperson

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Jul 30 2004, 02:25 PM
. The difference is who gets the tax cuts and what it is used for.

Tax cuts? Who gets them?

Who didn't get them under Bush?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Jul 30 2004, 03:13 PM


Meanwhile, Democrats seem a lot happier about John Kerry than they were with Al Gore. A story:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127494,00.html

Cowperson

Any chance that's because Al Gore is probably clinically insane? Can you imagine a Gore/Dean ticket? Talk about loopy! :P

[Displaced Flames fan]

[quote]Originally posted by MrMastodonFarm@Jul 30 2004, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied,Jul 30 2004, 03:42 PM

Did Fox carry any of it..? I am willing to bet FoxNews had the speach on. Although they did apparently cut away from Al Sharpton's speach because Chris Matthews and and that other blowhard were getting their panties in a twist... but back to the topic at hand.

What does Chris Matthews have to do with Fox?

In any case, I'll bet my paycheck it was carried on Fox News.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by La Flames Fan@Jul 30 2004, 04:15 PM


CNN obviously didn't have a delay on, so watch out for the FCC! Powell and his cronies will come down on CNN hard I bet.

Please. That's so narrow minded it's pathetic.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Bingo+Jul 30 2004, 02:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bingo @ Jul 30 2004, 02:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Increase military
Tax Cuts
Fiscal responsibility

All very conservative ideas that Kerry walked out last night.
[/b]

Kerry proposed tax cuts for the middle class but rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthiest bracket. And left leaning parties aren't unfamiliar with fiscal responsibility; it was Chretian's Liberals who got Canada's finances back in order and started paying down the debt, and it was the Clinton admin in the US who turned the US economy around.

Only a conservative would consider fiscal responsibility a conservative idea B)

Originally posted by Bertuzzied@Jul 30 2004, 03:42 PM
Did anyone else notice the speech was carried live on every major US network except for Fox. I guess Michael Moore was right.

The main FOX network never carries stuff like this, choosing to keep it's regular programming to try to monopolize all of those viewers with no interest in politics. I guarantee they won't show Bush's speech either.

<!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames Fan@Jul 30 2004, 07:17 PM

Tax cuts? Who gets them?

Who didn't get them under Bush? [/quote]

As I said, middle class gets cuts, wealthiest get their previous cuts rolled back (or not renewed?).

And everyone got a cut under Bush, just in very different proportions: http://www.ctj.org/html/gwbfinal.htm

[Displaced Flames fan]

[quote]Originally posted by Mike F@Jul 30 2004, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by Bingo,Jul 30 2004, 02:05 PM

As I said, middle class gets cuts, wealthiest get their previous cuts rolled back (or not renewed?).

And everyone got a cut under Bush, just in very different proportions: http://www.ctj.org/html/gwbfinal.htm

Well, I wasn't posing the question to you...it was directed at FlamesAddiction who seemed to be insinuating something....I'll let him tell me what he meant by "It's who gets them".

In any case, I'm well aware of who got tax cuts....I live here, remember?

[300spartans]

Kerry spoke for something like 55 minutes, the place was reportedly very hot as you could see people sweating, so I don't blame Kerry for it, even if his face looked like it was melting.

As for more details, he did say that people could visit johnkerry.com if they wanted to learn more. I think he struck a nice balance between introducing himself to the American people and giving them an idea for what he will do.

Everyone knows that Kerry will start bringing more details as the race heats up, especially at the presidential debates. I hope he slaughters Bush.

I like the fact that Kerry has a very natural smile, it just beams with honesty and integrity. And all the wrinkles add to the image of an elder statesman who knows what he's doing. Bush on the other hand looks creepy and shallow when he gives you a blank smile... ughh!

300S

P.S. I am NEVER clicking on a FauxNews link :P

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by 300spartans@Jul 30 2004, 07:43 PM
Kerry spoke for something like 55 minutes, the place was reportedly very hot as you could see people sweating, so I don't blame Kerry for it, even if his face looked like it was melting.

Its a hockey rink!!! They're supposed to be able to keep it cool in there with 17,000 people!!

Cowperson

[Displaced Flames fan]

Thanks for the thoughts and impressions guys.

Clearly, this wasn't more of the same useless Bush is bad I'm not Bush tactics that unfortunately a lot of people are completely happy to buy into. That's no way to make a decision as anyone who was happy to Brian Sutter replaced by ANYONE as Flames coach would attest to.

FA speaks of the Democratic party as a centrist party, but it should be noted that among the mainstream democrats (memebers of Congres, governors etc...normal presidential candidate positions) Kerry is about as LEFT as you can find in the Democratic parts. Some of the things mentioned in this thread may not be out of the ordinary for the party, but they are definitely out of the ordinary for John Kerry.

My concerens...

Taxes. Don't care. Don't raise mine. The democrats tend to set the bar on middle class way too low.

Defense...this is stuff I need to know is really how Kerry feels....and not just lip service. Right now, one would be completely justified in believing it was lip service as John Kerry has never voted for a defense budget increase in his complete Senate history. Was 9/11 enough to change that? I have my doubts.

From here on in, I want to hear minimally about Bush. Bush's record is there for all of us to see and judge on our own. For 6 months, and this is truly undeniable, the Democratic Party has offered NOTHING but we are not Bush. If that doesn't change they have ZERO chance of getting my still undecided vote.

It's easy for Kerry to say that he would involve the international community more in Iraq. Bush tried very hard to do the same thing and failed. Why would Kerry have more success? Let me guess....because he's not Bush? Lame answer. One also has to keep in mind some of the reasons the international community refused to back the US aren't exactly squeaky clean either. But you won't find that story on CNN>

If Kerry wins (assuming I don't vote for him) I will certainly support him until he no longer deserves to be supported. I have a feeling that conservatives, for the most part, will be a lot less divisive then the Democrats have been over the last 4 years. I don't see Bill Frist giving daily speeches about Kerry like Tom Daschle did with Bush. I don't see a Republican controlled congress (if that holds true) blocking all Kerry judicial nominees for no reason whatsoever. This is one reason why I'm not going to be upset at all if Kerry wins. I'm sick of my country being divided and full of hate. I think if Kerry wins there is a good chance that goes away. If Bush wins, the screaming and petty name calling will only continue and make me vomit on a daily basis. For me, that the biggest non-platform selling point for the Kerry ticket.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Jul 30 2004, 07:22 PM
panties in a twist... but back to the topic at hand.

What does Chris Matthews have to do with Fox?

In any case, I'll bet my paycheck it was carried on Fox News. [/quote]
I dunno maybe I am getting the names wrong. I just seen it on the daily show that they cut Al Sharpton's speach because they didn't like him. Nothing to get worked up over or anything.

I am willing to bet they carried John Kerry's speach as well...

[300spartans]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Jul 30 2004, 07:54 PM
It's easy for Kerry to say that he would involve the international community more in Iraq. Bush tried very hard to do the same thing and failed. Why would Kerry have more success? Let me guess....because he's not Bush? Lame answer. One also has to keep in mind some of the reasons the international community refused to back the US aren't exactly squeaky clean either. But you won't find that story on CNN>

Kerry would never have even made the mistake in the first place of trying to invade Iraq which is what p*ssed of all the allies, inlcuding us. But yes that is done so what does Kerry do now?

How about start listening to them again by having talks at least? Let them know that Kerry is willing to listen instead of brushing them off. Once Kerry is listening, he is more receptive to their ideas. And from there, ideas can be implemented.

or Kerry can come right out and say that the U.S. is soooo sowwy. But nah.

300S

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by 300spartans@Jul 30 2004, 08:24 PM
Kerry would never have even made the mistake in the first place of trying to invade Iraq which is what p*ssed of all the allies, inlcuding us.

If I'm not mistaken, he voted in favour of action in Iraq.

Cowperson

[transplant99]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Jul 30 2004, 03:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Jul 30 2004, 03:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-300spartans@Jul 30 2004, 08:24 PM
Kerry would never have even made the mistake in the first place of trying to invade Iraq which is what p*ssed of all the allies, inlcuding us.

If I'm not mistaken, he voted in favour of action in Iraq.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Thats absolutely correct and something he will have to explain as i pointed out in my first post in this thread.

He can say it was flawed intelligence that lead him to vote to support military action...but thats the SAME intelligence that Bush used to ask Congress and the Senate in the first place.

It will be a tapdance if he doesnt acknowledge that at the very least.

[300spartans]

But there is evidence that Bush and his admin pushed for intelligence that would point to a link between Saddam and terrorists. Kerry may have voted on faulty intelligence but it was Bush who pushed for this faulty intelligence.

However, I do feel that Kerry does have to explain the reasoning for his vote. Hopefully it's coming up.

300S