GOPs saying they WANT to debate Kerry on Iraq - How soon media forgets

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3626796 /

<snip>

Republicans relish any debate with Democrats on Iraq, but particularly one with the former Democratic presidential nominee. One Senate GOP leadership aide e-mails, "Whatever we can do to help Senator Kerry figure out his position on the war and court the liberal base, we're happy to oblige."



Bring it GOPs.




For Immediate Release
October 13, 2004

RESULT ARE IN!
Kerry Wins Third Debate

ABC Who won the debate?
Among Democrats – Kerry: 81%
Among Republicans – Bush: 73%

CBS Poll uncommitted voters:
Who won the debate:
Kerry-Edwards: 39
Bush-Cheney: 25
Tie: 36

CBS POLL, Kerry has clear positions on issues:
Before: 29%
After: 60%
CNN Poll:
Kerry 52%
Bush 39%

MSNBC Keith Oberman:
12 Rounds Kerry
4 Rounds Bush
MSNBC Online poll:

Who won the debate?
Kerry 75, Bush 25%

KERRY WINS ABC REPUBLICAN HEAVY POLL:
Of the 566 People Polled (38% Were Republican, 30% Democrat, 28% Independent) Kerry Won 42%-415
Kerry In Control And Winner

Bob Novak: “Kerry seems to be overpowering Bush.” (cnn.com, 10/13/04)

Candy Crowley: “If what you’re looking for in a candidate is the best debater, I mean, that is definitely John Kerry. He has a quick command of the facts, he is very articulate, and I think the poll reflects that.” (CNN, 10/13/04)

Ron Reagan: “I will predict that the polls tomorrow, just as they have in the two previous presidential debates, will say that Kerry won.” (MSNBC, 10/13/04)

Pat Buchanan: “Kerry was, I thought, very much at the top of his game and I thought toward the end, when you saw Kerry, you saw more of the humanity of the man in some of those questions, which was very helpful to them; talking about the daughters and things. I thought he had some excellent moments.” (MSNBC, 10/13/04)

John Roberts: “I would probably have to give it to John Kerry. He seemed a little bit more poised.” (CBS, John Roberts, 10/13/04)

Joe Scarborough: “It gave Democrats a reason to be excited about John Kerry.” (MSNBC, 10/13/04)

Jon Meacham, Newsweek: “John Kerry took the populist war straight to the President.” (MSNBC, 10/13/04)

Tavis Smiley: “I think, Peter, that you have to shore up your bases…I think Mr. Kerry did that with people of color on the left.” (ABC, 10/13/04)

Bill Schneider: “Well this was a decisive win for John Kerry. It was just about as decisive as his win in the first debate, which everyone agreed was a blowout. His, the first debate he won by 16 points; this debate, Kerry won by 13 points. According to the views of the viewers polled immediately after the debate so they had no chance really to be influenced by the spin.” (CNN, 10/13/04)

Andrea Mitchell: “Kerry says, well we all, you know, married above ourselves and some would say, me more than most – joking about Teresa Heinz and her extraordinary fortune and I thought that was actually showing a lot of self confidence of John Kerry to joke about that disparity.” (MSNBC, 10/13/04

Kerry’s Momentum Grew And Grows

David Gergen: "John Kerry, Sen. Kerry gained strength as the debate went on and I thought he became much more effective and if anything I thought the last part of the debate was his." (PBS, 10/13/04)

Carlos Watson: “As we went along, as we talked about social security, as we talked about immigration, as we talked even about the Supreme Court, I thought John Kerry ultimately found his voice. And when all is said and done I think Kerry will be proclaimed the winner, which I think will be significant because I think he will be viewed as having won all three debates.” (CNN, 10/13/04)

Dean Reynolds: “I think the candidate whose numbers have been moving in the right direction for the last 10 days has been Senator John Kerry, this debate did nothing to stop that, and I think from the Kerry point of view they’ll be happy about the results tonight.” (ABC, 10/13/04)

Anthony Mason: “Dan, the uncommitted voters in our survey have given the edge in this debate, to this final debate, to John Kerry.” (CBS, 10/13/04)

Kerry Appealed To Voters

David Gergen: "What I thought John Kerry did very effectively tonight was reach out to women voters and they've become critical to his election Charlie, its the bigggest change that's taken place since these debates started. And tonight, I would imagine with the Yankees and Red Sox on, there were probably a lot of women in that audience tonight." (PBS, 10/13/04)

"After viewing two presidential debates, a group of local independent voters has decided whom to support - and will use tonight's face-off simply to make sure they've got it right. Currently, Kerry is the pick of the majority. The Denver Post gathered the five panelists last month to view the debates. At the time, none of them had decided." (Denver Post, 10/13/04)

Seniors Weigh In For Kerry. AARP hosted a debate watch party in Las Vegas they were asked: Which presidential candidate best addressed the issues important to you? 76.2% for John Kerry, 15.1% George W. Bush, 8.7 Draw

Kerry More Presidential

Bill Schneider: “Well I think he did appear more presidential than the president, which is exactly why he won the first debate and why he won this debate.” (CNN, 10/13/04)

Richard Wolfe: “John Kerry has looked more presidential and more personable as these debates have gone on.” (CNN, 10/13/04)

Perry Bacon, Time Magazine: “And still, Kerry came out looking more presidential…” (CNN, 10/13/04)

Kerry Clear On Issues

Andrea Mitchell: “I think Kerry cleared up any confusion that might have existed about how he as a Catholic was dealing with this very complex issue (abortion).” (MSNBC, 10/13/04)

George Stephanopoulos: “I thought Senator Kerry was most effective on talking about jobs, minimum wage, healthcare and social security.” (ABC, 10/13/04)

"Kerry's answer on health-care costs may be his best yet. He lays out the case against the administration logically and clearly." (Kit Seeyle, New York Times online, 10/13/04)

"In response to the flu vaccine, Bush narrowly focuses on the question and tells people not to get a flu shot. Kerry smartly takes the topic back to health care." (Kit Seeyle, New York Times online, 10/13/04)

Chris Wallace: "I thought perhaps because of the subject matter that John Kerry did better in the second half on subjects like minimum wage which the president seemed somewhat uncomfortable on." (Fox News, 10/13/04)

Mark Shields: “I thought Kerry's best answer by far was on the assault weapons. When the President begged off, it was Bob Schieffer's question to him Jim, why didn't you, you said you'd sign it, why didn't you lift a finger to do it, he said well they told me in Congress they didn't have the votes to do it and he said I would have gone to Tom Delay, and said we're going to have a fight, we'll go to the country on this. I thought that was probably Kerry's best answer. (PBS, 10/13/04)

Chris Matthews: “Senator Kerry tonight was able to score on the class issue.” (MSNBC, 10/13/04)

Tom Brokaw: “I think that they were seeing on the war issue that John Kerry had tapped into something out there in America. That there were doubts even among the president’s supporters on the Republican side of the agenda and especially in a lot of those traditionally red states where they have a lot of people overseas and beginning to wonder if this was going well or not. So they had to move it; move the agenda, if you will, off the war and harder onto the social issues.” (MSNBC, 10/13/04)

Bush Fell, Kerry Cleaned-Up

Ron Reagan: “George Bush made a mistake. Kerry quoted him accurately as it turns out in saying he’s not really worried about Osama bin Laden and Bush came back and said, well I don’t recall ever saying anything like that, we’ll you’ll see the clip of him saying exactly that tomorrow.” (MSNBC 10:32 pm)

Mark Shields: “I think Kerry is far more factual.” (PBS, 10/13/04)

Brian Williams: “We heard the name Osama Bin Laden mentioned again tonight and tonight our fact checkers found the President in a major contradiction. Here is what the President said on stage tonight in response to a charge by Sen. Kerry (Bush clip, exaggerations). But here is what the President said about Bin Laden in March of 2002 (Bush clip saying he is not concerned about Bin Laden). (NBC, 10/13/04)

Chris Jansing: “He painted the president as some one who led us to a misguided war, who has put Americans at risk because they don't have health insurance, who has lost more jobs than any president.” (MSNBC, 10/13/04)

Bush Mission To Win Debate: NOT ACCOMPLISHED

George Stephanopoulos: Most Americans believe we’re going in the wrong direction right now. (ABC, 10/13/04)

Jeff Greenfield: “I think to the extent that the Republicans were looking for the president to lay the heavy lumber on John Kerry, that did not happen. And so if we’ve gone this last ten days with Kerry slowly moving up on Bush, I don’t see anything in this debate that will change that.” (CNN, 10/13/04)

John King: “I do think Republicans will agree that the president was perhaps not emphatic or focused enough in doing as much as he wanted to do to calling the Senate record into play and put the liberal label on Senator Kerry.” (CNN, 10/13/04)

Bob Novak: “Bush looks wishy-washy on the assault-weapons ban.” (cnn.com, 10/13/04)

Richard Wolfe: “John Kerry, I thought, took this one by points. The president really needed to get a big victory tonight and he fell short of that. You know, he beat himself in the previous debates, but that really wasn’t good enough.” (CNN, 10/13/04)

Bush’s Expressions Showed His Weakness

"Bush seems more on edge than Kerry. His voice is rising, almost to a shout. And he pounds his hand for emphasis. Kerry is trying to show he is cool, calm and collected." (Kit Seeyle, New York Times online, 10/13/04)

Bob Novak: “Bush's chuckles are not so good.” (cnn.com, 10/13/04)

Chris Matthews: “I think the president had sort of an unhappy look but it was a very controlled and disciplined look. He was obviously told ‘they’re looking at you, don’t put on a show.’ But he didn’t look happy. He wasn’t used to this kind of brow-beating.” (MSNBC, 10/13/04)

They need a common enemy to point to... It's too expensive and difficult
to take on all of the Democratic Congressional candidates one at a time.

So, create one straw-man who represents all democrats and then knock it
down.

Rove will NEVER allow any face to face debate to happen, no matter how much they SAY they want to do it.

Thank you for knowing what I'm talking about...

Yes, I imagine the attacks against the "representative Democrat" will be indirect.

It fits a coward's M.O.

The OP states quite clearly that Kerry et al decisively won the political debate preceding
the 2004 election. But, that's not how it was spun... Over and over.

.

and keep the corporate media out of the circle.

It's not possible for them to "swiftboat" all of the Democratic
congressional candidates... Too expensive and *all* the corporate
media cares about is $$$.

So, why give them the focus?

They'd never hire enough reporters to cover such a wide ranging election.

already on this issue. Corporate media is even unable to spin that.

:-(

wouldn't the Republicans need some sort of plan or strategy for what to do in Iraq first?

them and attacks their opposition.

1. Kerry proposes pull-out;
2. Kidnapped-and-tortured soldiers story hits the wires,
3. media launches outrage campaign,
4. White House surrogates challenge Kerry to debate.

Like clockwork.

edit to add "surrogates"

But they won't show up. They will send little Jeff Sessions or Allard out when Kerry is in a committee hearing to call him a coward. Then, when Kerry comes to the floor to defend himself, Sessions or Allard will scurry away.

Rethugs only do drive-by hits, they are afraid to debate on the merits.

They'll let the flying monkeys put the word out and God forbid Kerry should call them out and challenge Junior himself -- SORE LOSER! HE'S DELUDED! HE THINKS IT'S STILL 2004!

I really wish that everyone would get behind the Levine/Feingold/Reid ammendment so they could not pull these kinds of tactics. When Kerry goes out on a limb with his own proposals he makes himself a convenient target.

got the Dems even to start talking about it.

And, as it stands, Kerry is NOT on a limb on his own, he has Durbin, Kennedy, Feingold, Harkin, Boxer and Byrd for starters.

And Kerry is USED to being the GOP straw man and target - because he went "out on his own" and investigated and exposed IranContra, BCCI, CIA drugrunning and illegal wars in Central America, and went "out on his own" and wrote the book alerting this country to growing terror threats 5 years BEFORE 9-11. Kerry doesn't give a shit about being a target - he's used to it, and doesn't let it bother him - he can take whatever they throw.

Maybe other Dems should pay more attention to what Kerry is saying instead of condemning him for it. Imagine it - no 9-11.

You want to go back to the Dem way of doing things - Kerry sticks his neck out and does all the hard work and then other Dems shove him aside and try to take all credit? That worked well for IranContra, didn't it?

Didn't it?

or firing Rumsfeld after Abu Ghraib? Or NO big name Dems showing up on broadcast media to face Giuliani, McCain and Dole who were on almost daily supporting Bush with lies?

How DID that work out?

Kerry STILL won without the Dem senate help - so BushInc had to pull every trick in the book to stay in power - suppress votes, purge voter rolls, and rig machines all over the country.

So, you've decided to use Kerry as a straw-man yourself?

Weren't they?

YOU want Kerry out of the picture, that much is obvious.

I'd like to give someone else a chance.

He should get behind the majority plan. By setting a fixed tiimetable he takes the responsibility off the administration for formulating a plan. Not only that, he keeps changing his timetable, which feeds right into the meme he doesn't know what he is doing, and the Democratic Party isn't sure what it's doing. It is not the opposition's responsibility to come up with a date for withdrawl, it is our responsibility to make it known to the administration we expect to see a significant year of transition in Iraq, and leave it up to them how to achieve that. We aren't in charge, and we won't be until 2008 at the earliest. Kerry needs to act less like a president and more like a senator in a minority opposition party. The others in the minority supporting Kerry should get behind the Levine/Reid ammendment as well. I e-mailed senator Boxer yesterday asking her to do exactly that. All Kerry and the few others are doing is spliting the party, to the glee of the Republicans. They need to get on board, NOW.

that they did?

And the reason Kerry HAS To change the date is because there was no action taken by BushInc before. He worlked with other senators on a COMPROMISE plan.

And Kerry keeps PUSHING BushInc on this because he has been there before MANY TIMES, and knows they won't move UNLESS THEY ARE PUSHED RELENTLESSLY. Other Dems give in too easily and have a long history of doing so. They would close the books on the most blatant crimes just to move on.

If people would stop putting their own egos in the way, they could see that for themselves.

That is one reason why us putting forth an arbitrary date for withdrawl is such an unhelpful idea. The Reid/Levine/Feingold approach is more effective, because it doesn't put us in a box. We are not the ones in charge!

SOME kind of corrective move.

You think Levin and Reid and other Dems would have made this move if Kerry and Murtha hadn't kept on pushing?

This type of push and pulling has been going on for decades. It didn't start with Iraq withdrawal.

But that is beside the point. The Republicans want to "debate Kerry" because they want to turn the focus of the debate from Iraq to Kerry. Kerry needs to stand down for the good of the Party.

Edit: By "stand down" I don't mean not keep doing good work as a senator, just stop acting like he is the leader of the Party. That plays right into Republican hands. At this time, the best thing for the party is to present a united front, and for Kerry to have a lower profile...unless we want the swiftboat debate all over again.

.....

alternative. It doesn't put us in a box because YOU CAN'T JUDGE A PLAN NOT IMPLEMENTED. The Levin amendment last year happened only because Kerry and Feingold pushed the issue then. That amendment then led to the Warner amendment which said almost the same thing. This moved the debate.

The new amendment also happened only in response to the recent Kerry, Feingold and Harkin amendments. Democratic Senators can vote for either, both or none. This is well within the norm of the Senate. What it does is it diffrenciates the Democrats from the Republicans. As with Levin becoming Warner, with extremely little change, if that were the only bill, the Republicans would use the same lie they used in 2004, that the Democratic plan is no different than theirs.

I really believe this is the strategy they have in mind.

I have nothing against John Kerry I am sure he'd do a superb
job at any debate... But, I think the Democrats should keep
this one as regional as possible. Make the Rethugs win on *every*
battlefield.

Especially, *don't* let them choose the battlefield.

The RWNM is a huge apparatus which history has shown is difficult
and unwieldy in local application.

push him aside, because someone else can handle the debate better.

HAHAHAHHAHAHAH..... yeah right.

The midterm elections aren't a national election.

The contests should be won by the people who know their districts.

It's a wide ranging fight and almost impossible to win if all the GOPers
have is their national assets.

How's that President thing working out for Kerry?

IranContra and BCCI?

There is no further need to post in this thread.

nt

They might attack his service record, call him a liar and a coward, make fun of his war wounds and put little purple band-aids on their hands in order to denigrate his medals from actual war.

And, if they get in a really bad mood, they might attack his wife, scream at his daughters that they support 'babykillers' and then make fun of the way the man looks.

Gee, we can't have that. That would be devastating. Who could withstand that kind of an attack and keep on fighting them?

Because someone said, all Democrats are just like John Kerry or Ted Kennedy.

Last I looked neither of them even lived in that District.

:eyes:

Al Gores, or ALL Murthas, or ALL whoever they target for that month or week.

Big deal. They've been doing it for decades. All of a sudden, if Kerry shuts up and doesn't counter Bush, then GOPs aren't going to do it for 2006?

to take a stand and allow the Rethug to bully us. Democrats need to believe and stand for something. The voters respect this.

Besides, the actual voters do not favor this war. They favor a withdrawal plan. One recent poll had 58% of the people in favor of a withdrawal plan. The congressional candidate from District #4 may be afraid to stand up to Rethug bullying, but surely he or she can read the polls.

for Iraq.

I would imagine that many of those people reside in districts the Democrats want to win.

in a more conservative district, the candidate can state his views and positions and run on them. The same people arguing that Kerry (or any other Senator or Congressman) should be silent are saying their are sacrosanct official policies. In fact, I assume that MA would like their Senators to represent them and to speak up.

Do Levin, Reid or Feinstein live there? Does Clark?

One straw-man to fight on a battlefield controlled by
the GOPers... Instead of a unified Democratic front on many local battlefields.

I submit that by having Kerry do exactly what *they* want on *their* battlefield it
would be appeasement.

Make them fight our message on our battlefield. It's a much harder fight for them.

There would be no debate without Kerry! He defined it! You want to change the debate to accommodate more wait and see people, shifting it back toward stay as long as it takes!

:eyes:

Where it currently belongs... But, some folks are still trying to
win the 2004 Presidential election.

they are pretty much going at Iraq, too, and doing it locally, and sometimes even WITH Kerry.

And the whole point of the thread was that Kerry DOES win debates - and if GOPs want to have it as they claim, then let's have at it, but we know they really DON'T.

There is nothing to fear when Kerry shows up to any debate with a GOP - it is a benefit - why you don't consider it a benefit is a curiosity - it's not like Kerry is not right about his position, and it's not even possible for him to lose a debate with a GOP.

and they know they couldn't muster ONE Republican lawmaker to debate Kerry on Iraq publically.

What are they going to do when Kerry sez OK, we'll have that debate for 1 hour on CNN - send your best debater?

Kerry's 20-30 minutes of unfiltered content is far more than he (and the Democrats ever get). There was a reason Nixon hated that he got about 5 minutes in 1971 on all 3 networks.

certainly are, and they make the local news.

if there were no proposed Kerry, Feingold or Harkin amendments. The Democrats would have stayed with the incredibly vague Levin amendment that said "2006 should be a year of transition, which is acceptable to most as it means very little. (You had the sponsors wrong so I corrected)

If you read (or look at the video) of any of several Kerry speeches, he feels the need to speak out because the policy is wrong. This is a gut issue and heart felt. Kerry has every right to take an independent position. That is the right of any American citizen. Beyond that, he actually has more claim to be representing Democrats across the nation than Reid does.

The risk he takes is becoming a target and being considered out of step. There is also the possibility that he and Feingold will be considered leaders - forcing an important issue and leading Americans to demand change.