Yes, it will be, sigh . . . By “preening arrogance”, I refer to any notions Bush or his partisans (such as yourself) have to question Kerry on issues of balancing budgets, the use of the military, and undue influence of lobbyists in the legislative process.
[quote]
By “preening arrogance”, I refer to any notions Bush or his partisans (such as yourself) have to question Kerry on issues of balancing budgets, the use of the military, and undue influence of lobbyists in the legislative process.
[quote]
Doesn’t that work both ways? Since Kerry has been living off the fat of special interest contributions for 20 years, is it ‘preening arrogance’ for him to question Bush’s acceptance of special interest money?
Since Kerry has a liberal voting record on big government programs, and hasn’t proposed any massive tax hikes or spending cuts himself, isn’t it ‘preening arrogance’ for him to lecture Bush on balancing budgets?
And do you describe yourself as a partisan?
I suggest everyone get down off their high horses and treat people on the other side of the aisle as respected opponents, and drop this, “I’m right and your a partisan” attitude. This is going to be a long election year, and I ssure hope we can find a way to discuss it civilly on this board. Attack the candidates and their positions all you want, but let’s leave the personal crap out of it.
Just as a factual aside, no they can’t. In fact, they can’t do so directly at all. And indirectly it looks like the FEC is going to severly regulate the use of soft money flowing into 527 groups, while leaving hard money (which may not come from corporations) largely unregulated. That said, the issue as regards 527s is still open, so stay tuned.
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Yes, just not a Bush partisan.
No, you’re right, I’m fully willing to debate the candidates’ merits, but I went off-piste a bit here. (Shodan tends to do that to me, with his flaming sarcasm followed by his polite little “Regards” bit. It’s like getting beaten up by a guy wearing a bow tie.)
And that wasn’t even the point of this thread. I started this discussion as a debate about political strategy–i.e., what kind of message would Kerry need to put out to gain the swing vote in November.
Maybe since that will inevitably lead to more bickering, I should restate the question. What issues might Kerry use to gain some traction among the political center? Which states should he focus on, given the electoral map, and how should he (not “can he”) craft his message for those states? Given the huge warchest the incumbent has accumulated, is Kerry fighting an uphill battle? (Remember that Gore had a 17-point lead in the polls in August, 2000).
With that, it’s my weekend and I’m not going to look at a computer again until Monday morning.
John Kerry: “War Monger” against Iraq in 1998 (article below), versus John Kerry war hero, versus John Kerry liar about Vietnam, versus John Kerry against the latest Iraq War, which he voted for (giving numerous reasons at the time) – and then failed to fund (confused? I am).
The question arises, does he stand for anything except achieving his lifelong dream of being the next JFK?
His far-right extremist stance in 1998 is hard to square with what he is arguing now. Of course, I agreed with him then. Democrats really need to stick to the butter arguments. The hypocrisy is hip-deep already. Clinton – actual draft dodger: OK. Bush – served as interceptor pilot in a dangerous airplane during the Cold War: AWOL?
If this statement of his position is accurate, then he doesn’t have a moral leg to stand on. You want to argue the cost of the war to civilians in Iraq? The person in the above quote wanted to starve the people of the country so they would rise up in a bloody civil war against the regime. Do you have any idea how many people would have died in such an uprising? And how much pain they would have to suffer before they reached the breaking point? How can anyone consider that to be an even remotely moral plan? If that was indeed the alternative, then the Bush plan of doing a quick surgical strike on the regime itself was the far more moral thing to do.
Kerry has been my least favorite of the Democratic candidates, and I sincerely hope that Edwards pulls it out of the toilet.
I would just like to point out here that in Presidential debates and most stump speeches in an election, there is relatively little back-and-forth questioning. Remember Bush getting peeved when Gore directly questioned him in a 2000 debate? I imagine the ground rules will be similar. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush refuses to debate Kerry (or Edwards). It was a big struggle to organize the 2000 debates, and Bush is only in a better position now for refusing or changing the rules. I can see something like matters of pressing national security coming up an hour before the debate.
I think Kerry automatically has the vote of every Democrat and a good chunk of the swing voters plus some veterans. Without a strong Nader campaign (even if he does run he will not be doing it as a Green and there will be very few protest votes this time around), this puts him very close to the 50% mark, judging from the 2000 election. With poor conservative voter turnour due to dissatisfaction with economy/war/immigration/deficits/privacy, Kerry will only need to push the scale slightly. He probably can do this on an “I’m not Bush” platform. Perhaps I am being optimistic.
I would love to see Kerry grow a backbone and stand up for some real points of view. I would love for him to argue that his point of view is allowed to change based on data from 1970 to 1991 to 1998 to 2003 instead of standard waffling. I would love for him to come out in favor of gay marriage/civil unions. I would love for him to energize the populace, for him to make stunning speeches on the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, chocked full of lucid policy. I would love to see him trounce Bush in November by 30% of the vote. It’s not gonna happen, though. He’s not the right guy (at least right now). Perhaps if Edwards is his running mate, Edwards will pick up some of this slack. You can see the Clintonian energy in Edwards, but I have yet to see it in Kerry.
Now that’s rich. What you would like is to rule three major issues of the campaign so far off limits to questions from Republicans. Do you think Bush should be able to pick three issues and rule out questions on them from Democrats?
Don’t think it’s gonna happen.
Dean tried to make the war in Iraq his central theme, with the observed results. I suspect balancing the budget with tax increases (and lots and lots of increased spending) is not a winning issue. Kerry has no credibility on the subject of program cuts to balance the budget, either - he is a big-spending liberal. Health care? Bush took some of the wind out of his sails with the Medicare bill. And any comprehensive health care plan administered by the feds is going to be very, very expensive - very, very.
He might try to make jobs his centerpiece. He runs the risk that the economy will continue to recover, and he will have to present a credible plan that does not include “let’s tax hell out of corporations” and thus raise the cost of doing business in the US.
Can I use this as my sig? 
Regards,
Shodan
This is a unique endorsement. Hassan Nasrallah – the most quotable murderer with international legitimacy.
Vote Hezbollah, Vote Kerry!
Beagle, man, you’ve got to get a hold of yourself.
Hezbollah can have an entirely different reason for stating they want to depose the Bush people, reason number one being that perhaps America won’t go ape-shit and run rampant over another country that didn’t need to be invaded. Their endorsement might be Astro-Glide for the dittoheads, but what purpose does it really serve but to raise the tension within the United States?
Wouldn’t it make more sense for Hezbollah, knowing their own lack of a solid support base in America, to support the least competent, least effective, most reactive and pliable candidate so that they can maneuver the United States so that they can complete their mission of destroying Israel and America?
It would appear as if they have indeed endorsed their candidate.
Oh, hell. For the loss of a clause, I have made an incoherent inquisitive statement.
Please read that as:
Wouldn’t it make more sense for Hezbollah, knowing their own lack of a solid support base in America, to support the least competent, least effective, most reactive and pliable candidate so that they can maneuver the United States so that they can complete their mission of destroying Israel and America, and indirectly endorse that candidate by supporting his opponent?
Well, for one thing, they would never truly endorse any US candidate. Their motto is “Death to America.” Second, they never mentioned any candidate by name.
However, it is clear that Hezbollah sees Bush as a threat to their plans to destroy Israel and the United States. Kerry, maybe they can deal with. He’ll defend both sides of every issue with his usual confusing yet authoritative rhetoric.
The reality is that the “War on Terror” is code for “… a war on Islamists that have as their stated goal the destruction of the US.” The problem with this is that the media would shorten it to “(…)War on Islam…(…)” As a result the Democrats are having a field day attacking Bush over his confusing rhetoric and supposedly unnecessary war.
OTOH, the actual Islamists (millions) that believe this crap are suffering under no illusions: they hate us and will kill us (and whoever is around) at their first opportunity – so long as they can blow up someone young, or run away themselves.
Kerry will attack Bush using two main themes:
-the War in Iraq:He (Kerry) will talk about how he opposed it…this won’t play too well when we withdraw from Iraq in mid-summer. In addition, Saddam Hussein will be publicly questioned, and will admit that he DID, in fact, spend millions in developing poison gas,biological weapons, and (a failed) nuclear weapons program!
-Republicans and “Big Business”: he will attack Cheney’s ties to Halliburton, and whine endlessly about how the Republicans are owned by corrupt businessmen…this will sound a bit hollow after it comes out that Kerry took donations from ENRON!, for example!
After this, Kerry will burn out, and with the Democratic vote split by our old ditzey friend (Ralph Nader), Bush will win in a landslide!
Do you really think Hezbollah is all that afraid that the US is going to invade Israel, of all places?
I don’t think Beagle is the one who needs to get hold of himself.
And I think your endorsement logic is a teensy bit weak. Unless you are arguing that the Palestinian terrorists were really backing the US by expressing their support for Hitler and Saddam Hussein.
Who was it said “the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity”?
Regards,
Shodan
The US is not “withdrawing” from Iraq. We’ll still be there. The plan is to turn the reins of government over to the Iraqis in the summer. We’ll see how that goes, I suppose. (And I certainly hope it goes well. I don’t wish ill on Iraq. I’d rather beat Bush on domestic issues.)
In any event, your premise is wrong. The troops will still be there, and will still be targets.
I don’t know an awful lot about most of these issues… but I think it’s worth pointing out that the usual estimates make gay people about 10% of the population. That’s a sizable amount of votes to draw. He doesn’t even have to go all-out in favour of gay marriage. Provided he doesn’t actively oppose it he’ll win those votes instead of Bush.
And I suppose it’s worth adding that it’s not only gay people who are in favour of gay marriage.
If he were smart, these are the issues he’d be spending the most time on:
-
$7 trillion deficit. Bush has got no business calling himself a fiscal conservative with that number floating around. He can’t have it two ways – if he wants to wage war in two different countries, and spend large amounts on homeland security, and give new Medicare benefits, and keep Social Security the way it is, he can’t also chop taxes. He’s got to pick between guns and butter. Or cut spending in some place that ain’t going to be popular.
-
Intelligence failures. Why didn’t our intelligence agencies know what was going on before 9/11? What did they do wrong to let this happen? Who is being held responsible for these failures? Who has Bush fired? Why was the intelligence so off-the-mark on WMD in Iraq? Why weren’t hard questions asked of the CIA before WMDs were offered as the justifying reason for going into Iraq? Who has been fired for these failures?
-
The economy. Where is the recovery we were promised from the tax cuts? Why aren’t the jobs the administration predicted would be created materializing? What is the administration doing to mitigate the impact of job outsourcing to low-wage countries like Mexico, India and China?
He could win on that. And he could make W. sweat bullets in the debates asking those questions.
Here are the issues he ought to lay off of:
-
Vietnam. Lots of people respect his service, but couching every single issue as something that he sees through the lens of Vietnam is getting old. We all recognize that, compared to W., Kerry did the more courageous thing during Vietnam. But we were able to forgive Clinton what was much more duplicity that what W. did then, and elected him over two genuine war heroes.
-
The War. Don’t argue that you were mislead into voting for the war, and we should never have entered into it and wouldn’t have if the President hadn’t “lied.” We are in there now, and most people recognize that we need to stay in there until there is some stability in place. Just saying that the war is bad and Bush is a liar may please a constiuency that was going to vote for you already, but it isn’t going to convince people who may have voted for Bush that they should now switch to you.
-
Halliburton/Enron = Bush/Cheney. Most people just aren’t going to buy that Bush and Cheney have been spending their ample free time in the White House pulling the strings over at all of the companies in Texas that get embroiled in a scandal. And the whole “Bush & Cheney are running the country solely to enrich a handful of their rich fat-cat corporate friends” argument hasn’t been effective since at least the William Jennings Bryan days. Lots of potential voters work for large companies, and know that their management isn’t lighting cigars with $100 bills and playing polo with Dubya and Dick on the weekends.
An accurate assessment of the percentage of the population that would self-identify as “gay” still eludes us. Nonetheless, I think you would be hard pressed to substantiate 10%, thats awfully high. A good thought experiment might be this: we know that roughly 10% of America is Afro-American. Do you think there is one gay person for each Afro-American? I don’t claim any special expertise here, but that seems unlikely.
Whats most important to RoveCo is that the number of Americans who react very negatively to gayitude is quite high. Far, far too high, in my estimation, but thats neither here nor there. They do exist, they do vote and they are predominately Bushivik in thier orientation. This whole “marriage amendment” is the perfect bone to throw them, any action like this would be years in the realization, and ultimately would be of little impact, save symbolic. Imagine that: a Constitutional Amendment that accomplishes nothing more than defining a word: “marriage”.
In the long run, some reasonable accomodation will be made, but the term won’t be “marriage”. And this reasonable course should be the one that Kerry supports. For reasons of political tactics, he should stick to oppossing “Gay marriage” but allow for the possibility that different states and jurisdictions are at liberty to decide to permit “civil unions”.
I thought most estimates of the gay population were around 1 percent or so (won’t some of you fabulous Dopeboys please chime in?), which is still enough to tip an election. But the percentage of the population who recognize the importance of protection of equal rights and believe in fundamental fairness is doubtless much, much higher. To the (very-limited, I’m sure) extent that gay marriage will decide votes, I’d rather have that population on my side than the it-just-violates-natural-law contingent, even on strictly numerical grounds.
:rolleyes:
You either have psychic powers, or are pulling this out of your ass. Since I don’t believe in psychic powers, please stop posting with your rectum in the future.
…and then, three seconds later, when everyone looks at the figures and sees that Enron donated ten times more money to the Bush campaign than the Kerry campaign, his point is made.
And you’ll have the second orgasm of your life, I take it?