I thought Kerry was a dissapointment on Face The Nation

First question:
Would the security of the American people be in danger if we brought our troops early?

Kerry's first response, didn't even answer the question, just critisized the current job being done

Kerry's second response, didn't address the question again, only responded to the troops being there, NOT if the American people would be in danger if we brought our troops early.


Asked if bush appointed Libermann as secretary of defense would he support libermann. He responded absolutely.

Sorry Kerry, but liberman is NOT qualified to be secretary of defense. This has NOTHING to do with his political views for or against the war. He has never even served in the armed forces.

We had better choose a much better nominee in 2008

as always......

Lieberman, at least, wouldn't be at war FOR the corporate executives enriching themselves with defense contracts. He, at least, has some sense of sincerity to him, or Gore would never have chosen him to be his running mate.

Besides, Kerry wasn't enthusiastic about Lieberman, just resigned to the fact that ANYONE would be better than what we have now.

Maybe you are right, I never understood why Gore picked him .

Finally Kerry said he wouldn't have voted for the war. Kerry is a good man, lucky to have him for a Senator, but like so many Dem's, over cautious.

would do a better job.

I think people should not just consider Kerry's answer, but also consider that rather left field QUESTION. What is the point of asking it?? Like Bush is gonna vet his next SECDEF through Kerry? Please!! And if Kerry piped up and said "Naaah, Lieberman is a lousy choice, he's an ASSHOLE, he doesn't know a damn thing about military service!" the headlines would read "DEM SENATORS IN CATFIGHT!! KERRY DISSES JOE-MENTUM!"

His answer might not have been great, but sometimes mealy-mouthing is a way to slide a bullshit, gotcha question under the desk blotter. Why distract from the real issues with an easy media story about intraparty carping?

Bush would appoint him in a heartbeat.

didn't appeal to you?

That and saying that we draw down significant number of troops at every POLITICAL benchmark is the key to turing over Iraq sooner rather than later.

No MILITARY SUCCESS IS POSSIBLE - Only political success as Kerry has stated repeatedly now.

that is the problem

Not with drawing down or benchmarks, but he never answers a question directly, and frankly I am tired of nuance

Sure he said no permanent bases or permanent interests, but when you are asked a question directly you either answer directly, or you say you don't

to be said.

the question was would the American people be in more danger if we left Iraq, and he did NOT answer that question

The answer is NO, because Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 or terrorism

made his points effectively. He's caught on to how the hosts set their pace against Dems.

This is just my view

Not just Sen. Kerry but many others (Hillary)...afraid to speak the truth and obvious as if they portend some big bad thing happening in the future and that they'd be held responsible. For example, if Kerry would endorse a full withdrawl...as blm and many of us here want...he'd somehow be held responsible if there was another 9/11 or other type attack.

This is the same pattern I saw in the IWR...those votes were to cover their asses...plain and simple. Kerry was afraid that if he voted against a popular war, he'd suffer politically...that somehow he'd be turning of "moderate" votes. He, of all people, knew how bogus the intel and the stovepiping was at the time. Other Senators saw it and voted No/No...Kerry played it safe and now and forever will have to dance with this "nuanced position".

Problem is "nuanced" no longer works. Not that it did last year.

yes, he did talk the talk on some issue, but was very careful about others

Frankly, Murtha, Hackett, Feingold, has no problem answering straight on

Kerry said at least a million times last year that Iraq had nothing to do with 911. BUT, the question is not about 2001, it's about 2005+. The concern is that now that we broke Iraq, if we left would it become a base for terrorism. His answer - first disputed Rumsfeld as an expert - he's been wrong on everything. Then spoke of what Bush is doing vs his view of how we can exit leaving Iraq to the Iraqis.

Would the security of the American people be in danger if we brought our troops home early?

It is NOT because I do NOT like his answer, he didn't answer it.

He answered the question if bush choose liberman as sec of defense with a simple yes. I do NOT agree with it because I do NOT think liberman is qualified, but at least he answered that question

He answered the question how would you vote on the IWR if you know what you know now, and he said NO, which was not the same answer he gave during the campaign in the grand canyon, but he answered it

The point I am making is that people are tired of politicians not speaking directly.

no connection between 911 and Iraq.

The answer is more complicated - what I got out of the answer is that you would decrease the level of terrorism by leaving if you did it in such a way as to facilitate the Iraqis reaching a political solution.

I prefer a complicated thoughtful answer to a complicated question. Th simple answer to whether he thought terrorism here was more likley was from his answer "no" - but he needed to back it up with reasons.

said, but I wanted to hear was a nice NO from him, and then elaborate. You prefer a complicated thoughtful answer. Well then you have a much higher regard for the people in this country than I do. Most of them are NOT thoughtful, and most issues as far as they are concerned are black and white. Unless we can bring it down to simple terms it doesn't matter when you lose.

Howard Dean is pretty good at doing it, and so is Feingold, and Hacket

Where is the legislative trigger? Would it be withholding funding? That seems remote.

Who decides when we reach the benchmark or goal? I think this type of plan (the constructs are good and sound) expects the president to act in good faith. It's not like there is any call for any decisive legislation to enact or enforce (or in Bush's case, re-enforce) any of these 'withdrawal' plans. Bush has positioned his policy to reflect what he sees as a continuation of his original aims for Iraq. Nothing of Sen. Kerry's approach is likely to be legislated in any form that would effectively compel Bush to do anything if he has a different view of progress than Congress as a whole. It's a reasonable prescription, but Bush will be in power for years to come. These goals and benchmarks could backfire if Bush decides they haven't been met sufficiently enough to withdrawal. He could footdrag until Congress finds the backbone to withhold funding. In the meantime, Bush could use the soldiers as he pleases, as he is presently, on search and destroy missions against opponents of the new authority.

It's a plan, a starting point for Democrats, perhaps. But, in its insistence on goals and benchmarks as conditions for the withdrawal of our troops, it it makes the question of the removal of our forces an open issue instead of a resolved conclusion. It leaves too much wiggle room for Bush to continue or prolong the occupation. Especially in the face of a Congress that will likely be unwilling to make their rhetoric about adhering to any goals enforceable in any legislation they may enact.

wants is for the public to hear the actual withdrawal plans of Dems because they know the public would support it enthusiastically.

and more believable. Who thinks we can reach any of these benchmarks to Bush's satisfaction? The best we can hope for is enough pressure to convince him to claim victory on some milestone or another and start to exit, but I don't think conditions on withdrawal make a stark enough contrast to effectively oppose Bush in any manner that would capture public attention to actually make him do anything differently than he is now.

continuing with EVERY political success like leaders stepping forward in local provinces, turning over the permanent bases would be a political success, signing construction contracts with Iraqi firms would be a political success.

If these important points are ignored by us, even, then Bush really gets away with slow-walking the whole issue, doesn't he?

that our Democratic leaders have now challenged Bush with. I just don't think that gets us beyond any obstinacy on Bush's part in his determination of whether he thinks we have reached the goals. The argument about the efficacy of exit then becomes an unsettled one instead of a foregone conclusion.

If given a voice, which he will not be given, he should at least have some reasonable alternative for SecDef than Joe L.

Joe L. is of the same mind as the admin. nothing new there.

If we're disappointed with Kerry, than we're expecting him to change - and he's not going to change.
He is what he is and that's not all bad; it just isn't what we need as an alternative to the present WH atrocity.
Frankly, I thought his appearance on FTN wasn't that bad. I would however, prefer a strong decisive voice to the party/politically correct tones of Kerry. Also thought that he not at all enthusiastic about the Lieberman idea, just party/politically correct.

to give a direct answer to the very first question it told me what is wrong with the party today. They are so afraid of what they say

...and let a Republican governor appoint his replacement?

No way.

Lieberman may be only a half Democrat, but he's at least better than a full Republican.

be chosen to replace Rumsfeld. Kerry's answer was not so much supportive of Lieberman as to make the point that ANYBODY is better than Rumsfeld.

....if Kerry would have had the GUTS to come out and say EXACTLY THAT, that ANYBODY would be better, then I would respect him.

You expect Middle America to interpret his endorsement for Lieberman as meaning that, but trust me THEY DIDN'T.

The OP is right, Kerry is too timid to be president of this country.

Kerry was asked about his response to a reporters question asking him if he ever wondered how he could possibly loose to Bush. He responded to the reporter that he knew exactly why he lost.

Scheifer (sp?) asked what he meant and why he felt he lost. Kerry wouldn't answer.

As one who supported Kerry in the last election and was royally pissed when he conceeded so quickly, I would like to have heard his answer.

so it's interesting that he wouldn't answer this time you refer to.

And probably not going anywhere.

Done how, may I ask?

some would be critical of his performance no matter WHAT he said. :eyes:

that we must not have permanent bases or permanent interests in Iraq.

That would make the troops safer immediately.

People should try listening to what was actually said through the ears of a normal citizen who is basically unaware of Democratic withdrawal plans and has only heard MSM say "cut and run" repeatedly.

I saw Cong. Murtha on ABC this morning and I was a little bit disappointed to see him happy once again with the Bush Administration. Murtha said that he believes the Bush Admin is now moving toward getting the troops out by next Dec and that great progress has been made in pushing them to this objective. I disagree.

I thought Sen. Kerry did a great job. He made the central and important point that the US should come out and say that we have no interest in permanent bases in Iraq. He also said that we need to have Iraqis doing house to house searches and such because American troops are making mistakes that are costing us in terms of Iraqi support. He re-iterated his call to get 20,000 troops home after the election and that he had proposed this back in October.

Kerry also avoided the trap that Scheiffer had when he implicity wanted Kerry to knock the plans of other Dems. This is very important. The media wants the Dems to splinter and come across as divided and unable to unite to defeat the Repubs in '06. I thought Kery handled that very well.

...I think Kerry was FANTASTIC! I respect all the insight given in this and other threads about his performance. I think there is truth in some of what has been said. But I also think that most of the general public does not follow Kerry like we do. I've been very frustrated that Kerry's Georgetown speech with his thoughtful plan forward in Iraq has not been covered at all. This interview provided Kerry another forum to get that information out to those people who haven't heard his plan at all yet (and I think that's a lot of people). I would guess that was the goal...and if so, he did VERY well!

I know families, and political parties, squabble all the time about issues (the inside baseball issues). But the time is short. We need to UNITE as Democrats...that old 'house divided against itself cannot stand' thing. :7

:patriot:

Hasta la vista sweetheart!

I really like and respect the guy, and I think he would be a good president. But the tortuous twists and turns sometimes get to me.

Why is this guy still even mentioned?

Could it be that he is helping influential people like Jackie Robinson and Rosa Parks get the recognition they deserve?

Could it be that he is trying to get children insured?

Could it be that he is making good speeches?

Could it be that he is helping other Dems win in 06?

Could it be that he is too Patrician, too Washington, too little/too late?

But, I just want to add that he certainly should not be the 2008 nominee, for many of the reasons you discuss. Kerry refuses to take a stand on the issue of Iraq. This has been his Achilles heel, imo, all along.