quote: I read somewhere that public speaking is the number one fear among American adults. It even ranked higher than fear of death. So are those of us who don’t share that particular fear less likely to find poor public speaking an endearing trait in others?
I'm actually a pretty good public speaker, so I guess I could be the exception that proves the rule.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: But I love southern accents. My objections to the way he speaks are not based on his alleged southern accent. I lived in the south, I've had southern teachers that I respected very highly; that accent has positive connotations for me. :dontno:
But Bush doesn't have a traditional Southern Gentleman accent that so many people find charming.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
MPH, I think you are probably correct that I correlate intelligence with well-spokenness. I know the two don't always go hand-in-hand. However, in Bush's case, the combination of verbal klutziness (unrelated to a speech impediment--I know plenty of VERY intelligent people with speech impediments) and outright factual errors bugs me because it seems to indicate a lack of deep consideration of the ideas he's discussing. To me, it isn't that he comes across as unintelligent; it's that he comes across as "selling a line" that he's been coached to say. When something doesn't fit that coaching he acts surprised, nonplussed...as if the temerity of the person asking a question that he wasn't prepared for completely takes him aback.
Alright, I have to go to class now. So, if I don't respond, it's not because I'm running off.
(this is what I get for posting in a serious thread!)
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Megan -- but what is your take on the way Kerry speaks? I mean, it is well-formatted, but almost always sounds rehearsed or "read" when I hear it...
posted
To be honest, (and this may be the very bias that MPH pointed out), I prefer well-formatted oratory to stumbling "just another guy" speech. However, I'm not basing my voting on who I perceive to be more like me (though, when it comes down to it, I do identify more with Kerry than Bush on that front).
My voting choice is based a whole host of other issues that, because I have class in nine minutes, I can't get into here. (Actually, I probably wouldn't get into them on Hatrack--there are people here much better able to argue for the issues I believe in, and those people tend to deal with the conflict much better than I do).
aagh! Eight minutes to class now! Must go! Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: To be honest, (and this may be the very bias that MPH pointed out), I prefer well-formatted oratory to stumbling "just another guy" speech.
And yet you were just compaining that when Bush speaks, he "comes across as "selling a line" that he's been coached to say". Why do you like it when Kerry does it, but now when Bush does it? Is it something completely different, or does Kerry just do it better?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
John Kerry is a pretty bad public speaker too, he's just bad in another way. Both his delivery and his message are convulted and murky.
Here's a NYT article on pretty much that very thing. One of the big advantages President Bush has over Senator Kerry is in their public speaking. Republicans have spent billions of dollars since the early 90s trying to figure out how to package their message, generally into as few emotionally resonant words and/or images as possible. In contrast, it seems to me that, on the national level, the Democrats have relied largely on people's personal abilities, augmented by ad hoc PR consultants, with an often quite poor result. George Bush's message is a great deal more cohesive and polished than John Kerry's.
Also George Bush's poor public speaking is of an anti-intellectual type, whcih appeals to a large section of voting public to the point where they actually prefer his malapropisms to a more correct speaker. John Kerry's problems, on the other hand, reveal a pretty strong component of bs intellectualism, which pretty much only appeals to pretty low rate intellectuals. Despite what the conservative spin machine may tell you, there really aren't all that many of them.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a portion of an article that explains what I was trying to say, much better than I said it previously:
quote: Robin Lakoff, a professor of linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley, said that when she turns down the volume and just watches Bush and Kerry, "it clarifies why Bush is more effective. He has the nonverbal stuff, the facial expressions and gestures." He furrows his brows, he seems to look through the camera to make eye contact, she says.
Kerry, by contrast, "really has no facial expression," says Lakoff. "He just talks. ... I think Kerry's long sentences and lack of intonation and facial expression say, 'Yes, I'm very smart but I'm kind of phoning it in.'"
Yes, I think I personally key into body language and facial expression when "reading" someone, and if I turned off the volume and heard no words during the debates, I might still have the same opinion of both speaker's styles..
posted
porter, If you take republicans as including groups made up of republicans and dedicated towards furthering the republican agenda then I'm comfortable with that number. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the Politcal Correctness campaign in and of itself.
PR expedentures are currently running very high in American society and some of the biggest clients are politically oriented.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: They spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the Politcal Correctness campaign in and of itself.
How much of that money was spent on getting the message out, and how much was spent on trying to figure out how to package the message, which is what we are talking about?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
porter, I have no idea and that's a good point. My wording was somewhat too loose. However, since many PR campaigns include a post campaign step of evaluating how effective the campaign was, I think you can include "getting the message out" as part of the studying how to package a message.
Look, if you have a problem with the exact number that I used (which I wasn't trying to be exact with) than how about framing it as they've made a conscious decision to make studying how to package their message a central priority and have poured huge amounts of resources into it. I can't substantiate exactly how much money has been dedicated to research by republicans in the past almost 15 years - I doubt anyone could - but I'm willing to bet saying billions is a better fit than saying millions.
edit: Does anyone know how to go about finding out how much conservative/republican think tanks spend? That might help put this issue in a better perspective. The data I've seen was from the PR end, and that only as a comparison of how much money goes to PR firms and loose categorization of what it was spent on.
posted
Oh and I should probably point out that I think that what the republicans have done is pretty much neutral. While I think that the culture of public relations is a deceitful and selfish one, I don't think using it to figure out what types of messages work is any better or worse than what preceded it or the more clumsy ways the democrats use it. In my opinion, the republicans have acted smarter in regard to PR, but the morality/ethics (which I think is pretty poor) of this is more or less much equal to what the democrats do.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Being equal to the Democrats does not make it okay.
The problem with both is that they intentionally trick people into accepting their views, which is a way of making the most truthful views lose out to the most deceptive. The fact that our political system (and perhaps society) is dominated by that sort of behavior is a huge problem for everyone involved.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
MPH, because in general I feel like the lines Bush is selling are lies, and ones he's been fed by his handlers at that. Again, my own political bias showing...sorry about that--I realize that you probably have no political bias to show.
Regardless of the content of the speeches, I prefer well-presented oratory to "aw, shucks" speeches. I want the leader I vote for to speak and seem intelligent, to display well-thought-out positions and a clear and profound understanding of those positions. These are all things I do not find in Bush, and things I do find in Kerry.
Now, I'm bowing out of this thread. It was a mistake, as always, for me to post in serious political threads. It never accomplishes anything.
*flees to the fluff*
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
FWIW, Megan, I think you are doing a fine job on this thread. Well, except for the fact that you ran away.
Yes, I have a political bias of my own, but I am attempting to discuss how Bush comes across as a speaker, regardless of whether I like what he is actually saying.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't really understand anti-intellectualism either. I WANT an intellectual president. One who does research. Who looks at things from different perspectives. Who is willing to bend when it's better for the country. Who will show a bit of humility if he has made a mistake in judgement rather than trying to cover gapping wounds with tiny bandaids. I want a president who doesn't resort to... statements that just push patriotic buttons. It's a little hard to explain..
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, Megan, if we offended you. Didn't mean to come across in that way. Truly only trying to talk about delivery styles.
But perhaps you are right -- maybe it is impossible for ANY of us to listen to a speaker without our own paradigms affecting what and how we hear what is being said.
posted
Synestasia -- the things you are talking about, to me, don't have anything to do with intellectualism nor the lack of it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't offended, Farmgirl...more frustrated at my own inability to express what I believe. I still love you guys!
To be honest, this is why I rarely participate in serious threads of any kind, but especially political ones. I feel like I don't express my opinion very clearly, and it's a minority opinion at that, so that whenever the response comes, I feel all the little flaws of my argument magnified. But...it's just a personal thing, nothing against either you or MPH.
Anyway, I believe you (or myself, as interpreted by you?) to be right about this, the more I think about it:
quote: maybe it is impossible for ANY of us to listen to a speaker without our own paradigms affecting what and how we hear what is being said.
I can't hear Bush without thinking about how I feel about his presidency; it's almost as though when he speaks, I hear all his actions of the past four years. And though I agree with some of them, there are more of them that I disagree with. Perhaps it's THAT that I'm reacting to, rather than his speaking style, per se.
It may be that speaking style (regardless of the speaker) is just a surface issue, designed to draw people who decide their vote not on issues, but on things like a candidate's appearance and the "guy like me" appeal. I wonder if this is the majority of voters...if it is, that makes me kind of sad. I guess maybe the educated voter is going the way of the dodo.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Who will show a bit of humility if he has made a mistake in judgement rather than trying to cover gapping wounds with tiny bandaids.
^ Not a trait of most of the 'intellectuals' I know.
This is kind of what I mean by anti-intellectualism. I know lots of intellectuals who have that trait, but people automatically react to the word negatively. I had an uncle who once got very, very upset with me, near the beginning of the Iraq occupation because I didn't support it. He sent a couple of angry emails to the family listserv, and then when I emailed him privately and apologized for offending him, he responded by accusing me of being a "liberal university intellectual," as if it was a curse. It's this attitude that I see so much that bothers me--the idea that being an intellectual means having your head and sand and PRETENDING like you know everything when REALLY you know nothing.
So, when I say, I wonder how much anti-intellectualism plays a role in the response to the speaking styles of both Bush and Kerry, that's what I mean--the folksy style of Bush is, in some ways, an appeal to those who believe that intellectuals are, fundamentally, idiots and phonies.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's this attitude that I see so much that bothers me--the idea that being an intellectual means having your head and sand and PRETENDING like you know everything when REALLY you know nothing.
Why does it bother you that people have this perception? Have you considered why people might have that perception? Do you feel like there is no reason? Do you feel that those that feel that way are just idiots?
Just saying that you want people to think a different way isn't terribly useful.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose it bothers me because I know plenty of "liberal university intellectuals" whose views are just as well-considered as any "average joe"--if not moreso. In a way, I guess it's because, as someone going into an utterly academic profession, I consider myself to be an intellectual.
As for why people have this perception, I'm not honestly sure. I think some people are following party line--i.e., the "liberal intellectuals" say thus and such, but the "average American" knows better! In a way, it's as much a bugbear as corporate America is to the liberal way of thinking. Other people, I suppose, have had bad experiences with those intellectuals who are exactly as the stereotype describes--phonies who really only know their field, and that only narrowly.
It's still a stereotype, though, and not a useful one, either. You can't assume that an intellectual is going to be the smartest or best person for the job, but neither can you assume that that same intellectual is an idiot and a phony.
Edit: I don't feel that the people who think this way are idiots; I think they're subscribing to a stereotype. And since I'm one of the ones being stereotyped, I tend to respond rather strongly to it.
posted
I'll take that on. If you use a big word or a precise term m_p_h (and I know you yourself love precise terms) but it is too "big" a word and someone who isn't as erudite doesn't understand the meaning of the word, (even if you don't realize it) they think you are being a phony snob.
posted
You think so? I don't know. I have a larger than average vocabulary, and I am a big fan of using precise terms for precise meanings, but I don't think I come across as a snob.
Beverly, what do you think?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
MPH, I think Banna was saying that the appearance of snobbery depends largely on the understanding of your audience. If your audience knows the word you use, they don't consider you a snob. If they don't know the word you use, then they do. Thus, it may be possible to come across as a snob without realizing it (I've done this before, not on Hatrack (I hope), but in other online situations).
posted
What exactly is a snob? Does that mean sounding pretentious? An old friend of Porter's once said that he is the most unpretentious person she has ever met. I am not quite sure what *she* meant by that, but to me Porter just seems to be who he is. He doesn't ever try to pretend to be something he is not.
I think there is more to being pretentious than using big words. There has to be an actual sense that the person is trying to sound more impressive than they actually are. I think that comes across in subtle ways that are difficult to pinpoint.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: the folksy style of Bush is, in some ways, an appeal to those who believe that intellectuals are, fundamentally, idiots and phonies.
Well, Megan, I don't think you were trying to stereotype those of us who like Bush..... .....but
I come from a whole family of intellectuals (most much brighter than me, even though I was a straight A student, and have a college degree, but I'm the only one in my surrounding family that doesn't have a graduate degree ) and I don't think any of us think well-educated intellectual people are idiots and phonies.
I know I often don't show any intellectual side while on Hatrack. Because that just isn't the way I come across -- probably most people here think of me as a hick. *shrug* Sometimes I prefer it that way...
posted
I thought an intellectual was simply someone who gravitated more to analytical thought than the average human. So many people seem to be unable to think analytically or to not enjoy doing so. I think it is because they were raised to not value it.
I was raised in a family that did not value analytical thought. They valued emotional conviction far more. But I myself gravitate towards analytical thought by nature. As a result, I have always felt out-of-place in my family, and yet also out-of-place also amongst those who were raised to think analytically because I am a "late comer". I consider myself and intellectual with a non-intellectual background.
My point being: I do not feel a negative association with the word "intellectual". I guess I have heard it used derogatorally, but it never carried that meaning for me.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, I don't believe all people who like Bush believe that all people who are intellectuals are frauds. I didn't mean for it to come off like that; I tried hard to see that it wouldn't, but ...ah, well. What I was trying to say is that I think that his particular speaking style is calculated to attract those people who believe that intellectualism is bad, in some way. Why those particular believe it's bad, I do not know. I know the stereotype is there, though, because I've experienced it firsthand. And I was just pondering whether that stereotype had spilled over into political discourse.
Farmgirl, I never once thought you were a hick. Actually, with few exceptions, I think EVERYONE on Hatrack comes across as somewhat intellectual, to my way of thinking.
Sorry if that offends anyone... You big, goofy group of intellectuals!
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Political strategists I have heard say that the first debate is the most important, because more people watch it. Only half as many or less tune in to the second or third debates.
That being the case, the Bush team gained a real advantage by having the debates dedicated to specific topics, with the first one being devoted to the War on Terror/War in Iraq, where Bush is the strongest according to all the polls; and where Kerry cannot help but alienate at least a third of his supporters by taking a clear, definitive stand on what to do in Iraq--since his supporters are sharply divided on what to do.
The Bush team also negated any psychological advantage Kerry might have from being three inches taller than the president, by stipulating that both candidates must sit down for the debates, rather than stand.
Many media commentators claim that past debates have been won on how much the candidates seem likeable, confident, and connected to their audience. Here is where Bush has a natural advantage over Kerry. He knows how to make direct, simple responses, while Kerry seems addicted to "naunce" and lengthy explanations.
The fact that the president and his team agreed to three debates has to indicate that they have considerable confidence that Bush will come off better than Kerry, and that the more people see of Kerry, the more people will be turned off from him. Past incumbents who were ahead in the polls have generally chosen to skip one of the debates and only have two, in order to minimize the risks of saying something disastrous, and to minimize the psychological effect of having the challenger on the same stage with the president, which tends to elevate the challenger to equal status. So the Bush people must be fairly certain they will gain a lot in the debates.
Bush has the additional advantage that even if he does say something dumb, it can be dismissed as another "Bushism." He even made fun of himself about his "mastery" of English when he noted in his acceptance speech that he knew he was in trouble when even Arnold Schwarzenegger began correcting him on how he spoke.
Some people say that Kerry has a history of rallying at the end in his campaigns, and expect that he will somehow miraculously "pull it out" in the debates. But it must be remembered that all his past election campaigns have been in the liberal state of Massachusetts. His one national election success was only in the Democratic primaries, and he never seemed any better than any of his opponents in the primary debates.
How he ever won the nomination rather than Dean, who started out in the lead for the nomination, remains a mystery, although some suspect that the Clinton wing of the Democratic party engineered and manipulated the whole thing so the Democratic Party would select the weakest candidate, so Hillary can have a clear shot to be the party's presidential nominee in 2008. Dean probably would have beaten Bush easily.)
[ September 28, 2004, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kerry can win these debates if he goes in with a simple phrase: "You didn't answer the question Mr. President."
Every single time Bush avoids the real question in favor of a pat and misleading answer, Kerry needs to come out with that, explain why as quickly as possible, then shut up (or explain his own position quickly and succinctly, depending on format).
If he keeps it up, he'll give Bush a boil like the one he got on election night, make him lose his temper in public, and handily win the debate.
Bush has built his administration on a framework of not speaking unscripted and not answering questions, and if Kerry calls him on that he'll win.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, 30 minutes to go time. Any last minute predictions? So far, besides Chris and myself I think the predictions have pretty much followed partisan lines.
I support Kerry but I think Bush will come across as the more likable candidate tonight. Hope I'm wrong though. Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I predict that Bush supporters will believe that Bush “won” and Kerry supporters will believe that Kerry “won.” Both sides will think that the win is obvious and not understand how anyone could possibly disagree, unless they are a completely brainwashed liberal/conservative. Both sides will have arguments for their position, which will be seen by the other side as side issues or nitpicking, while in the substantive issues their candidate was clearly superior.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to try to sound like I'm patting myself on the back, but I have been called very intelligent. BUT! I have an annoying habit of speaking 'lazy'. At times I find this to be advantageous. It causes people to underestimate me. And it takes them by surprise when I take a turn towards 'seriousness'. This doesn't show so much in this medium as I tend to type correct english. But if you were to hear me speak (most of the time) I will lay the southern accent on pretty heavy. And trust me, I can lay it on THICK.
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:How he ever won the nomination rather than Dean, who started out in the lead for the nomination, remains a mystery, although some suspect that the Clinton wing of the Democratic party engineered and manipulated the whole thing so the Democratic Party would select the weakest candidate, so Hillary can have a clear shot to be the party's presidential nominee in 2008. Dean probably would have beaten Bush easily.)
I want to live in your world. You make reality seem dull and lifeless in comparison. Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Both CBS and ABC released quickie reaction polls. The CBS survey of 200 "fence sitters" showed 44 percent said Kerry won, 26 percent said Bush won and 30 percent said it was a tie. The ABC numbers were similar in that 45 percent gave the edge to Kerry while 36 chose Bush and 17 percent said it was a tie.
Stephanie Cutter, the Kerry campaign communications director, told FOX News that their internal flash polling showed Kerry's favorability going from 43 to 68 percent. The Kerry campaign usually doesn't release internal polls.
quote: I predict that Bush supporters will believe that Bush “won” and Kerry supporters will believe that Kerry “won.”
Well, not always.
Having been a debate judge for the local high school -- overall, I would have to say Kerry "won" the debate, as far as presentation (not necessarily as far as facts -- but this debate was not to see who could "tell the truth" the most, but who could sway the listeners -- in other words, who presented better).
Kerry was smoother and more articulate, I will admit, and Bush got irritated at Kerry and let it show on his face. I will give you that.
However, it did not sway ME as a voter (as you expect) but it might have had impact on fence-sitters.
Overall, from my end though, I felt Kerry did a lot of finger-pointing as to everything he feels Bush has done wrong, but without any kind future-looking plan as to how he is going to do it differently or better. There were a couple of exceptions to this, but I'm talking about overall. Some people may be turned off by Kerry's constant negativity and "gloominess" he is using to portray this nation (in order to show Bush faults) when people want hope. It will be intersting to see how people react to this.
posted
Having been a debate judge for the local high school
Farmgirl.
Bless you for volunteering. I volunteer at my high school's debate camp every summer and we could never find enough interested parents to act as judges.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The fact that the president and his team agreed to three debates has to indicate that they have considerable confidence that Bush will come off better than Kerry, and that the more people see of Kerry, the more people will be turned off from him. ... So the Bush people must be fairly certain they will gain a lot in the debates. --Ron Lambert, above
Hmm, I thought the Bush Jr team was refusing to commit him to three debates. Was I wrong on this?
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sara, one thing that developed was that the Bush campaign used the desire of the Kerry campaign for three debates as leverage to get many details they wanted, such as dividing the debates into topics with Iraq and the War on Terror being the topic for the first one, which is always the most-watched, as well as other things like the time lights that prevented Kerry from dominating the debate by running over like he has with others in the past.
I really cannot say that either candidate won last night's debate. They both scored some points. Kerry was effective on the offensive at first, but then Bush counter-punched well.
At first I was going to say that neither candidate obviously shot himself in the foot, but on reflection, it is possible Kerry may have shot himself in the foot when he said that he favored the idea of using the military in pre-emptive attacks when necessary, "but only after passing a global test." That was immediately pounced on by the President, and was a major point in his speech this morning in Pennsylvania where he said he would not allow "defending America's national security interests to be subject to a veto by France." We will likely be hearing about this for the rest of the campaign. Kerry will be forced to explain away the remark (or else be laughed and booed into oblivion), and in doing so once again reinforce the impression most people already have of him that he is a flip-flopper.
We will see in a few days what the polls say, but I think that after the debate has been digested by voters, Kerry's "global test" gaffe could go down in history with President Gerald Ford's gaffe when he said emphatically, "there is no communist domination in Poland."
Considering the fact that Bush came into the debate ahead in the polls and gaining in momentum especially in key battleground states, Kerry needed to score a clear and decisive win in this debate. His failure to do that in itself is a loss.
While future debates will be dedicated to topics where many feel Kerry will be stronger, it has also been typical in the past that less than half as many viewers tune in to the second and third debates. The first debate is always the one with the highest viewer ratings. Thus if polls show in the next few days that Bush continues to increase his lead, there will be little Kerry can do in the next two debates to pull it out. If the polls do not start going Kerry's way in the next few days, then democratic candidates around the country are going to start jumping ship and distancing themselves from the Kerry campaign, urging voters to split their ticket lest they be pulled down with a Kerry debacle. When that starts happening, the Kerry campaign will be done for.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't the notion of passing the global test before a preemptive strike exactly what Kerry means to say, though? That's his position in a brief statement.
We can't fault him for not being clear and then also fault him for presenting his position too clearly.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Part of the job is looking deeply into the issue and explaining it. It's why we Chris Bridges, Sara Sasse, Scopatz, and TomD on a political board.
There is also a persuasive school of thought that says that if you can't lay out an issue through words, then you don't understand it. I'm not the most eloquent speaker or writer, but I do believe that there is something to this criticism. If you don't speak to the issue in its depth, there is reason to believe you are not thinking about the issue in its depth.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
But yes, it could well be that Kerry actually meant what he said, and will be laughed and booed into oblivion for it.
The statement does harken back to his statement to the Harvard Crimson back in 1970, soon after Kerry returned from Vietnam and had organized the Vietnam Veterans Against the War antiwar protest movement, that he believed that it would be better if in the future the U.S. military is only sent abroad to engage in action at the direction of the United Nations. This was of course an extreme statement for which he was ridiculed even by liberals, and since then he has tried to explain away that statement as "youthful exuberance" or some such thing, and that he does not believe that now. But doesn't he? He just said basically the same thing again with his "global test" statement.
If he does not retreat from the statement, like he did from the Harvard Crimson statement, liberals and conservatives alike are going to deride him, and Republicans are going to hammer him unmercifully for it until election day.
quote:Kerry said that the United Nations should have control over most of our foreign military operations. "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
