Free Republic

KERRY: Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?

No, Senator. The mistake is not how you talked. The mistake was how you voted.
So let's rephrase your great line:
"I voted not to support our troops during a time of war, and I think the President made a mistake in going to war, though I told Diane Sawyer it really depends on the outcome. Which is worse?

"I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?"
Kerry.

That WAS NOT a great statement as Kerry supporters spouted after the debate. When you understand what he did there, and more importantly, why he did it; you may have a different opinion.



It was a masterful sidestep to a tough point he couldn't address (his VOTE against supporting our troops, not how he misspoke) followed up by a very slick debate trick.

Did you notice it? It's a classic.

First, you admit some trivial mistake on your part. Then, you take your current opinion, in this case that Iraq is a mistake, and present it as fact. It doesn't matter if history hasn't shown the outcome yet.
You then, using a strong voice, compare your trivial mistake to this implied huge mistake, and ask "Which is worse?" Of course the big mistake is the obvious answer. It's not yet proven it is a mistake, but you make the comparison and you move on quickly. Because you asked the loaded question that can only be answered in your favor with the comparison used, people feel they just agreed with you. We all agree that a big mistake is worse than a small one. We think you just made a big point, as what you said sounded powerful. It doesn't make what you said have merit, and it doesn't prove the "big" mistake even exists. It preys on people reacting to something without substance and then being moved on to another topic before it occurs to them. Very slick, and very effective.

Kerry did it. He did not have to tell 50 million people he voted against supporting our troops, and he even got a bonus. As well as succesfully ducking the issue, he got to use the bogus comparison trick to make it look like he made a point.

He ignored addressing his VOTE and began talking his way past it. By speaking of something similar yet completely unrelated, he made it appear the issue was how he misspoke, not the decision he made.

If he had addressed what the President pointed out about his "NO" vote, things would have been much different.
He would have had to say, no matter what his reason; he was one of a handful of Senators who did NOT vote to support our troops. He would have had to say he had done this when moments before he had said he would support them.
He would have had to admit this moments after stating he knew of stories of troops writing home asking for gear.
There would have been a sound bite for the news and ads to use comparing it to a previous one where he stated, "Voting against the 87 billion would be irresponsible."



Directly addressing the President's point would have been political suicide for him as the President spoke of how a Commander In Chief must always support those who serve.


And, if he had addressed the issue, that tricky question would have been a little different had he even dared ask.

He would have had to say, "I didn't support our troops in a time of war, and the President made a mistake in going to war, which is worse?"
It wouldn't have been such a great statement, would it have? People would have had to think about that one.
They would have realized this: We know not supporting our troops is wrong. We DON'T know yet, only history will tell, if going to Iraq was a mistake.
It was a masterful sidestep, and a lot of people missed it.
Kerry's Foreign Affairs Advisor stated afterwards that it was the best line of the night.

A lot of us didn't miss what really happened here, Mr. Fmr. Ambassador.
Many of us know what the real issue is: He didn't support our troops.

God bless this country, and God bless our troops and their Commander In Chief.

I live in Maine, and I agree it can best be described as Independent.
From talk at my local supermarket to work, as well as some of the local talk radio and TV shows, I think anyone who believes Maine is a solid blue state is in for a surprise.
I think Kerry may still have an edge here, but I think it's close. This is by no means a given "Kerry" state.
Maine is taxation land, and it is a big issue here.

A letter sent to 60 Minutes. If the language sounds strong, think about what is at stake here.
To: 60 Minutes Production Staff
Could you please tell me when you will be doing a show on the Swift Boat Vets?
I realize that the 60, mostly decorated, Vietnam vets are not fundraisers for Senator Kerry speaking about President Bush, but I would like to have thoughts and criticisms of BOTH men in this election.
According to Brent Bozell of Media Research Center (web site), the Barnes interview was at least the fourth prime-time anti-Bush piece to be shown on CBS 60 Minutes in recent months. Is this correct?
I am trying to learn the issues surrounding both men running for President. I want to have an educated vote concerning my future. I have enjoyed the show over the years, but I can't help but feel some resentment now. When one notices detrimental stories about one of the candidates, and not of the other, two thoughts come to mind: Either the omitted candidate has no issues raised by the opposition, or the media company is trying to influence decisions with biased coverage that serves a political agenda. What happened to "The News" being a balanced source of information, giving Americans both sides of the political fence regarding the upcoming election? People want to make informed decisions, and not make important decisions based on half the story. It is wrong to mislead people by omission. If indeed the reason for this slant is a political agenda, it is incredibly arrogant to assume you know what is best for all Americans. Attempting to sway voters is a dishonorable use of your influence. Selectively exposing issues that only assist your agenda, in this day of mass communication, is a disservice to all Americans. Misguidance is an assault on the essence of free choice, when there is question that full disclosure of facts might have changed that choice.
Slanted coverage of this election's issues is a betrayal of the public's trust in our news media.
If I have jumped the gun and made an incorrect assumption, not knowing of your plan to indeed allow the Swift Boat Vets to tell their story as you allowed Ben Barnes to, I apologize. I will gladly regain my belief that you are fair and representative of unbiased news media.

To the Today Show producers,
I see Kitty Kelley has made it to the Today show to debut her new book.
I see the Swift Boat vets have not.
Gossip smearing the President is given the nations ear via your service, while at the same time a far more documented book questioning the Democratic candidate is dismissed. Both stories can be debated, but you choose to show only one.
I really enjoyed the show for years, but this political bias has become intolerable.
This is as blatant as it gets, and I am just one more American tired of seeing only the news YOU feel is valuable based on your political position. I'm trying to get both sides so I can make an educated vote for my future, and your attempt to influence views in one direction is insulting.
I feel resentment towards media that isn't fair and balanced. Americans do not want to be lead. Let us make up our own minds, you have no right to try to sway anything with bias.

If I have jumped the gun, and made an incorrect assumption not knowing of your plan to indeed have three days of coverage with the author of "Unfit For Command", I apologize and will be happy to regain the belief that you are indeed fair.

Frustrated.