... after a few minutes of Mr. Kerry's words you have the answer to your query, if indeed it was an honest one. Debate? You clearly are not interested in debate when you fling your own pot shots calling the people you presumably are asking the question "guys with the half baked out of context charges."
Now as to the two trillion comment, I will not have a discussion with someone over a misrepresentation of what was said. Therefore, a transcript of the speech can be found here, and I believe (using browser search on trillion) that this is the relevant exerpt to which you refer:
These changing times can be exciting times of expanded opportunity. And here, you face a choice. My opponent's policies are dramatically different from ours.
Senator Kerry opposed Medicare reform and health savings accounts. After supporting my education reforms, he now wants to dilute them.
He opposes legal and medical liability reform. He opposed reducing the marriage penalty, opposed doubling the child credit, and opposed lowering income taxes for all who pay them.
To be fair, there are some things my opponent is for: he's proposed more than two trillion dollars in new federal spending so far, and that's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts.
To pay for that spending, he is running on a platform of increasing taxes and that's the kind of promise a politician usually keeps.
His policies of tax and spend of expanding government rather than expanding opportunity are the policies of the past. We are on the path to the future and we are not turning back.
This is a far cry from your accusation of a pot-shot and apparent ensuing confusion.
Even the President tonight lowered himself into the political mud tossing off lightly that Kerry is the man who has advocated 2 trillion dollars in new taxes. This bald assertion came without any qualifying description. Two trillion proposed last week? Or it 5,000 failed and passed versions of bills he may have voted with or for, over thirty plus years?
Notice how Bush used the word proposed -- in this context it is clear he is talking about Kerry's plan should he become President. Notice how he used the term "federal spending" not "new taxes", maybe this is the source of your confusion? Putting a price tag on the bread and circuses Kerry proposed is not a pot shot, and certainly not something any President should be prohibited from doing. The item carrying the biggest price tag has a $1T pricetag alone. I don't think Bush should have to do a budget analysis of his opponent in his acceptance speech do you? The critical thinker and skeptic in you should have dashed off to the internet in search of Kerry's budget proposals to counter this ... ah, but not even a general accounting of the estimated costs of his plan is available, and he says he is going to pay for it by only eliminating the tax cut on those making over $200K which is but a drop in the bucket compared to the dollars he wants to spend.
All of a sudden the Democrats are worried about tone? <Deaniac>Yeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh</Deaniac> Give me a break.
Brushing up on math skills referred to the reference to Kerry's 30 years in the Senate. Seems more you need to brush up on your reading comprehension and attentive listening skills so you can present cogent arguments.