Kerry Death Spiral [Archive]

5th September 2004, 06:06 AM

I have, through my superior political acumen, foreseen serious problems for John Kerry even prior to the Republican convention. These problems, I believe, largely result from incompetent "handling" by cynical advisors.

The situation is not unrecoverable but the Senator needs to do something now.

What characterizes this process is an ever increasing volume of what his advisors will call "bad news" which will be called "partisan" publicly but which the Kerry group is virtually entirely responsible for due to their 1) ingoing arrogance that ABB will win and 2) that forceful and direct and unequivical statements are not as effective as spin.

The latest can be found

here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=NRFOZDDSJYFYFQFIQMFSM5OAVCBQ0 JVC?xml=/news/2004/09/05/wus05.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/09/05/ixworld.html)

As the Telegraph puts it:In a fresh blow to John Kerry's flagging presidential campaign, the Pentagon has ordered an official investigation into the awards of the Democratic senator's five Vietnam War decorations.

Look for words like "flagging", "not caught fire", and most ominous "moribund" to be used with mounting frequency as time goes on.

He can still recover so there is time before we should get the popcorn and settle in to watch the unfolding disaster. But, there is not a whole bunch of time. Whipping up crowds, appealing to the "unfairness" of it all and trusting to automaton like die hard followers to rescue him are actions that reek of flop sweat.

If and when you hear the phrase "partisan politics of the worst sort", stock up on popcorn. If this is followed by "the actions of a desparate campaign" (directed at GW) kick the cat off the couch and settle in. If after these utterances you hear anything that that uses the words "republican", "Bush" or in fact anything other than words that are self referential and not in the passive voice, it is over.

It means he just don't get it and he cannot rise above the non-committal and cover your ass characteristics of a 20 year Senate veteran. It will be as I feared. Dumb ass.

a_unique_person

5th September 2004, 06:10 AM

n a fresh blow to John Kerry's flagging presidential campaign, the Pentagon has ordered an official investigation into the awards of the Democratic senator's five Vietnam War decorations.

This is unbelievable. The armed forces are now doing the dirty work of the republicans. WTF cannot go wrong in US politics.

5th September 2004, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
This is unbelievable. The armed forces are now doing the dirty work of the republicans. WTF cannot go wrong in US politics.

Read the article. It was requested by an independent group:

But to the consternation of campaign strategists, the US navy has now agreed to a request by Judicial Watch, a bi-partisan lobby group, for a full inquiry.

Some of there cases are here:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases.shtml

This is simply politics and you are bleating as I hope Kerrys group will not. You do see that your response is part of the problem, yes?

a_unique_person

5th September 2004, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by Ed
Read the article. It was requested by an independent group:

Some of there cases are here:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases.shtml

This is simply politics and you are bleating as I hope Kerrys group will not. You do see that your response is part of the problem, yes?

Bi-partisan my @ss.

Judicial Watch is a non-profit, non-partisan public interest organization dedicated to reforming the legal and judicial systems and fighting government corruption. Judicial Watch is led by, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, a well known conservative activist. Utilizing the court system in a creative manner, Judicial Watch seeks to expose corruption at all levels of government and to bring the perpetrators to justice.

One of their current cases

13. AIM v. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE - Civil Action 97-2109. Judicial Watch filed these three related cases on behalf of Accuracy in the Media to uncover documentation behind the Clinton Administration's investigation into the death of former White House Deputy Counsel Vince Foster. Despite these investigations being officially closed, the Clinton Administration has continued to refuse to release relevant documents.

14. JUDICIAL WATCH v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS) - Civil Action No. 97-2026. Judicial Watch has filed suit to challenge the implementation of the Family Responsibility Act provisions on abstinence education by the Clinton Administration. According to media reports and concerned religious groups, the money is not being spent as Congress specifically directed and may instead be going to condoms and sex education.

Goddam, was the heathen administration trying to stop teen pregnancies with sex education. No wonder these guys are on the case.

Non Partisan these days appears to mean, Anything the Republican Party wants.

5th September 2004, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Bi-partisan my @ss.

One of their current cases

Goddam, was the heathen administration trying to stop teen pregnancies with sex education. No wonder these guys are on the case.

Non Partisan these days appears to mean, Anything the Republican Party wants.

It means whatever it means. The point is that this is Kerry's doing from the gitgo and if they engage in the same lame responses that you do they are toast. That was the point of my original post. If Kerry after 20 years in the Senate is surprised, I submit that he is simply not competant to be president.

OK, that's the way it is. Get over it. What will Kerry do to not loose it?

aerocontrols

5th September 2004, 06:32 AM

AUP found anecdotal evidence. CASE CLOSED!

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Non Partisan these days appears to mean, Anything the Republican Party wants.

I have an anecdote of my own:

I doubt the Republican Party wanted this case (http://www.judicialwatch.org/2721.shtml\) to go forward.

CFLarsen

5th September 2004, 06:33 AM

What if they find out that Kerry deserved his medals?

5th September 2004, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by aerocontrols
AUP found anecdotal evidence. CASE CLOSED!

I have an anecdote of my own:

I doubt the Republican Party wanted this case (http://www.judicialwatch.org/2721.shtml\) to go forward.

Good point but still it is irrelevant to the problems that Kerry has.

If his people take a rather annelid view of the proceedings and respond the way AUP did, the Republicans will rejoice. You see that, AUP, I trust? If nothing else this is an example of forward defense and it is the kind of thing that you can expect doctrinaire, unthinking proponents to react to.

5th September 2004, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What if they find out that Kerry deserved his medals?

RIGHT!

The results will be whatever the results are and only Kerry really knows. At this point only an unequivical finding will be "good" for Kerry. I say "good" because he will be back to where he was months ago on this issue. He has lost on this one already (because of juvinile advice). He must, as I have been braying for some time now, marginalize this whole issue.

This board is a micocosm of the country. Note how we focus on trivial stuff at the expence of the biggies. The republicans count on that (so would the Democrats if they could get their underwear on). Look at AUP, predictibly going "oooo oooooo partisan".

As Mr. Burns would say "Excellent".

Anyone who does not apprehend that politics is misdirection on a grand scale is a child. AUP just got his watch lifted:D

CFLarsen

5th September 2004, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by Ed
RIGHT!

The results will be whatever the results are and only Kerry really knows. At this point only an unequivical finding will be "good" for Kerry. I say "good" because he will be back to where he was months ago on this issue. He has lost on this one already (because of juvinile advice). He must, as I have been braying for some time now, marginalize this whole issue.

Nope, he isn't back to square one. The Republicans can never again even breathe on this issue, and every Republican who already has raised doubts about his medals will look like a scandal-monger.

If, however, there are raised doubts about his medals, then it will create a feces storm: Then, the whole system of awarding medals will be questioned - you simply cannot trust that those who got their medals also deserved them.

Every US soldier, who has ever been awarded a medal, will - and should - have his merits questioned and investigated. All the awarded soldiers will be under suspicion.

That will not go down well, even in Republican circles...

Kerry wins? He wins.

Kerry loses? The whole idea of rewarding medals for military bravery is questioned at its very core.

Frank Newgent

5th September 2004, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by Ed

This board is a micocosm of the country.
Are there that many people in jail here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45142)?

5th September 2004, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Nope, he isn't back to square one. The Republicans can never again even breathe on this issue, and every Republican who already has raised doubts about his medals will look like a scandal-monger.

By that time they have moved on. He has been sullied. He will have lost even if he wins.
Norfolk : Cut off my head, and make me a martyr. The people will always remember it.
Walsingham : No... they will forget.
....and our memory cycle is shorter than the Elizabethians.....

If, however, there are raised doubts about his medals, then it will create a feces storm: Then, the whole system of awarding medals will be questioned - you simply cannot trust that those who got their medals also deserved them.

If they run for president. No one will remember, everyone will forget.

Every US soldier, who has ever been awarded a medal, will - and should - have his merits questioned and investigated. All the awarded soldiers will be under suspicion.

Right, Bush will make that a top priority during his new term. Never happen.

That will not go down well, even in Republican circles...

never happen. This is a micro issue that Kerry screwed the pooch on. Rather, his people.

Kerry wins? He wins.

Kerry wins he lost 10,000 troops in the process for an objective that should not have been an issue in the first place....

Kerry loses? The whole idea of rewarding medals for military bravery is questioned at its very core.

Kerry looses, he is unemployed. Perhaps we need our heros more than the Danes, even if they are cardboard, no one will care about medals beyond the election. The point would be "don't claim it if you ain't got the goods". Didn't you say that a few days ago on another thread:). The point that I am making is that Kerry's people made a blunder of monumental proportions. This is a bit like the Hart poppings.

A point that just occured to me. We'll never have another voting debacle like we did in Florida in 2000, right? After the election we jumped on the problem and fixed it, right? Claus, no one is going to care about these issues post 11/2 except for those that can make money on it or get face time on talk shows where they can quivver in rightious indignation.

Watch, now. If Kerry or his minions raise Bush's service record in the slightest it means they are scrambling and devoid of ideas. Oddly, they will look partisan and petty. Professional should not make that kind of mistake. We'll see.

Dogwood

5th September 2004, 07:59 AM

My impression has been that Kerrys focus on his veteran status was to put a face on his candidacy. As conservative and liberal pundits were saying for months since he became the presumed nominee, most people in this country didn't know who Kerry was. I believe Kerrys intention was to fill in that blank as patriot/war hero. It was a good way to go because it invited independent comparisons to Bush and his Vietnam service. But then the SBVfT showed up. Kerry was forced to drag things out much longer than he wanted to.

I have been expecting for some time that between the conventions, Kerry would shift gears in anticipation of the debates and begin to focus on his senate voting record. There's a lot of positive history for him there that blends nicely with his Vietnam record. I then would have expected him, starting with the debates, to begin concentrating on his plans for the future, in which he would first discuss Iraq and getting the troops out safely, while announcing plans for increasing veterans benefits removed by Bush, and moving to an intelligence based war on terror rather than a military one.

This would've been a nice tight easy to remember meme for the the American people.

Phase I: Former war hero

Phase II: As Senator, helped grieving American families of veterans, "bury their dead". (plus COPS program, etc)

Phase III: Would continue to support troops in Iraq and bring them home safely when Iraq is secure while rebuilding diplomatic bridges burnt by current administration. (Then return to Economy, jobs, etc.) Will make America safer more cheaply, effeciently and efffectively.

As I say, this is what I was expecting. Whatever the real plan is/was, he's still stuck in Phase I.

As to what he needs to do now. He needs to ignore the SBV's. The media has largely taken on the roll now of investigating their claims anyway. Not very thoroughly, but he wants the media to pick up his lead, and not the other way around.

I think it's also too late to spend much time on his Senate history. That's what all his critics are hollering about now and if he answers them, he'll still be on the defensive. He needs to put Bush on the defensive. He's got to raise questions in voters minds before the debates about lost jobs, ever increasing national debt, growth of Al Qaeda, increase in Medicare costs, and focus on Bush's flip flops. Some of these questions would surely be brought up by moderators in the debates and the public should be anticipating Bush's answers when they watch.

Meanwhile, Kerry's surrogates should be undercutting Bush's surrogates falsehoods and half-truths. The Bush supporters have been very effective in introducing false information that has now become "common knowledge". (Most liberal senator, voted against 16 weapon systems, etc)

Bottom line, attack.

Abdul Alhazred

5th September 2004, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What if they find out that Kerry deserved his medals?

The fellow who Kerry saved from drowning definitely says so.

That's what Kerry got the silver star for. Under fire. No question.

As for the other medals, who cares?

He is a genuine war hero.

I'm voting for Bush, but I freely admit that this business of questioning Kerry's medals is crapola.

BTW, I'm a Bush voter of the Ed Koch school. I'm pro choice, pro gay marriage. But must vote Bush because I'm pro survival.

That said, I'm not a Fast Eddie dittohead either. I'm anti gum control, but that's part of being pro survival, even if Fast Eddie doesn't agree.

Guns and the war make me a 'right-winger'. Otherwise I'm 'left' by American standards.

Of course by American standards, just about every western European is a socialist, including Eric Haider in Austria, and the UKIP in the UK.

Skeptic

5th September 2004, 08:16 AM

Saying that this is a "death spiral" or that Bush is "cleaning up" is, to say the least, premature. This sort of "scandal" is to be expected from both sides in a presidential race. While it is true that Kerry had been sullied lately and Bush had a successful Republican convention, this could--and probably would--mean little on election day.

But it can be said that, so far, Kerry made two mistakes (although, again, they aren't necessarily crucial).

First, he decided to run on his Vietnam record. This carries two risks. No. 1, voters might not care about your war record at all, and care more about things like the war on terror, or healthcare, or social security, etc. In 1996, for instance, the WWII combat vet Bob Dole was crushed by the Vietnam draft-dodger Bill Clinton, because voters simply didn't care: they wanted someone who would do a good work as president, not to give the presidency as a belated prize to a war hero.

If Kerry had three medals of honor and was known far and wide as the bravest US soldier in history, would that be a reason to elect him president? No! So far as I know, the last president who was elected because of his war record was Eisenhower--and he was elected because he was the supreme commander, not because of his medals or his personal heroism. Does anybody here actually know what medals Eisenhower had earned?

No. 2, people might start looking at your record a bit more closely than you would like. Apparently Kerry, over time, had--in his own mind--slightly embellished his record and, through constant retelling, came to believe he was braver and greater than he actually was. This of course is very common with war vets; but most people who do that do not use their record as a reason for being elected, and thus make it open to detailed scrutiny. The result is that every slight "fib", every inaccuracy or slip, is greatly magnified, and your story is challanged.

(I, for one, am not particualrly impressed with Kerry's record. Yes, he did volunteer for Vietnam. But--contrary to popular belief--after being wounded three times, you were not automatically sent home early. You had to apply for early dismissal--which Kerry did. Simply put, after four months, and three minor scrapes, he had had enough, and preferred to go back home. It seems to me that his "anti-war" involvement is at least partly a later rationalization of the fact that he left his men in the lurch. They, of course, did not go home with him...)

Second, his reaction to the swift boat veteran's claims was so overblown that it backfired. Two weeks before their ads ran, Kerry said that if the Republicans want to make Vietnam the issue in this campaign, he has three words for them: "bring it on!". So they did... and two weeks after the "bring it on" speech, Kerry sent Edwards to complain to president Bush, having slightly different three words for him: "Stop the ads". Does this sound like someone who "brings it on" and can handle nasty criticism? Not really.

Naturally, Bush reacted by first noting that he cannot stop the ads if he wanted to because it's an independent group that puts it on, a "527" one, and then he said that in his view all "527" organizations should stop putting ads... oops! 19 of 20 of the top "527" organizations are Bush-bashing democratic organizations, which, of course, Kerry would love to continue. Kerry came out as a whiner, as a man who can dish it out but cannot take it: I mean, you invite (or allow) the meretricious conspiracy theorist Michael Moore to give a speech in the democratic convention, but go all huffy over a single lousy ad that "unfairly" attacks you?

If Kerry learned from his mistakes, he would laugh off, or ignore, the latest inquiry; in fact, if he ignores it, he has a chance to make himself look like a victim and gather sympathy, if the investigation turns out that his citations were accurate, or that the differences between his claims an the actual citation is no more than the usual "artistic license" veterans often engage in. Or, if there are serious discreptions, he can offer a manly apology, offer a short explanation, and consider the issue closed. All of these ways could at least not harm him, and perhaps even help him.

If, however, he goes on in the conspiracy-theory I'm-prosecuted-by-the-forces-of-evil "Michael 'A Unique Person' Moore" mode, he will be greatly hurt by this in the same way he was hurt by the swift boat issue: he will greatly extend the time it's in the public view and come out as a whiner.

5th September 2004, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by dogwood
Meanwhile, Kerry's surrogates should be undercutting Bush's surrogates falsehoods and half-truths. The Bush supporters have been very effective in introducing false information that has now become "common knowledge". (Most liberal senator, voted against 16 weapon systems, etc)

Bottom line, attack.

Agree completely. The problem is, as I see it, that Kerry has a bit of a problem drawing a line in the sand.

The "liberal" think is a good case in point. The allegation that he is "most liberal" is a grotesque distortion of the facts. This is the way the conversations ran with his crack political operatives (and yes, I was there):

Kerry: What is this crap? Most liberal my ass. We gotta do something!

Grima Wormtongue, Advisor Extroadinaire: You see, we must be careful......

K: WTF? Careful?

GW: Yes. You see, if you refute this you need to use the word "liberal" and we know that there are certain words you can't use.

K: .......

GW: If you use it it becomes associated with you. All of us AE's know this. You cannot say the word. If you refute it, it seems that you have something to hide. That, and you have used the word. Bad.

K: WTF?

GW: That and the fact that if you distance yourself from liberals, your base will be really, really pissed off.

K: BS. Are you sitting there telling me that these pantywaists are going to vote for Bush?

GW: Not at all, but they could vote for Nader.

K: ...

K: ...

K: Sooooooo we ............

GW: Say nothing. It will go away, like the Swift Boat thing. Just stick you your stump speech and all will be well.

K: Well, OK, wouldn't want to take any chances, would we.

GW: Nope.

Nauseating, but true.

CFLarsen

5th September 2004, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by Ed
By that time they have moved on. He has been sullied. He will have lost even if he wins.

If he is sullied, even if no fingers can be pointed, then you are basically saying that Americans are fickle and impressionable enough to fall for a cheap stunt like that.

Originally posted by Ed
If they run for president.

What's the difference? The medals are not awarded for running for president, but for military valour.

aerocontrols

5th September 2004, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Ed
Agree completely. The problem is, as I see it, that Kerry has a bit of a problem drawing a line in the sand.

[snip hypothetical conversation here]

When I mentally replace Kerry's political opponents with the US's real-world opponents, it scares me that Kerry might become president.

Dogwood

5th September 2004, 08:44 AM

5th September 2004, 08:48 AM

First off, let me complement you on an excellent post.

I complement you.

There.

Originally posted by Skeptic
Saying that this is a "death spiral" or that Bush is "cleaning up" is, to say the least, premature. This sort of "scandal" is to be expected from both sides in a presidential race. While it is true that Kerry had been sullied lately and Bush had a successful Republican convention, this could--and probably would--mean little on election day.

Well, my political sensibilities are far in advance, more highly evolved if you will, of most people's so I can see how you would say that. However what I am referring to are the early stages of panic that my sensitive antenna are picking up. I am alluding to one of many possible futures. It all depends on Kerry's balls. Take his speech after the RNC. Bold. Stupid. Inept and amateurish. This crap cannot go on if he wants to win. Hell, even Bush waited a month to invade Afganistan.

But it can be said that, so far, Kerry made two mistakes (although, again, they aren't necessarily crucial).

Underline "necessarily".

First, he decided to run on his Vietnam record. This carries two risks. No. 1, voters might not care about your war record at all, and care more about things like the war on terror, or healthcare, or social security, etc. In 1996, for instance, the WWII combat vet Bob Dole was crushed by the Vietnam draft-dodger Bill Clinton, because voters simply didn't care: they wanted someone who would do a good work as president, not to give the presidency as a belated prize to a war hero.

Right. And I am not sure that the characteristics of a brave kid are what we want in the White House.

If Kerry had three medals of honor and was known far and wide as the bravest US soldier in history, would that be a reason to elect him president? No! So far as I know, the last president who was elected because of his war record was Eisenhower--and he was elected because he was the supreme commander, not because of his medals or his personal heroism. Does anybody here actually know what medals Eisenhower had earned?

No. 2, people might start looking at your record a bit more closely than you would like.

Full stop. And, critically, there are veterans that have never forgiven him. That he did this reflects the ineptitude that I have such concerns with.

Apparently Kerry, over time, had--in his own mind--slightly embellished his record and, through constant retelling, came to believe he was braver and greater than he actually was. This of course is very common with war vets;

Some. My Congressional, VC, Peur le Merite and Hero of the Soviet Union speak for themselves though

but most people who do that do not use their record as a reason for being elected, and thus make it open to detailed scrutiny. The result is that every slight "fib", every inaccuracy or slip, is greatly magnified, and your story is challanged.

Right. He should have known. Remember, this is a guy who has been in DC for 20 friggin' years. The meta issue with him is the ineptitude.

(I, for one, am not particualrly impressed with Kerry's record. Yes, he did volunteer for Vietnam. But--contrary to popular belief--after being wounded three times, you were not automatically sent home early. You had to apply for early dismissal--which Kerry did. Simply put, after four months, and three minor scrapes, he had had enough, and preferred to go back home. It seems to me that his "anti-war" involvement is at least partly a later rationalization of the fact that he left his men in the lurch. They, of course, did not go home with him...)

All of which is not germane to 11/2/2004. So you have to ask "why bring it up?"

Second, his reaction to the swift boat veteran's claims was so overblown that it backfired. Two weeks before their ads ran, Kerry said that if the Republicans want to make Vietnam the issue in this campaign, he has three words for them: "bring it on!". So they did... and two weeks after the "bring it on" speech, Kerry sent Edwards to complain to president Bush, having slightly different three words for him: "Stop the ads". Does this sound like someone who "brings it on" and can handle nasty criticism? Not really.

And this gaffe will come back to haunt him. You watch. It is as though his camapign is a bunch of musicions without a conductor. Hmmmm.... paging James Carville perhaps? If he had the awareness for that bold move he would go up in my estimation.

Naturally, Bush reacted by first noting that he cannot stop the ads if he wanted to because it's an independent group that puts it on, a "527" one, and then he said that in his view all "527" organizations should stop putting ads... oops! 19 of 20 of the top "527" organizations are Bush-bashing democratic organizations, which, of course, Kerry would love to continue. Kerry came out as a whiner, as a man who can dish it out but cannot take it: I mean, you invite (or allow) the meretricious conspiracy theorist Michael Moore to give a speech in the democratic convention, but go all huffy over a single lousy ad that "unfairly" attacks you?

... (sigh)

If Kerry learned from his mistakes, he would laugh off, or ignore, the latest inquiry; in fact, if he ignores it, he has a chance to make himself look like a victim and gather sympathy, if the investigation turns out that his citations were accurate, or that the differences between his claims an the actual citation is no more than the usual "artistic license" veterans often engage in. Or, if there are serious discreptions, he can offer a manly apology, offer a short explanation, and consider the issue closed. All of these ways could at least not harm him, and perhaps even help him.

The best he can hope for is a non-life threatening wound, not help. Things are moving to fast for that.

If, however, he goes on in the conspiracy-theory I'm-prosecuted-by-the-forces-of-evil "Michael 'A Unique Person' Moore" mode, he will be greatly hurt by this in the same way he was hurt by the swift boat issue: he will greatly extend the time it's in the public view and come out as a whiner.

Or, perhaps, find a real issue. Perhaps if he rolled the dice and took on national security and pointed out how bad the Mexican border is ... maybe even sneaking across :) But something big and bold and dangerous. Droning on about health care is a recipe for disaster.

MM was at the DNC? Really?

5th September 2004, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
If he is sullied, even if no fingers can be pointed, then you are basically saying that Americans are fickle and impressionable enough to fall for a cheap stunt like that.

What's the difference? The medals are not awarded for running for president, but for military valour.

Americans are human. If that implies fickleness or goat abuse it does not matter. There is always an aura that descends over the accused.

5th September 2004, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by aerocontrols
When I mentally replace Kerry's political opponents with the US's real-world opponents, it scares me that Kerry might become president.

Hence my concern, personally as a voter, with the meta view.

What do you mean hypothetical? You doubt that this conversation occurred?

Dogwood

5th September 2004, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by Ed
Agree completely. The problem is, as I see it, that Kerry has a bit of a problem drawing a line in the sand.

The "liberal" think is a good case in point. The allegation that he is "most liberal" is a grotesque distortion of the facts. This is the way the conversations ran with his crack political operatives (and yes, I was there):

I've been repeatedly surprised that Kerrys campaign hasn't addressed these accusations directly. If they'd responded immediately they might've neutralized some of them, but failing to act at all just gave the impression that they were true. Now they have a life of their own.

It seems like at least once a week Sean Hannity is corrected about the "most liberal" business, and the next week it happens again, and again, and again. Not trying to derail this into an attack on Hannity, just pointing out the superior strategy. The republican surrogates and supporters know how to hammer home the message, the democrats seem to just be flailing in the water.

There may be some words and phrases that are effectively unusable, but that doesn't make them unaddressable. It seems that the dem's are guilty of one thing that the republicans have been accusing them of, and that's counting a little too much on the Anti-Bush sentiment.

5th September 2004, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by dogwood
I've been repeatedly surprised that Kerrys campaign hasn't addressed these accusations directly. If they'd responded immediately they might've neutralized some of them, but failing to act at all just gave the impression that they were true. Now they have a life of their own.

It seems like at least once a week Sean Hannity is corrected about the "most liberal" business, and the next week it happens again, and again, and again. Not trying to derail this into an attack on Hannity, just pointing out the superior strategy. The republican surrogates and supporters know how to hammer home the message, the democrats seem to just be flailing in the water.

There may be some words and phrases that are effectively unusable, but that doesn't make them unaddressable. It seems that the dem's are guilty of one thing that the republicans have been accusing them of, and that's counting a little too much on the Anti-Bush sentiment.

The future for Kerry hangs on a thin wire. A brave approach would be to confront and dismiss and trust the American people to make the right choice. The burocrat's response (as we see in every company in the US, for example) is to do nothing so that one cannot be blamed. He is, I fear, surrounded by these burocrats.

So, Dogwood, do you doubt that that conversation took place virtually verbatim?

Dogwood

5th September 2004, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Ed

So, Dogwood, do you doubt that that conversation took place virtually verbatim?

????

...um, I'd go as far as to say that I think you've effectively coalesced the vapors of the overall relationship between Kerry and his advisors into a viable and meanigful comprehension.

5th September 2004, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by dogwood
????

...um, I'd go as far as to say that I think you've effectively coalesced the vapors of the overall relationship between Kerry and his advisors into a viable and meanigful comprehension.

Damnnation boy!!!! You work in DC?:D

I like the turn of phrase "vapors", may I use it?

Vapors is right because is implies lack of responsibility. Watch, no one will be held accountable.

Dogwood

5th September 2004, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Ed
Damnnation boy!!!! You work in DC?:D

I like the turn of phrase "vapors", may I use it?

:) Help yourself. I completely stole and then paraphrased the line from Mel Brooks. I don't think he'd mind.

Skeptic

5th September 2004, 11:38 AM

One last thought, though: in the entire "swift boat" affair, Bush and his people had shown far more sophistication and understanding of how potential voters think than Kerry and his people.

I keep thinking that if it was the other way around--if Bush was running to Kerry to demand, say, www.moveon.org 's ads be taken off the air--the forum would be rolling with laughter at how Bush against shows what an idiot he is when everybody knows it's an independent group; now that Kerry had done it, of course, it is righteous anger on his part, the "Swifties" are in a conspiracy with Bush, etc., etc. etc.

I, for one, have no seen any evidence so far in the election campaign that Bush is less intelligent than Kerry. If anything, he seems to be running a far more sophisticated campaign, while Kerry keeps making beginner's blunders.

Again, this can change tomorrow. But perhaps some people here would like to re-think their "Bush is an idiot" view, considering that most of the "evidence" for him being an "idiot" is based on doing things which would be excused, if not praised, if done by a democrat.

The "proof" for Bush being an "idiot" seems to be based on circular reasoning. The Bush administrations did some thing well and some things not well. When it does something well, the credit is given to his advisors, or to him following the Democrats' example, or whatever; but when it does something badly, well, that's "evidence" that Bush is an idiot and tries to do somethign on his own. But how do we know the good thing the administration did are due to it "copying" the democrats or his advisor and not Bush himself? Well, you don't expect an idiot like Bush to come up with something succesful on his own, do you?

American

5th September 2004, 12:17 PM

There was a rumor that Clinton aides were being brought in to manage his campaign. I'm sure they can be trusted to elect Kerry and not serve the interests of Hillary by making sure he loses.....

Abdul Alhazred

5th September 2004, 01:24 PM

George H. W. Bush (the current president's father) was a war hero in WWII, but he didn't make it a campaign issue in 1988 when he won.

Bill Clinton was a draft-dodger and won twice (and I voted for him twice).

Al Gore served in Vietnam, but he didn't make it a campaign issue. And he won the popular vote.

Why the Hell does Kerry think what he did in the war matters? It does matter, but only because he brought it up.

5th September 2004, 03:48 PM

Another example (NYT Today)

Mr. Kerry, who has been urged by some Democrats to step up his attacks on Mr. Bush, suggested he had only begun to fight back. "If they think they've seen the wood - we're going to take the wood to them over the course of these next few months," he said. "And we'll do it nicely."

Aside from the fact that "the wood" sounds faintly obscene ("Woody" is American slang for an erection), he doesn't really have a "few months" he has two and whatever he does better be done before then.

Just tell me that I don't have to see John Kerry's wood. Brrrrrrrrrrr.......

hammegk

5th September 2004, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Ed

Just tell me that I don't have to see John Kerry's wood. Brrrrrrrrrrr.......

Calm down, Teresa cut it off as a souvenir. What's left is battery powered & in her nightstand drawer.

5th September 2004, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by hammegk
Calm down, Teresa cut it off as a souvenir. What's left is battery powered & in her nightstand drawer.

Hmmmm...... so then .... Teresa and Hillary share a collecting interest?

a_unique_person

5th September 2004, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by aerocontrols
AUP found anecdotal evidence. CASE CLOSED!

I have an anecdote of my own:

I doubt the Republican Party wanted this case (http://www.judicialwatch.org/2721.shtml\) to go forward.

These are not just anecdotes, the overall impression of the site is one that is pro-republican, anti democrat. Read a little more closely. And your link does not work.

Try this, on their front page.

Kerry Should Remove Silver Star Citation From His Internet Site Pending Review By U.S. Navy

Combat 'V' Never Awarded With Silver Star

Former Navy Secretary Lehman Never Approved Citation

Additional Questions Remain Over Service Medal and Purple Hearts

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, today called on Senator John Kerry to remove the Silver Star citation from his political campaign Internet site pending a review of the granting of the award by the U.S. Navy.

Skeptic

5th September 2004, 05:11 PM

These are not just anecdotes, the overall impression of the site is one that is pro-republican, anti democrat.

Oh, so it isn't "anecdotes" now, it's "overall impression". Well, that settles it, then. Why bother with facts when anecdotes and impressions will do?

Silly me, when you said they are "independent my ass", I thought you had some facts to back that up. I should have known that, coming from you, that's too much to ask for.

a_unique_person

5th September 2004, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
These are not just anecdotes, the overall impression of the site is one that is pro-republican, anti democrat.

Oh, so it isn't "anecdotes" now, it's "overall impression". Well, that settles it, then. Why bother with facts when anecdotes and impressions will do?

Silly me, when you said they are "independent my ass", I thought you had some facts to back that up. I should have known that, coming from you, that's too much to ask for.

Have a look at the front page, if you don't believe me. The word 'clinton' is the most popular one.

5th September 2004, 05:42 PM

Yoo hoo .....

This isn't the issue. You are falling into the same trap as Kerry is.

a_unique_person

5th September 2004, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Ed
Yoo hoo .....

This isn't the issue. You are falling into the same trap as Kerry is.

I thought from the start that the 'reporting for duty' was an embaressment. However I thought it was believed it would play well to the audience.

Put the shoe on the other foot. If Dubya had gone to Nam and got some medals, how would the Republicans play him?

Face it, no matter what Kerry does, he will be crucified. Look at what happened to Gore and Carter. They did their best with Clinton, but he appears to be able to beat them at their own game.

crackmonkey

5th September 2004, 06:26 PM

Perhaps I missed the discussion of it, but one of Kerry's medal citations is unequivocally wrong. The Silver Star is never enhanced with the combat 'V. I believe this is the medal that's being investigated, as it should be. There have been other cases of investigations over fraudulent medals and citations, and more than one fraudulent Silver Star with V. The only exceptional circumstance here is that the vet with the problematic award happens to be a politician running for the Presidency.
I'm also curious as to why the balance of posters here seem to feel the SBVT guys are lying about their recollections, while Kerry has actually changed his story a number of times since the campaign started. I don't think there's enough evidence to satisfactorily conclude that the SBVT guys are telling the truth, but there's plenty to show that Kerry either lied or had a number of faulty recollections that he corrected after the SBVT ads began running.

a_unique_person

5th September 2004, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Perhaps I missed the discussion of it, but one of Kerry's medal citations is unequivocally wrong. The Silver Star is never enhanced with the combat 'V. I believe this is the medal that's being investigated, as it should be. There have been other cases of investigations over fraudulent medals and citations, and more than one fraudulent Silver Star with V. The only exceptional circumstance here is that the vet with the problematic award happens to be a politician running for the Presidency.

So if the Navy screwed up, fair enough. Shouldn't they leave an investigation of a internal error to a less politically sensitive time. Out of all the errors that they have made in awarding medals, and I can bet there are many errors in the paperwork, all of a sudden they have to be investigating this. I bet if they went through all the paperwork, they would find numerous other errors. You can bet they won't be doing that.

1) it would not achieve anything except upsetting the recipients of the medals.
2) It would be as waste of time and money.

Skeptic

5th September 2004, 06:50 PM

Out of all the errors that they have made in awarding medals, and I can bet there are many errors in the paperwork, all of a sudden they have to be investigating this.

Funny, when there was the big bruhahaha about Bush's AWOL accusations, you didn't wonder why they were investigating it just then, out of all Vietnam-area AWOLs, or think the allegations should be stopped until, say, after the election, or until Bush is no longer in office (or both).

All of a sudden you are concerned with investigating candidates during "politically sensitive time"?

Well, I'd say this IS the time to investigate it--the American people would like to know whether a serious candidate for president is lying about his medals, considering the fact that he's running on the "I'm a hero" platform. /

a_unique_person

5th September 2004, 06:57 PM

I haven't called for the AWOL to be investigated. The fact he went the route of many of the rich and privileged was enough for me. However, given the time since the AWOL was first raised, you might think they might have got around to it by now. If Kerry had allegations of AWOL over his head, you can guarantee that these would be raised as often as Gore and his 'inventing the internet'. He would have been political dead meat. As it is, without them, he is just taking a little longer.

The 'born to rule' mentality is getting greater every year. You can't convince me that Bush is the most talented person the Republicans could find.

5th September 2004, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I thought from the start that the 'reporting for duty' was an embaressment. However I thought it was believed it would play well to the audience.

It came across as phoney and in stark contrast to the personna that he created for himself 30 years ago. I am sure that he further outraged a lot of Vets by that stunt. Bad judgement.

Put the shoe on the other foot. If Dubya had gone to Nam and got some medals, how would the Republicans play him?

I really don't know and it is impossible to tell. Probably, if I were forced to guess, the same way his Dad's service was played.

Face it, no matter what Kerry does, he will be crucified. Look at what happened to Gore and Carter. They did their best with Clinton, but he appears to be able to beat them at their own game.

You are describing American politics. My point is that Kerry has 40 times more time in politics than he did in a war zone and he is acting surprised when he gets shot by a republican gook. I ask you, is this the behavior of a sane person? And please don't go for the sob story. We ritually crucify our candidates, all of them. Focus on the fact that Kerry was been in the game for two decades and he is making the kind of mistakes that you or I would make. He also knew that the Viet Nam thingie was not nearly a slam dunk. Do you know that Jane Fonda was hounded up until faily recently for the crap she pulled during Viet Nam? Did you know she finally apologised? Do you think that Kerry and his people were unaware of that? And even so he "reported for duty". That was incendiary for some. What an idiot.

I don't get the Gore, Clinton, Carter reference. Are you suggesting that there is some sort of conspiracy to go after Democrats? That is patently absurd, if so.

5th September 2004, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Perhaps I missed the discussion of it, but one of Kerry's medal citations is unequivocally wrong. The Silver Star is never enhanced with the combat 'V. I believe this is the medal that's being investigated, as it should be. There have been other cases of investigations over fraudulent medals and citations, and more than one fraudulent Silver Star with V. The only exceptional circumstance here is that the vet with the problematic award happens to be a politician running for the Presidency.
I'm also curious as to why the balance of posters here seem to feel the SBVT guys are lying about their recollections, while Kerry has actually changed his story a number of times since the campaign started. I don't think there's enough evidence to satisfactorily conclude that the SBVT guys are telling the truth, but there's plenty to show that Kerry either lied or had a number of faulty recollections that he corrected after the SBVT ads began running.

And my point transcends this. Why did he bring it up? What were he and his people thinking? Why have they not killed it? Why did he act like he has brass balls with that "bring it on" crap?

I am really looking for an alternative to GW and this thread is a reflection of my growing impatience (and incredulity) with the way Kerry is running.

My understanding is that the Silver Star is only awarded for valor (unlike the Bronze Star) so that the "V" device is superfluous.

5th September 2004, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I haven't called for the AWOL to be investigated. The fact he went the route of many of the rich and privileged was enough for me.

I call BS on this one. I played the lottery to avoid service. I carried a 1A for a couple of years till I was so far down the list that I was off the hook. Lots and lots of people did it. My ex-brother in law was in the Coast Guard Reserve for god's sake. This was hardly the preserve of the "rich and privledged" and to single out GW (who actually did serve) shows massive bias.

I don't even recall how Clinton managed to miss serving but I don't really care. The issue is Kerry's mishandling of the issue, not Bush, not me not Clinton.

a_unique_person

5th September 2004, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Ed
And my point transcends this. Why did he bring it up? What were he and his people thinking? Why have they not killed it? Why did he act like he has brass balls with that "bring it on" crap?

I am really looking for an alternative to GW and this thread is a reflection of my growing impatience (and incredulity) with the way Kerry is running.

My understanding is that the Silver Star is only awarded for valor (unlike the Bronze Star) so that the "V" device is superfluous.

Exactly, a stuff up in the paper work. Yet it merits a Naval investigation.

crackmonkey

5th September 2004, 07:38 PM

I largely agree with your opinion of Kerry's tactics here. He was clearly trying to inoculate himself from accusations of being soft on defense. His record in the Senate combined with his anti-war action during the Nam days could have been a liability in these days of War on Terror. He tried to recast himself as a Kinder, Gentler Rambo... but it just didn't take. No one really bought it.
The SBVT thing caught him totally flatfooted, and his campaign never recovered. All I can guess is that he didn;t take his campaign staff's advice. They're seasoned professionals; it's unimaginable to me that his staff told him to be a deer in the SBVT headlights for 3 weeks, and then let the GOP convention run him over.
I think the way he's handled this bespeaks some grave problems in judgment... he must have known there were issues with his Nam years. He's even had to take down some pages from his website after a fellow officer from the Gridley complained that Kerry had misappropriated his deeds... apparently, Kerry wrote himself into another man's memories, with Kerry taking the starring role.
This is going astray, I know... it's just so goddamned bizarre. I'm starting to think Kerry has some real issues with distinguishing truth from fiction.

crackmonkey

5th September 2004, 07:39 PM

BTW - the Navy routinely investigates this kind of thing. Naval regulations require it.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40307

5th September 2004, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Exactly, a stuff up in the paper work. Yet it merits a Naval investigation.

For a presidential candidate? Yes. Has to happen. Also, I understand that there was a massive fire that destroyed a lot of records. This happened a few years ago. Don't be shocked if Kerry's records are incomplete. No conspiracy, just bad luck.

5th September 2004, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I largely agree with your opinion of Kerry's tactics here. He was clearly trying to inoculate himself from accusations of being soft on defense. His record in the Senate combined with his anti-war action during the Nam days could have been a liability in these days of War on Terror. He tried to recast himself as a Kinder, Gentler Rambo... but it just didn't take. No one really bought it.
...
even had to take down some pages from his website after a fellow officer from the Gridley complained that Kerry had misappropriated his deeds... apparently, Kerry wrote himself into another man's memories, with Kerry taking the starring role.
This is going astray, I know... it's just so goddamned bizarre. I'm starting to think Kerry has some real issues with distinguishing truth from fiction.

Yeah. It is the oddity that is getting to me. And I don't think it's arrogance like Gary Hart. Maybe people off shore don't see it.

Didn't that midnight speech the night of the close of the RNC strike you as being really ..... off? I can't think of a better word for it.

Skeptic

5th September 2004, 07:58 PM

I don't get the Gore, Clinton, Carter reference. Are you suggesting that there is some sort of conspiracy to go after Democrats? That is patently absurd, if so.

He's not actually suggesting a conspiracy, but merely what many "progressives" believe--that no reasonable, or sane, or good person could possibly be a conservative and/or a Republican. The problem the progressive camp has with this is that if this is so, it is hard to explain why, in the last 30 years, the Republican/Conservatives were so much more popular and succesful presidets than the Democrat/Progressives (Clinton excepted--and he was hardly a typical Democratic president).

So every Republican victory simply has to be some sort of nefarious conspiracy or dirty trick. It is simply impossible, a priori, that the Republicans simply had a better candidate that more people liked. If the people preferred a conservative to a liberal, the people are just wrong, and all that remains to do is find out why--was it the low intelligence of the voters, unlike that of the "progressive" camp? Or was it an evil conspiracy by the conservatives?

Take Carter, for example: it isn't his disasterous economic policy, with "stagflation" & all the rest that caused his defeat; it isn't his embarrasment at the hand of the Ayatollahs who kept the hostages 444 days with total presidential impotence that disgusted the voters; it wasn't his coddling of dictators and attempts to appease the Soviets that had them sick of him. No, according to AUP & co., it was the evil Republicans that "did it" to him and mysteriously brainwashed tens of millions to kick him out.

5th September 2004, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
The SBVT thing caught him totally flatfooted, and his campaign never recovered.

Right. Again, people that don't follow American politics might not get why Americans (me and Crackmonkey at least) scratch our heads over this. This kind of thing does not happen in presidential elections. Both a lack of anticipation and a complete misreading and a sh!tty response. It simply don't happen.

I'll venture another prediction. If GW is ahead by 10 points going into the debates he will win. GW will win the debates, no question. That is not a prediction, it is fact. So ten points in translates into a 10 point win in the election.

And did you note that quote that I posted from the Times about Kerry showing his woody over the next "few months"? What is the guy thinking? He has about four weeks to turn it around.

a_unique_person

5th September 2004, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by Ed
Right. Again, people that don't follow American politics might not get why Americans (me and Crackmonkey at least) scratch our heads over this. This kind of thing does not happen in presidential elections. Both a lack of anticipation and a complete misreading and a sh!tty response. It simply don't happen.

I'll venture another prediction. If GW is ahead by 10 points going into the debates he will win. GW will win the debates, no question. That is not a prediction, it is fact. So ten points in translates into a 10 point win in the election.

And did you note that quote that I posted from the Times about Kerry showing his woody over the next "few months"? What is the guy thinking? He has about four weeks to turn it around.

Lack of anticipation? He could go and hide in a corner, but I doubt that will get him elected either.

a_unique_person

5th September 2004, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
I don't get the Gore, Clinton, Carter reference. Are you suggesting that there is some sort of conspiracy to go after Democrats? That is patently absurd, if so.

He's not actually suggesting a conspiracy, but merely what many "progressives" believe--that no reasonable, or sane, or good person could possibly be a conservative and/or a Republican. The problem the progressive camp has with this is that if this is so, it is hard to explain why, in the last 30 years, the Republican/Conservatives were so much more popular and succesful presidets than the Democrat/Progressives (Clinton excepted--and he was hardly a typical Democratic president).

So every Republican victory simply has to be some sort of nefarious conspiracy or dirty trick. It is simply impossible, a priori, that the Republicans simply had a better candidate that more people liked. If the people preferred a conservative to a liberal, the people are just wrong, and all that remains to do is find out why--was it the low intelligence of the voters, unlike that of the "progressive" camp? Or was it an evil conspiracy by the conservatives?

Take Carter, for example: it isn't his disasterous economic policy, with "stagflation" & all the rest that caused his defeat; it isn't his embarrasment at the hand of the Ayatollahs who kept the hostages 444 days with total presidential impotence that disgusted the voters; it wasn't his coddling of dictators and attempts to appease the Soviets that had them sick of him. No, according to AUP & co., it was the evil Republicans that "did it" to him and mysteriously brainwashed tens of millions to kick him out.

You can see the contempt that Republicans treat the public with the way Dubya was nominated for their presidential candidate in the first place, and they then put the real brains of the oufit in as vice president.

I can believe there are very clever and capable republicans out there. What worries me is that they aren't running for or being nominated for president. Look at the hatchet job on McCain, for example. I don't agree with most of what he thinks, but at least he is not a fool.

5th September 2004, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Lack of anticipation? He could go and hide in a corner, but I doubt that will get him elected either.

I don't get this at all. Who hide? Kerry? Do you actually understand what is going on, and has gone on, here?

And what was the Clinton, Carter thing? Don't understand that either.

5th September 2004, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You can see the contempt that Republicans treat the public with the way Dubya was nominated for their presidential candidate in the first place, and they then put the real brains of the oufit in as vice president.

So, if I understand correctly, GW somehow, after all the primaries, somehow was nominated improperly and then "they" put Chaney in as VP?

If they are so powerful, why does anyone have to be "in"?

These are the thoughts of the deranged, you know.

You might just have to realize that the American electorate might just repudiate the politics that you think are best for them. And it will be the fault of the ideas and nothing else.

5th September 2004, 08:21 PM

Bingo!

In an expansive conversation, Mr. Clinton told Mr. Kerry that he should move away from talking about Vietnam, which had been the central theme of his candidacy, and focus instead on drawing contrasts with President Bush on job creation and health care policies, officials with knowledge of the conversation said.

The conversation and the recruitment of old Clinton hands came amid rising concern among Democrats about the state of Mr. Kerry's campaign and criticism that he had been too slow to respond to attacks on his military record or to engage Mr. Bush on domestic policy. Among the better-known former Clinton aides who are expected to play an increasingly prominent role are James Carville, Paul Begala and Stanley Greenberg, campaign aides said

Bold mine. You might all, after oohing and ahhing at my prescience, consider that Kerry might have sobered up and will now give GW a serious run.

edit: Whoopsie. From the NYT, tonight.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/06/politics/campaign/06kerry.html?hp

Dogwood

5th September 2004, 08:47 PM

In other words, Clinton has embraced the dogwood plan (tm) as seen on page 1 of this very thread.

crackmonkey

5th September 2004, 10:35 PM

Maybe he's finally decided to run a campaign... it's pretty late in the game, and he's painted himself into a corner. Think about it... you've got a guy who's known for flipflopping. He comes out of the gate all Rambo and Nam buddies. His entire campaign revolves around Viet Nam. He gets sucker punched by some other Nma vets who don't remember things quite the way he did. He gets kicked in the nuts for a month, and now decides to come out swinging... about health care and the economy. It looks, frankly, like he pussied out. Remember the 'They want to talk about Nam? Bring it on!'... well, they brought it on, and he ran away.
There's really no good way for him to recover here. Not to say that he's doomed, but he's made it exponentially more difficult for him to be taken seriously. He developed a theme, it was demolished, so now he's trying to develop another campaign theme on the fly. It ain't that easy.

BTW, Ed - great minds think alike, pal.

Frank Newgent

5th September 2004, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by Ed

GW will win the debates, no question.
With The Flat Earth Society moderating?

6th September 2004, 05:09 AM

Originally posted by Frank Newgent
With The Flat Earth Society moderating?

There is a basic problem with ABB people which contributes to the problem discussed in this thread and which it appears Kerry buys into.

Bush is not stupid. He is an engaging and likeable person. He is charismatic. It really does not matter a fartskin if terribly sophisticated people on this board don't think much of Bush. He presents well. And we are talking about winning an election, not denigration of Bush. It is easy to mock him but it does not really matter if you are ABB; your opinion dosen't count. It's the 10% that does.

A debate is not a debate by any stretch of the imagination. It is a TV show with two different sitcoms on at the same time. The question is "who gets the higher rating"?

Kerry is P.D. James, Saks and Tiffany
Bush is Harlequin Romances, Wal-Mart and the local jewelery store.

Bush wins.

a_unique_person

6th September 2004, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by Ed
He is an engaging and likeable person. He is charismatic. It really does not matter a fartskin if terribly sophisticated people on this board don't think much of Bush. He presents well.

All you are saying is that appearances matter more than substance. Not saying much for the state of democracy.

6th September 2004, 05:28 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
All you are saying is that appearances matter more than substance. Not saying much for the state of democracy.

It's a fact.

What were you going on about Clinton etc.? And what was that remark about Kerry hiding or something? I really did not get either one.

a_unique_person

6th September 2004, 05:33 AM

Originally posted by Ed
It's a fact.

What were you going on about Clinton etc.? And what was that remark about Kerry hiding or something? I really did not get either one.

You can guarantee that no matter what the Democrat leader, there will be some matter that is so important that they deserve to be removed from office, and never heard of again.

I think the Republicans never got over Nixon being busted for burglary. The closest they have got is a blow job in the white house between consenting adults. As if that's the only one that ever happened.....

6th September 2004, 05:57 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You can guarantee that no matter what the Democrat leader, there will be some matter that is so important that they deserve to be removed from office, and never heard of again.

To some, probably. You are describing universal politics as such it is a ho-hum.

I think the Republicans never got over Nixon being busted for burglary. The closest they have got is a blow job in the white house between consenting adults. As if that's the only one that ever happened.....

Well, those republicans must be pretty old by now. Or are you suggesting a sort of race memory that is invoked during secret meeting of Skull and Bones? I hope you are not going where I think you are because that teeters on the edge of insanity. Has it occurred to you that maybe the American people find your political thinking unsound and thus either don't elect or vote out Democrats that share aspects of that viewpoint? I am asking if you recognize the possibility that you could be wrong in your worldview.[/QUOTE]

Frank Newgent

6th September 2004, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by Ed
There is a basic problem with ABB people which contributes to the problem discussed in this thread and which it appears Kerry buys into.

Bush is not stupid. He is an engaging and likeable person. He is charismatic. It really does not matter a fartskin if terribly sophisticated people on this board don't think much of Bush. He presents well. And we are talking about winning an election, not denigration of Bush. It is easy to mock him but it does not really matter if you are ABB; your opinion dosen't count. It's the 10% that does.

A debate is not a debate by any stretch of the imagination. It is a TV show with two different sitcoms on at the same time. The question is "who gets the higher rating"?

Kerry is P.D. James, Saks and Tiffany
Bush is Harlequin Romances, Wal-Mart and the local jewelery store.

Bush wins.
I don't work in power and automation technologies (http://www.abb.com/) and I doubt you can predict the future.

You lump Wal-Mart and the local jewelry store together?

What you are suggesting sounds more like the folks at Where's Daddy? Discount Junior Fashions.

6th September 2004, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by Frank Newgent
I don't work in power and automation technologies (http://www.abb.com/) and I doubt you can predict the future.

You lump Wal-Mart and the local jewelry store together?

What you are suggesting sounds more like the folks at Where's Daddy? Discount Junior Fashions.

Funny link.

I don't really know what "Where's Daddy" is so I can't comment.

I am not really predicting, per se. It is more of a warm bordering on hot reading.

I reiterate: if Bush is 10 points up prior to going into the debates he wins the election. Kerry has 3 weeks or so to get his act together, not as he says "a few months". That is delusional.

Dogwood

6th September 2004, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Ed
A debate is not a debate by any stretch of the imagination. It is a TV show with two different sitcoms on at the same time. The question is "who gets the higher rating"?

Kerry is P.D. James, Saks and Tiffany
Bush is Harlequin Romances, Wal-Mart and the local jewelery store.

Bush wins.

Going to disagree here. The Harlequin Romance/Wal-Mart crowd are mostly already in the Bush column and probably won't actually watch the debates. The undecided will, and with a more critical eye I think. The debates are Kerry's last chance to sway these people and may be what they've been waiting on. But I expect Bush to do much better in these debates than he did 4 years ago. Affecting this will be whether or not the moderators throw softballs again. (No evidence for any of this, just my impressions.)

I reiterate: if Bush is 10 points up prior to going into the debates he wins the election. Kerry has 3 weeks or so to get his act together, not as he says "a few months". That is delusional.

I'll go further than that. I give Kerry two weeks to get back into "statistical dead heat" range, or it's all over. There's blood in the water. Kerry's still flailing, and the announcement of Clintons sick bed advice will be like so much more chum. (extended metaphor over)

davefoc

6th September 2004, 09:45 AM

Ed wrote:Bush is not stupid. He is an engaging and likeable person. He is charismatic. It really does not matter a fartskin if terribly sophisticated people on this board don't think much of Bush. He presents well.

I agree that Bush is not stupid but my impression is that the rest of the statement is wrong. I think Bush is the least well spoken president in my lifetime (~55 years) and for me to the degree that there is such a thing as charisma GWB has very little. There might be something to what you say in that he did win about half the vote in 2000, but I thought his opponent then was just about the least well spoken and least charismatic presidential candidate in my lifetime. For what it's worth I voted for GWB the first time, but charisma wasn't a factor. I generally vote for the Republican candidate (although I'm voting for Kerry this year).

As an aside I thought Skeptic's summary of Kerry's use of his military career in his campaign was correct and insightful.

Based on a loose following of the stories concerring the military records of both candidates this is what I think is about the situation for each of them:

Bush did work to break his commitment to the national guard by pulling strings to avoid duty and to get premature release.

Kerry worked to get medals that he didn't deserve and wouldn't have gotten without some less than completely honest actions by him. If this weren't the case Kerry is just about the dumbest guy around. Almost every response to the challenges to his military record have been exactly the responses that one would make if one's accusers were telling the truth.

6th September 2004, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by dogwood
Going to disagree here. The Harlequin Romance/Wal-Mart crowd are mostly already in the Bush column and probably won't actually watch the debates.

I agree and I used a lousey analogy. What I meant is that GW is more "folksy" than JK. Engaging, less threatening, down home, all that stuff. I have never heard anyone, friend or foe alike, characterize him as anything else than engaging in person. Sometimes that really comes thru on TV, sometimes not.

The undecided will, and with a more critical eye I think. The debates are Kerry's last chance to sway these people and may be what they've been waiting on. But I expect Bush to do much better in these debates than he did 4 years ago. Affecting this will be whether or not the moderators throw softballs again. (No evidence for any of this, just my impressions.)

Well, it's all impressions I guess. I don't really think it matters much what questions are asked. These guys answer their own questions.

I'll go further than that. I give Kerry two weeks to get back into "statistical dead heat" range, or it's all over.

Fair point. I still think that GW will "win" (maybe get a higher Q score) on the debates so JK will need nore than a dead heat.

There's blood in the water. Kerry's still flailing, and the announcement of Clintons sick bed advice will be like so much more chum. (extended metaphor over)

Yeah, blood in the water, very apt. Even a sensible move like getting Bill involved does really come across as lame. WTF did this have to make the front page of the Times? I suspect that there is a reasonably large group that might even take offence to that. [/QUOTE]

6th September 2004, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by davefoc
Ed wrote:

I agree that Bush is not stupid but my impression is that the rest of the statement is wrong. I think Bush is the least well spoken president in my lifetime (~55 years) and for me to the degree that there is such a thing as charisma GWB has very little. There might be something to what you say in that he did win about half the vote in 2000, but I thought his opponent then was just about the least well spoken and least charismatic presidential candidate in my lifetime. For what it's worth I voted for GWB the first time, but charisma wasn't a factor. I generally vote for the Republican candidate (although I'm voting for Kerry this year).

Hmmmm..... maybe genuine is a better term. You have ~2 years on me so I must bow to the experience that greater age brings :) but think Carter, Nixon, Ford. Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.......

I saw Bill on Oprah a while ago. Jesus H. Christ on a hanging chad that man is GOOD. My dirty little secret is that I'd probably vote for the SOB again.

As an aside I thought Skeptic's summary of Kerry's use of his military career in his campaign was correct and insightful.

Indeed

Based on a loose following of the stories concerring the military records of both candidates this is what I think is about the situation for each of them:

Bush did work to break his commitment to the national guard by pulling strings to avoid duty and to get premature release.

Or something and that something would not make him look like a warrior.

Kerry worked to get medals that he didn't deserve and wouldn't have gotten without some less than completely honest actions by him.

Or something and that something would not make him look like a warrior.

If this weren't the case Kerry is just about the dumbest guy around. Almost every response to the challenges to his military record have been exactly the responses that one would make if one's accusers were telling the truth.

It just occurred to me ... try this one on for size ...

Sorta like Nixon.[/QUOTE]