Bush Supporters/ABK voters: predict the Kerry DNC acceptance spin

The BBQ Pit
1

I could have started this thread in GD, but then we would have to patiently endure the apologist whines of Kerry supporters, and this thread would ultimately end up here anyway, so the pit it is. Besides, there has to be some balance here, right? Reeder’s Bush-bashing threads could use a friend.

First it was said he wasn’t going to accept the nomination because he wanted to get more money in July. http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1905842 Then they aired lots o’ angry MA voters on all the Boston news network. Most of them were pissed that they’re going to have trouble getting around and the bastard wasn’t even planning to accept the nomination.

Then on the 27th http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/26/kerry.nomination/ He offered a written statement “On Thursday, July 29, with great pride, I will accept my party’s nomination for president in the city of Boston.”

Now, left flopping like a fish out of water, this is an issue he’ll obviously give a speech about on the 29th of July. How do you think he’ll spin it too make himself look good?

There’s the obvious maneuver- the backpedal. That song would go something like “ It wasn’t actually my idea to delay the acceptance. It was actually [insert hapless victim’s name]’s idea. It wasn’t something I was seriously considering, but the media blew it all out of proportion, because they’re all supporters of GW and big oil.” Basically, he’d try to push the blame off onto someone else, and as eloquently confuse people with this explanation as the one about throwing ribbons, not metals, that mean the same thing.

While that’s a safe bet, I’m thinking he’ll go with something a little less finger-pointing. Something that is designed to make him look like the good guy in this situation. (I mean, to the gullible. It’s not going to change the mind of anyone who thinks he’s a tool…

I believe he will give a speech that sounds a lot like this:

“ It is with great pride that I accept the democratic nomination, right here, in the great state of Massachusetts. [waits for cheering] You may have heard that I was planning not to accept this nomination today, and it’s true. I did consider, for a short time, delaying my acceptance of this great honor so that I could collect more funds for my campaign.

“ After some soul-searching, I realized that I was wrong not to have faith in the American public. You, the voters, do not have to be bought. [waits for more cheers] Democrats are not as impressed by money, by senseless spending on political ads. I know in my heart that the voters will make the right choice on election day, and vote for the man with the most conviction, not the man who has spent the most money to get his face on the tv. That is why I have decided to be that man, right here, right now. Today!” [more cheering, a chorus of kumbaya breaks out in the front row]

Yeah, the let’s-villify-what-I-planned-to-do-now-that-there’s-been-negative-feedback tactic sounds pretty fitting for Kerry. And hey, if The Media Fund (oh-so-conveniently donated to by his wife http://www.coshoctontribune.com/news/stories/20040601/opinion/549728.html ) decides to spend money to make ads that are favorable to him to boost his ad ratio, well, that wouldn’t go against the idea that democratic voters don’t need to be bought, right?

That’s my prediction. What do other Bush Supporters/Anyone But Kerry voters predict?

2

It couldn’t be any fucking simpler, elfkin. It was a trial balloon (which is why the idea first came out on a Friday, that’s how they usually go), it got a bad reaction - and supposedly Kerry’s inner circle didn’t like it either - so that was it. Politicians do this all the damn time.

3

Can I ask what the big deal would have been if he had delayed acceptance? What’s the problem caused by this?

4

Stoopid hamsters prevented me from answering first. Marley got it right. Kerry won’t mention his trial balloon at all, nor should he.

5

This is what Americans lose sleep over. They could give fuck-all about the war in Iraq, what they really want from a candidate is that never changes the minutae of their campaign strategy.

6

It’s not like there’s some long-standing tradition of accepting the nomination at the convention. It only dates back to FDR in 1932 and as I understand it his decision to fly out to personally accept at the convention was sort of spur of the moment. I know I’m not the target demogaphic for this thread but the idea of delaying acceptance to gain equal tactical and financial footing is such a non-issue it’s laughable.

7

Meh…it’s kinda like how he said “I Actually Did Vote For The $87 Billion Before I Voted Against It.”

8

Exactly! Except that those things are totally unrelated and what the flying fuck are you talking about?

9

Almost any senator will have a record of voting for (or against) one version of a bill, then voting the opposite way when it is retooled. Such flexibility, willingness to negotiate, and ability to reflect and change ones mind is considered “waffling” or “flip flopping” by Republicans, who love words that lend themselves to frat-boy prop comics at speeches. I guess nothing less than strident single-mindedness, a total unwillingness to reflect or reconsider or negotiate is what America deserves, and hence no less than what they got.

10

I understand that completely, unfortunately. I was trying to figure out what the fuck it has to do with the acceptance thing. Actually, I suppose I was faking it since the answer is ‘nothing.’ If sending out a trial balloon and responding accordingly is flip-flopping, then every politician does this to a previously unimaginable degree.

11

It doesn’t matter what Kerry says, since folks like elfkin477 are going to criticize him for it anyway.

Heck, I give 1-to-3 odds that a major conservative pundit will wonder if Kerry is “going insane,” and tie it in to Al Gore and Howard Dean.

12

At least in my lifetime it has been a tradition to accept the nomination of the party at the convention. People expect it, and it’s part of the reason why cities covet the convention.

Him not giving the acceptance speech at the convention would be a bit like you paying $1000 for a scalped ticket to see Barry Bonds in the All Star Home Run Derby and having him back out. People would feel cheated. And that’s a hell of a bad way to try to garner votes, by pissing off your core constituency.

13

No, it’s called actually having principles, and standing by them. What principles does the Jr. Senator from Paris stand for? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

For that matter, what principles do his supporters advocate? Anyone but Bush? That’s all he’s got, and it’s weak.

14

And you all thought SallyStar was a dim bulb! There are a lot of hobgoblins hovering around this little mind.

15

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/

As for his supporters, trouncing Bush is based on principles, like not entering stupid wars and earning the hatred of the world, and not destroying the economy by running up deficits to fund the same war while giving tax cuts to his rich buddies. I don’t think it’s possible for any conservative to ever realize: WE DISLIKE BUSH BECAUSE OF WHAT HE DOES! We do not OPPOSE WHAT HE DOES BECAUSE WE DISLIKE BUSH.

16

You tell us then. What does Kerry stand for? I haven’t figured it out yet. Please fight my ignorance.

17

Sorry, too tall an order.

18

The economy hasn’t been destroyed. It’s doing fairly well, in fact.

People like you said the same thing during the Reagan Administration, and it wasn’t true then, either.

19

Pluuulease. The reason they covet the convetion is the economic goodies and national attention they get, which they get regardless of a basically legal non-event officially happening there. Kerry could still have given his big rousing speech and the fact that it wouldn’t include “I accept the nomination” would hardly demean the whole enterprise.

Bush did exactly the same thing: he opposed one of the two main bills being floated around to fund the war. He didn’t vote against a bill, but he threatened to veto it, which is not only the same thing, but an even bigger deal since his veto is more decisive than Kerry’s one vote. Kerry and Bush both supported different bills. Bush’s bill happened to win. Pretending that this is some wishy-washy act of Kerry’s but not of Bush’s is demeaning to your own intelligence. It is possible to dislike a guy and hate his policies without dragging your own credibility through the mud by signing on to incoherent nonsense.

20

The President doesn’t vote for or against bills, what are you talking about?