Kerry: "You Are A Liar, Mr. President..."

[arwalden]

Oh I can dream... it would be fun to hear him actually say those words. But would it cause more harm than good? Or would it make some folks WAKE UP and face the truth?

-- Allen

[BUSHOUT]

1. After what Kerry has said about the "harshest term" it would harm him..n/t

[mac56]

2. Nor does he need to.

nm

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. He'd never attack so personally -- public wouldn't stand for it.

But if he goes after the policies, and contrasts them with the reality on the ground, the public will come to their own conclusions -- that * is a LIAR!

[JerseygirlCT]

5. Yup. He can't come right out and say it -m

but he can draw the lines and let the viewers connect the dots.

[phantom power]

4. It might actually improve his performance

In the first debate, Kerry was clearly holding back, trying to pick his words so he avoided saying the word "liar" or "lied". This actually made him seem weaker (rhetorically speaking). His efforts visibly broke the flow of his replies, I thought.

If he just quit dancing around it, and said it, I think it would make his replies flow better, and make him seem even stronger.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

6. Kerry has convinced many undecideds that we need a statesman

to correct our image in the world. That's why he won't say it in those terms but he will make the point without using those words.

[leftylefty]

7. According to the 35 page list of rules

they can't address each other personally. Maybe if Kerry said "Someone on this stage has his pants on fire!"
Or will that be on the SNL skit tomorrow.....

[spooky3]

10. lol!

[sistersofmercy]

12. Bwahahahahahahahaha! Thanks for the big chuckle!

That would be so appropriate given bush*s mentality! Welcome to DU! :hi:

[displacedtexan]

8. I'd like to see JK channel Harrison Ford in "Clear & Present Danger."

HOW DARE YOU, SIR!?

[spooky3]

9. taking a tip from the DU rules, I'd say...

1) "You're a liar"--would be viewed as a personal attack--more harm than good

2) "That, sir, is a lie"--less personal than 1) but still may be viewed as unnecessarily confrontational

3) "That simply is not true", "My opponent is misleading/not being straight with the American public", "That does not square with the facts". These phrases call them out, but won't offend anyone (except diehard B/C supporters who don't want the truth)--if it is backed up with the facts. It's not as dramatic as the other two so it also doesn't have the impact. But that's what he and Edwards have been saying.

[phantom power]

11. I wouldn't mind seeing a moment like this in the debates, either:

http://recap.fednet.net/archive/Buildasx.asp?sProxy=80_hflr100504_116.wmv,80_hflr100504_117.wmv&sTime=00:04:38.0&eTime=00:01:22.0&duration=00:01:44.0&UserName=ryan%252Ekeating%2540mail%252Ehouse%252Egov&sExpire=1