the ad hominem candidate

[corplinx]

Does anyone else see this setup the democrat party is prepping Kerry for? On the issue of National Security and the war on terror, their response is already chosen and its ad hominem.

Bush Voter: I'm not sure Kerry will be a strong wartime president
Kerry Voter: John Kerry is a war hero while Bush was AWOL sipping champagne and hocking his silver spoon for an 8 ball.

It seems the party line on national security will be to not answer the question at all but instead to somehow link Kerry's long ago war hero status and Bush slacking his guard duty.

In other words, I think the issue is that the democrats know Kerry looks weak from voting record and they want to deflect the question with a patriotism challenge and an ad hominem attack.

Aren't these sort of patriotism challenges the sort of thing the democrat party has claimed has been used against them unfairly? Yet you see people on this very forum using this ploy.

As for me, it looks like I will write in a vote for Jesse Ventura. He was a Navy Seal that must make him twice the president Kerry would and 8 times the president national guardsman Bush is.

 

[clk]

On the issue of National Security and the war on terror, their response is already chosen and its ad hominem.

Bush Voter: I'm not sure Kerry will be a strong wartime president
Kerry Voter: John Kerry is a war hero while Bush was AWOL sipping champagne and hocking his silver spoon for an 8 ball.

I think it's too early to say that. I think this whole controversy over Vietnam is temporary. Bush will likely bring up the national security issue, so Kerry will have to deal with it. I don't think the voters will allow him to just take shots at Bush's character.

 

[epepke]

I am accepting bids from the Democratic party for the following slogan:

"We need a President who can win the peace."

 

[corplinx]

Let me preempt the response I am going to get from Clancie/Zero.

Yes, republicans will use ad hominem attacks against Kerry and already do so. I didn't say they don't. I am just analyzing this because the "hes a war hero" thing is so pervasive already.

 

[Cain]

Since when have presidential elections been more about the issues than the candidates? Especially in recent years when Bush and his handlers mad such a big deal out of "character."

Bush Voter: I'm not sure Kerry will be a strong wartime president

I mean, this must be a joke. Are you saying most Republicans would say "I'm not sure"?

With considerably more regard for the truth, one could say the following:

Bush Voter: Bush wants to keep America safe from terrorists. Kerry is a MA liberal who has voted consistently over the years to make us less secure.

Kerry Voter: I'm not sure Kerry would be a strong wartime president either. Then again, I don't really *want* a wartime president. Bush tried to win the war, Kerry will win the peace!

 

[Tricky]

It should be no surprise that the Iraq war is going to be a big issue in this election. A perfectly legitimate question would be "Would Kerry have started this war and how would he have handled it?" To answer this question, you have to look at what Kerry has done in the past. He has been a warrior, but he doesn't believe in stupid wars. Much of this is because he has actually experienced war.

You can never tell what a president will do, especially under unusual circumstances. When 9-11 occurred, almost everybody, including myself, expected some sort of military response. Going after the Taliban was the logical and correct thing to do. I have no doubt that Gore or Kerry would have done something similar. Going into Iraq to settle an old grudge and justified with cherry-picked evidence was one of the most bone-headed things a president has ever done, and I strongly doubt that either Gore or Kerry would have done so. Frankly, I think a lot of military people, including Colin Powel would not have done so. Many people who know war don't rush into it. In this light, it is quite correct to ask how a "wartime" president would react if he were a person being asked to fight the war. And I think the answer is clear.

 

[The idea]

Does anyone else see this setup the democrat party is prepping Kerry for? On the issue of National Security and the war on terror, their response is already chosen and it's ad hominem.
[...]
Kerry Voter: John Kerry is a war hero while Bush was AWOL sipping champagne and hocking his silver spoon for an 8 ball.

Suppose Bush and Kerry debate the following question: "Should there be mandatory national service for high school students?" Suppose Kerry argues "yes" and Bush argues "no."

Suppose Kerry says, "There is only one reason that Bush argues against mandatory national service for high school students. The reason is that, during the Vietnam war, either Bush was incapable of helping out or he was a shirker. With my plan, those who are genuinely incapable of serving will not be asked to serve. So the only question is: 'Are you a shirker like Bush?'. If you are, then vote 'no'. Otherwise you should vote 'yes'."

That would be an ad hominem attack.

If the question is "Who should be President?", then why is the character of the candidates an irrelevant issue?

[...]the democrats know Kerry looks weak from voting record and they want to deflect the question with a patriotism challenge and an ad hominem attack.

You can explain why you think a given piece of information is more significant than another piece of information. However, are you saying that Kerry's voting record is the only relevant information?

 

[aerocontrols]

Does anyone have a link to where Kerry explains why he voted for giving Bush the authority to go to war with Iraq, but decided to vote against money for rebuilding Iraq?

 

[SlippyToad]

Let me preempt the response I am going to get from Clancie/Zero.

Yes, republicans will use ad hominem attacks against Kerry and already do so. I didn't say they don't. I am just analyzing this because the "hes a war hero" thing is so pervasive already.

Well, I don't know if you were old enough to vote in 1992, but we sure got tired of hearing about Clinton's draft-dodging liberalism back then. It's nice to have the shoe on the other foot for a change. Conservatives who feel that this is unfair can go cry in a bag of money.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

It's nice to have the shoe on the other foot for a change. Conservatives who feel that this is unfair can go cry in a bag of money.

 

[aerocontrols]

Well, I don't know if you were old enough to vote in 1992, but we sure got tired of hearing about Clinton's draft-dodging liberalism back then. It's nice to have the shoe on the other foot for a change. Conservatives who feel that this is unfair can go cry in a bag of money.

Also Quayle's draft-dodging. Not just in 1992, but in 1988, as well.

The shoe tends to be placed upon whichever foot it fits.

 

[clk]

Does anyone have a link to where Kerry explains why he voted for giving Bush the authority to go to war with Iraq, but decided to vote against money for rebuilding Iraq?

Q: You voted for the Iraq resolution but then opposed the $87 billion. Is that inconsistent?

KERRY: It is absolutely consistent, because what I voted for was to hold Saddam accountable but to do it right. This president has done it wrong every step of the way. He has a fraudulent coalition. He promised he would go through the UN and honor the inspections process. He did not. He promised he would go to war as a last resort, words that mean something to me as a veteran. He did not.
Source: Democratic Presidential 2004 Primary Debate in Detroit Oct 27, 2003
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_War_+_Peace.htm

 

[aerocontrols]

Q: You voted for the Iraq resolution but then opposed the $87 billion. Is that inconsistent?

KERRY: It is absolutely consistent, because what I voted for was to hold Saddam accountable but to do it right. This president has done it wrong every step of the way. He has a fraudulent coalition. He promised he would go through the UN and honor the inspections process. He did not. He promised he would go to war as a last resort, words that mean something to me as a veteran. He did not.
Source: Democratic Presidential 2004 Primary Debate in Detroit Oct 27, 2003
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_War_+_Peace.htm

Complete dodge. There is nothing in that response that justifies opposition to rebuilding funds.

Thanks for showing me how Kerry responds to the question, though.

 

[SlippyToad]

Also Quayle's draft-dodging. Not just in 1992, but in 1988, as well.

The shoe tends to be placed upon whichever foot it fits.

Quayle had credibility issues that went way beyond draft-dodging. What I'm getting at is that during every election of the last 20 years we've had to listen to conservatives screech like a bunch of ill-tempered hyenas about the issue of military service and national security, and this time around it's going to be a little bit different, since they are basically running a pampered brat who never left the continental US until he became President and has never so much as callused his hands at any real labor, let alone risked his butt -- and they're running him against a guy with a chest full of real medals. I think that's why we're starting to hear some real wild rumors about Kerry -- because they are scared out of their wits at having to put Bush's record against that of the real slim shady.