This may not be right, but I’d rather start a new thread than post in a thread with such a negative title.
I disagree with you there. I think Kerry will win because of an energised and angry Democratic base, plus a long-time-coming awakening of the populace which will include millions of first-time voters and disaffected Republicans.
This drives me nuts. People say that it’s Kerry’s fault that he’s attacked on Vietnam because he keeps bringing it up, so apparantly, even though it is a handy reminder to people that he’s NOT a wimp, it doesn’t count. The man volunteered to go to Vietnam. The man volunteered to serve on a Swift Boat (a very very dangerous assignment). The man had the balls to get up and face the wrath of the country, the government and his fellow vets by testifying and protesting against the war to keep others from being killed, and killing.
The man started the ball rolling with Iran-Contra!
What about BCCI??
Most recently, he had the balls to go up against a very-well funded, Karl Rove-led, Bush administration. Anyone who thinks that doesn’t take balls should watch or read The Hunting of the President, or The Clinton Wars, or Republican Noise Machine or at the very least, Banana Republicans. Kerry would have been well aware of the mine field he was about to step into and chose to do it anyway because he cares about this country.
He is not a wimp.
Kerry’s campaign is not so much the problem as a docile, conservative media and a docile, ignorant public.
As a proponent of a stronger Europe, I hope you are wrong. Bush has done a fine job of squandering the American post-war advantage, which is largely psychological, consisting of goodwill abroad and a conviction of moral superiority at home. He has also done huge amounts of good in finally starting to bring Europeans out of a destructive and largely pointless sixty-year guilt-trip. Now we are the voice of reason, humanity and democracy - imagine that. People here have much more positive view of European unity and re-armament that before Bush took office. The long tide has finally turned.
Much has been made of Tony Blair’s appearant toadying to the Bush administration. I happen to think that Mr Blair knows exactly what he’s doing, and that he’s on the side of Europe. It’s common knowledge that Mr. Blair, an ambitious and intelligent man, has his eyes on the presidential post once his career as Prime Minister is over. It stands to reason that he prefers to preside over a continent with a say in the affairs of the world.
Ahhh… An excellent example of liberal arrogance; there’s absolutely nothing wrong with us, but everybody who don’t agree with us are docile and ignorant. Now if we could just get an example of the conspiracy theories that seem to be the heart of the liberal movement these years, something with oil, Halliburton or media, …oh umm… anyway I think a better thread title would have been “Is Kerry a wimp?” since that seem to be what you want to discuss.
Aegypt, irony often don’t comes across right on the internet. Sometimes a smilie can help you here, or a set of (irony)(/irony) tags.
With friends like you guys Kerry doesn’t need no stinking enemies.
Since I’m not Emperor of the Universe…no, of course not. It would be nice if more people would inform themselves before casting votes. Kerry is at a disadvantage in that he doesn’t do well in soundbites and can overcomplicate answers. Bush, on the other hand, is telegenic and for some weird reason people are charmed by his ridiculous Bushisms. I think if more people watched Kerry’s speeches on C-Span, they’d get a better sense of who the man is, but of course, very few people watch C-Span and will get their ideas about Kerry from soundbites and, often partisan, analysis. Most voters won’t go to Kerry’s web site to look at his stance on issues. Most voters won’t search the web to find all the information that discredits the Swift Boat Liars for Bush. The media is sure not going to tell them.
I think he’ll do well in the debates, but few people will watch them.
In this election, it will have to come down to Anybody But Bush, and then people will have to get to know Kerry as President.
In keeping with that, I’d like to suggest a new meme for the Kerry campaign. (bloggers take note):
I think George Bush is widely perceived as the “tough guy” in this race. He’s a straight-shootin’ cowboy who lets his fists do the talkin’. He shoots first and asks questions later. Arnold Schwarzeneggar is on his side. This perception often works in his favor, among people who figure we need a tough guy in charge to defend us against our enemies.
To diminish some of Bush’s “tough guy” advantage, the Kerry campaign should simply remind people that John Kerry is a way tougher guy than George Bush. He’s been fighting all his life. He fought in Vietnam. He fought when he came back from Vietnam. He fought in the Senate.
And while it wouldn’t be good to dwell on this point, it deserves mention that Kerry actually killed a guy. Not by signing a warrant for his execution, not by ordering an invasion of his country from the other side of the world. John Kerry pulled the trigger with his own hand and watched the enemy go down with his own eyes. His glory and his nightmares are both well-earned. Compared to him, George W. Bush is practically a big sissy.
John Kerry is not pressing his “war-hero” advantage too hard, he’s just pressing it in the wrong way. He needs to keep showing the pictures of himself in battle dress, but he needs to put them next to pictures of George Bush in his cheerleading uniform.
The sentiment you referenced is become more and more common on this board of late. I think it’s the begining of the rationalizaiton process in case Kerry does lose. You see, it couldn’t possibly be because the public prefers Bush. It couldn’t possibly be because Kerry ran a poor campaign, or Bush ran a good one. And maybe it’s not even because the public is “docile” (although this is a common enough thought)… it’s because “the media” is docile. That’s it. If Kerry loses it’s because of the damned conservatively biased media. What other explanation could the possibly be?
And some here talk about cognitive dissonance in the Bush-supporting crowd. The irony is killing me.
Here is a perfect example of one of the problems here. Bricker seems to quickly suggest (?) that we (liberals) are interested in re-designing the election system, such that only “enlightened, progressive, informed people may cast votes[.]”
Maybe the best solution would be to educate the public, correctly (you know, no lies), so that they may make enlightened, informed votes. (Note how I left
out “progressive”… it was a pointless, partisan addition to your statement; unless you think that only enlightened, informed people are progressive…?)
Ahhh… An excellent example of republican arrogance; there’s absolutely nothing wrong with us, but everybody who don’t agree with us are liberal.
The general public is ignorant, because they actually believe that Kerry doesn’t want our troops to have body armor.
Interesting you should say that, since that strikes me as being far closer to the Bush way of doing things than any liberal I’ve ever known or known of. After all, Bush has already reserved the right to detain people indefinitely without counsel or charge to himself, and has made it clear that anyone who doesn’t agree with him is unpatriotic (and probably pro-terrorist). And the Bushites seem far more interested in the private lives of individuals (particularly when it comes to their sexual habits) and controlling them than the liberals.
Seems to me like the idea of re-education camps would suit the *Bush * administration just fine.
LOL. I had to respond to this. That is a great idea. I doubt that the Kerry campaign would do something like that, but maybe some group like moveon.org could. I wonder if there’s any video of Bush chearleading. Still images could work but splitscreen video would be better. One side showing Kerry on his swift boat, the other showing Bush cheerleading. You could have audio discussing two different types of “leadership”.
It wasn’t a slam against liberals, just a sarcastic comment to a rather silly post by LS. Let’s look in more detail:
The poster claims that the public is educated “incorrectly”, and then makes a statement which is, at best, a distortion of the truth. Does the poster have a cite that the “general public” believes thatn “Kerry doesn’t want our troops to have body armor”? I’d like to see it. Do the Bush ads even say that? No, they simply say that Kerry voted against an appropriation bill, part of which was intended to supply (or re-supply) the troops with body armor.
Nothinng about Kerry “not wanting” the troops to have the body armor. Kerry offered his explanation* and it’s up to the people to decide who made a better case. The fact that Kerry hasn’t ripped hard enough into Bush for not getting the funding UP FRONT for body arm is Kerry’s fault.
There has been no lack of democratic supporting Op Ed pieces laying into Bush and his campaign ads’ spin on the truth. If LS wants newspapers to editorialize about this on the front page, then (s)he doesn’t understand what an objective press is supposed to do. And if LS thinks that Kerry doesn’t also play fast and loose with the truth, how about this gem from today’s paper:
Is he expecting us all to forget about the economy of the mid 70s? Does the term “stagflation” ring a bell?
*IIRC, it was because he was protesting the fact that the additional funding didn’t come from a repeal of the Bush tax cuts for “the rich”. Maybe that’s true. Or maybe he was also “protesting” the media attention Dean was getting at the time for his (Dean’s) staunchly anti-war stance. Kerry might have thought he was making a clever politcal move, but those clever moves sometimes backfire.
Liberal 527s need to take a cue from conservative 527s and get down in the muddy trenches with them. Pictures of Bush cheerleading are the perfect kind of tool to be exploited. FTR, yes I would prefer a clean campaign with discussion of issues, but that obviously ain’t gonna happen and most of us knew it. It’s September already. Gloves off.
The Kerry campaign could do a btter job of aggressively getting out this message: *Bush is *WEAK ** on Terrorism.
That would be a huge mistake. Bush is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as being the better candidate to deal with terrorism. It will be an uphilll battle to change that perception, and there just isn’t time. Maybe a few barbs about not catching ObL, but that’s it.
Better for Kerry to go after Bush, and go after him HARD, on Iraq. He’s starting to do that, but he needs to do much, much more. Pound in the message again and again how much this war cost in lives and $$ and what we’ve gotten out of it-- zip. Funny that he had to get Clinton, from his hospital bed, to tell him to do this when any 6th grader could have told him the same thing.
Go after Bush where he’s weak, not where he’s strong.
Iraq is one of the examples of why Bush is WEAK on Terrorism. The other is Afghanistan. Pound those double pistons to the ground until election day. Meanwhile, use SBV tactics to sissify Bush’s image (which shouldn’t be hard to do). I don’t want Kerry encouraging it, but as a liberal, I’m encouraging groups like MoveOn and TruthOut, even smaller groups, to come out swinging. The liberal wit unleashed could be a great asset. Let Kerry pound the Iraq/ Afghanistan/ WEAK on Terrorism point. That’s my opinion, anyway.
