How Kerry can get around debate rules and land fatal blow to W

[secular_warrior]

Kerry should say "Unfortunately George Bush won't allow me to ask him why he coddled the Saudis after 9-11, he won't allow me to ask him why he let bin Laden get away at Tora Bora, he won't allow me to ask him why continues to let Zarqawi and Al Sadr get away, he won't allow me to ask him why he is not really trying to win his elective war in Iraq, and he won't allow me to ask why he has ignored the war on terror and the nuclear threat of North Korea."

Surprising, I heard Scarborough and Buchanan say something like this on Tweety's show tonight.

Kerry would be effectively hitting Bush from the left (elective war) and the right (not doing what it takes to win) just as another Massachusetts Democrat did to his Republican opponent in 1960.

[smiley_glad_hands]

1. Furthermore, He won't allow anyone to ask him these questions. eom

[UCLA Dem]

3. Great post! I hope they have that strategy in mind!!

[Gelliebeans]

2. this is very good

as long as they are rhetorical in nature, Kerry won't be accused of breaking the "scumbag's" anal retentive rules
Good Idea secular_warrior

[henslee]

4. Yes. Yes. Yes. YEs. YEs. yes.

[henslee]

5. Nominated for home page. kick.

[Warren DeMontague]

6. Sure. Ask about Nabil Al-Marabh, too...

You know, the known terrorist assosciated with 9-11 that Ashcroft had deported to Syria rather than risk "sensitive information" coming out at a potential trial?

[secular_warrior]

12. Kerry can't go into side issues -- it'll appear long winded

As long as he sticks to the main points everyone knows about (Osama, Zarqawi, Saudis) and keeps it short and punchy, he will drive home the point to the masses. He needs to lay it all out in one or two sentences, so that a lightbulb will go off in the minds of the sheeple.

:kick:

[Warren DeMontague]

13. I think opening the 'Zarqawi' can of worms is a sideline, too...

All it does is give the Shrubbery an opportunity to bloviate about the continuing danger of evildoers to security moms and insinuate that Al Qaeda = Iraq.

With regards to Terrorists, i.e. ones who actually had something to do with 9-11, I don't see why Kerry can't simply ask "If your administration is so committed to finding those responsible for killing 3000 Americans, Why, Mr. President, did your justice department allow this known terrorist connected to 9-11 to go free?" That's about a 5 second question. Hardly a "sideline".

But it's pointless to sit here and debate which specific Bush admin. screw up is worse. Kerry should probably emphasize *'s connections to the Saudis and his miserable failure with regards to Osama and leave it at that.


I still think the Nabil al-Marabh story stinks to high heaven.. and I'm amazed more people aren't aware of it.

[mom cat]

7. Excellent suggestion.

::yourock:

[neoteric lefty]

8. Then couldn't he come back and say

(an example of his generic stump speech)

"Well ladies and gentlemen, John Kerry pushed for and agreed to these guidelines for the debate. I am not allowed to ask Senator Kerry to explain which position on the Iraq War he believes today or ask why he voted for the war in Iraq and against funding our troops..."

It just seems like an easy opening for him to completely change the subject to complete BS, which Bushy and his "man in the earpiece" Rove are great at doing. I am not a very skilled debater, but unless Bush gets completely frazzled, he could turn it right around. Both candidates would get their shots in and their respective base would cheer and jeer but not much would change. It could work, but I wouldn't expect it to.

edit: also, I wouldn't believe for a second that any of these "moderators" would even attempt to follow up on any of Kerry's points if he said those exact words. They don't care about the what's going on behind the scenes. They'll just stick to the cue cards, I bet.

[secular_warrior]

9. And Kerry would be ready to hit it out of the park:

"The President knows my position on Iraq has been the same from day one: I voted to hold Saddam accountable the right way. Only an administration this stubborn, inept and wreckless could get rid of Saddam Hussein and manage to make the world a more dangerous place.

Furthermore, the president should stop trying to hide behind technicalities and explain himself directly to the American people."

[neoteric lefty]

11. I would sure hope so but

I could see that the news story on Friday would be "Kerry breaks Debate Rules!", not "Bush has no plan for Iraq" as it should be. With this media behind the scenes, I trust no one.

[cheshire]

10. They will ask Kerry what he would have done different. Then he can say

he would have stayed after OBL, therefore get * that way. He has 2 min. and could bring up all these things. They will ask I'm sure.

[wickywom]

14. I was thinking the same thing

last night.
It would be going for the jugular... which he needs more thatn anything.

He better do it before Karl tells Chimpy to do it first.