If Kerry can't answer these 3 questions tonight, he deserves to lose

[dolstein]

Kerry needs to be prepared to answer the following questions in tonight's debate in a very direct manner, without his usual caveats and hedges.

1. Senator, you have criticized the President's strategy in Iraq for placing too great a burden on the American taxpayers and U.S. forces. But if things are going as badly in Iraq as you claim, how can you expect other countries to come forward now to bear some of that burden?

2. Senator, you have criticized the President for ignoring the advice of his military leaders, including advice regarding the number of troops needed to stabilize Iraq. If you were president, and the leaders of our forces in Iraq told you that an additional 100,000 troops were needed in order to ensure stability in Iraq, would you provide the additional troops?

3. Senator, the President has criticized you for changing your positions on the war. How do you reconcile your earlier vote for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq with your criticism of the President's decision to go to war?

[gratuitous]

1. And the three questions Bush will grapple with

1. What's your favorite color?

B. Why are you so gosh-darn popular?

��. Thank you, Mr. President, just for you being you.

[On the Road]

20. That First One is a Trick Question

"It's green...no actually it's blue...AAAAHHHHHH!"

[CarolynEC]

Well, he's answered these questions a million times before...

... so I don't imagine it will be too much of a challenge to answer them again tonight.

[Cocoa]

2. he has already answered #1 and #3

many times, very clearly, despite the whores pretending he hasn't or that his answers are confusing.

#2, he could very fairly decline to answer as a hypothetical.

[dolstein]

14. He HASN'T answered #1, hasn't answered #3 well, and he can't duck #2

His "new direction" in Iraq has as one of its key elements getting additional support from the international community. For someone who has criticized Bush for relying on rosy scenarios, he seems to be relying on rosy scenarios a fair amount himself.

He's tried to answer #3, but he still hasn't nailed it, which is utterly mystifying because he knows that question is coming.

Declining to answer quesiton #2 because it's a hypothetical is exactly the kind of weasel wuss type of response that lends credence to GOP claims that Kerry is weak. It is a perfectly legitimate question and it is one that BOTH candidates have been ducking.

[gratuitous]

15. So both candidates have ducked your question 2

But only Kerry deserves to lose for not answering it to your satisfaction. I guess there's no sense in arguing with THAT kind of dazzling logic!

[Cocoa]

19. I totally disagree

Kerry has summed up perfectly what I believe, he says "just because George Bush can't do it, doesn't mean it can't be done."

I think it's ridiculous when people declare things undoable, with no evidence. Tom Brokaw did it in his debate when he declared Kucinich's ideas on North Korea unrealistic, and many people do it with attempts to achieve progress in the Middle East.

I think he HAS nailed it on #3, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I never thought it was hard to tell the difference between the vote for authorization and the decision to invade. One was done in Oct, the other was in March, two completely different decisions, two completely different points in time.

#2 is not a very useful question, it's more of a trap than a question. He can dodge it or not dodge it, I don't care, I won't pay too much attention to his answer if he answers it.

Not quite as bad as the one Kerry answered at the Grand Canyon, which I thought he should have dodged.

[Bandit]

24. You are right and Jon Stewert nailed him on it last night

Jon played a clip of Kerry talking to Diane Sawyer on GMA and Kerry was embarrassing IMHO. He did not give a straight answer and she asked more than once. Jon then made the comment that he better find the answer because the question would probably come up again like in "The Debates". Kerry is still trying to nuance the answer instead of just coming out and saying Yes I agree with Bush* or no I don't agree with Bush*. He said something like if we knew then what we know now maybe would have voted differently or some such...

[Kierkegaard]

3. pfttt...

:eyes:

[NewYorkerfromMass]

4. No 3 has been answered ad infinitum

No. 1 and No. 2 are the same question: What do we do now?
I think it is too late to do anything about the botched diplomacy and lack of adequate troops there now to control a downwardly spiraling situation.
We need to pull back and husband a stable Islamic state which is where it is headed.

[unfrigginreal]

5. If Bush is on the ballot, he deserves to lose

nothing trumps that.

[Kierkegaard]

16. There is something...

No matter where Bush is, no matter what he says, no matter what he does, whether he is alive or dead, he deserves to lose.

[spanone]

6. Hogwash

[dumpster_baby]

7. The focus should be on what Bush has done and what he has to answer for

don't make Kerry the focus. This election is a referendum on Bush

[russian33]

8. If Kerry falls asleep at the podium, or slaps Bush, he deserves to WIN

I don't care what he says or does tonight, our country needs him to win!

(This is not to say that he won't perform good, he's smart, intelligent, well-spoke candidate, with good plan/ideas for US, and I'm voting for Kerry, not against Bush).

[cali]

9. Agreed

Those are questions that very likely will be asked. And he does need to answer them in 30 second soundbites. No, it's not fair, but let's face it, he can't afford nuance tonight. That said I'm confident that he can and will answer those questions clearly and convincingly.

[progressivebydesign]

10. Over 1,000 of our troops have died in an unjust war..

.. Bush deserves to lose, no matter what.

[Jacobin]

11. Excuse me, but when has either candidate EVER actually

answered a question asked of them?

Seriously. I mean it. When has that EVER happened.

They just go off on some pre-programmed recording they think will sound good.

Of course, NO follow up so they get away with it.

Tonight is the biggest build up to the littlest event in the history of the fucking universe.

[gratuitous]

13. No, the biggest build up to the littlest event in history is . . .

The Super Bowl pre-game show.

[Jacobin]

22. After tonight, we will re-consider which is the smaller event

I have my money on the 'debates'

[gratuitous]

26. Well, the Super Bowl is on every year

And the debates only get one chance a quadriennial. Sort of apples and oranges. But the debates are a breathtakingly meaningless exercise once all the rules are negotiated to prevent anything interesting from actually happening.

The Super Bowl equivalent would be along the lines of:

1. No passing to a receiver who's gotten behind all the secondary defenders, or whose defender has fallen down or been juked.

2. No intercepting a pass that is tipped, or when the quarterback is hit or under extreme pressure.

3. Kick return teams given only nine men to prevent long runbacks and limit chances for a blocked kick.

4. Move the sidelines in 10 yards on either side.

5. When an offense moves inside the red zone, defense gets an extra man for every five yards the offense penetrates.

6. Offense must run the ball inside the 5-yard line.

[giant_robot]

27. Exactly

Bush can always answer any question with a non sequitur like, "the world is a safer place without Saddam in power" and nobody will call him on it. He's resolute.

Yet when somebody frames a question about Kerry's vote on the IWR as voting to go to war rather than granting the authority to go to war , everybody jumps on him as being evasive for trying to correct them.

It's a double standard that the media has bought into.

[KC21304]

12. Read Kerry's speech to the Senate before the

IWR vote. The answers are all there and I do hope he has it memorized. And then I hope he can recall the major points of Bush's address to the UN and statement to Congress setting the cause for war.

Comparing these items with their respective positions and actions today should be game,set, match for Kerry. That should take care of the flip-flop and the judgement issues.

[dolstein]

21. You can't expect voters to "read Kerry's speech"

If Kerry can't answer these questions in 90 seconds, he's toast.

[KC21304]

29. My point is that he has not changed his position.

And yes, he needs to be able to recite the exact language about
" imminent danger " and " not going in unilaterally " . And he needs to give Bush's words back to him about the vote being " a vote for peace " and war is not " inevitable" and Saddam must " disarm".

I feel he can make Bush look like the flip-flopper who lied and now must take sole responsibility for the deaths and the much more dangerous world we find ourselves in.

[kentuck]

17. Why should we have higher expectations for Kerry than Bush ??

What 3 similar questions would you ask Bush? In a way, I hope Kerry "lowers" expectations tonight.

[Dawgs]

18. When did Chris Matthews join DU?

This is as stupid as the "Where's John Edward's?" question.

It's Bush's fucking war, not Kerry's. Wake up people.

[Wednesdays]

23. Let me ask you this...

When did you stop beating your wife?

And you must provide proof of your answer. If you fail to answer satisfactorily, you will be flogged.

[Nashyra]

25. I call BS

[retread]

28. Bullshit!! Kerry "deserves" to win for one reason only. His

opponent is the worst president in our lifetime!!

[Generator]

30. Thank you thank you thank you

Some people don't love Democracy very much do they?

[dave123williams]

32. Hell, he's the worst since...well, Buchanan probably.

[w4rma]

31. dolstein never does his research. (nt)

[SoCalDemocrat]

33. Here are three answers

> 1. Senator, you have criticized the President's strategy in Iraq for placing too great a burden on the American taxpayers and U.S. forces. But if things are going as badly in Iraq as you claim, how can you expect other countries to come forward now to bear some of that burden?

Kerry already has given this answer. Instead of no-bid contracts to Halliburton, he will spread the money around to other companies and nations to make them stakeholders in this process. If France owned refineries in Iraq, they would be there defending them.


2. Senator, you have criticized the President for ignoring the advice of his military leaders, including advice regarding the number of troops needed to stabilize Iraq. If you were president, and the leaders of our forces in Iraq told you that an additional 100,000 troops were needed in order to ensure stability in Iraq, would you provide the additional troops?

This is a trick question. Bush needs more troops due to his unilateral approach and inability to win coalition support. Kerry would alleviate the need for so many troops by gaining international support and quelling the insurgency.


3. Senator, the President has criticized you for changing your positions on the war. How do you reconcile your earlier vote for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq with your criticism of the President's decision to go to war?

He answers this easily. Better reply will be a rhetorical question, asking how Bush reconciles having 23 different changing reasons for invading Iraq. How does Bush justify his first reason, the Al Qaeda connection, which led him to protect Zarqawi and his terrorist camp from Pentagon attacks on three seperate occasions.

Kerry answers by saying he would not of changed his position to be strong on terrorism as bush did when he protected those terrorists for political gain.

[Leilani]

35. Huh?

You are going to SELL Iraq oil wells to France, or just give them away?

Do you think the Iraqi people might have an objection?

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

34. Yeah, but do we deserve Bush?

Kerry could gobble like a turkey all night and I would still want Bush to lose the election.

Bush could gobble like a turkey all night and the talking heads would still say he won the debate...