Volume 5

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

Well that's a different issue Drum. You may be right, of course. The problem is that I've yet to read any proof behind the allegations that Karl Rove has his hands in some of the more outrageous smear campaigns.

[chrisfan]

JesusLooksLikeMe said:

All of which makes grim reading. As for me, I wonder why the Democrats chose Kerry given his lack of charisma. And why does Kerry seem to have no simple theme or message? What does he stand for? Does he really think he can win a Presidency by saying "I served in Vietnam and I'm not George Bush"??

I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head here. There's no question that George W Bush is a polarizing figure. He is a man who is very strong in his convictions -- at times too strong in them -- and has little fear of telling voters exactly what those convictions are. When you agree with him, you love him for saying out loud what you'e thinking. When you disagree with him, you hate him for having such bad ideas, but at least you know (and I would venture to guess can respect) where he stands.

John Kerry on the other hand, does not appear to have ANY convictions. Even with his latest campaign mantra, "W stands for wrong", all that voters know about him is that he's not Bush. Given the number of people who don't like Bush, I think that during the primaries, many thought that "not Bush" was enough to get elected, and Kerry was the most "not Bush" of the choices. I think that's how he wound up the nominee. But I think two critical errors were made. The first is one that you've touched on in the past -- many of the key areas that the "anyone but Bush" crowd cares about are areas where Kerry is NOT all that different from Bush. As an example, he wouldn't change the US position on Kyoto. So while people are happy that he's not Bush, I think that they're starting to realize that they're not going to get the changes they want, even with Kerry.

Another thing that I think that many democrats were not thinking about in selecting Kerry was the number of people who may not agree with George W Bush on some issues, but they genuinely LIKE the guy. Not only do they like the guy, but they do agree with him on other things, and like the fact that they know where he stands. These are the people who didn't just like the George W Bush that stood on the rubble, or the George W Bush who was saying things like "Wanted dead or alive", they related to him. They can't relate to the George W Bush who fumbles through rose garden speeches on big policy issues. But they can relate to the straight talker, and that's who goes out on the campaign trail. I think that too many Democrats forgot during the primary that in November, it's not just the people who like Democrats who vote.

I think that John Kerry has been trying for too long to be all things to all people. The problem is that now, too much of that is being repeated to him, and it's leaving everyone nervous. The anti-war people are worried that he's really pro-war. The pro-security people are worried that he's really anti-defense/security. They may not like all of what they get with George W Bush, but at least they know what they're getting. For the people who agree with him on some areas, but are turned off by him on others, knowing what they're getting but not liking ALL of it could be far more attractive then not really knowing what they're getting.

[chrisfan]

Dr. said:

I don’t for a moment think Democrats are choirboys, JLLM, but I also don’t think the issue is negativity per se. All electoral campaigns issue both positive and negative statements in varying measure. The issue is whether these are informative or misleading. Quite obvious that the Republicans have been relying on the
latter.

I wish I had the control of Stratman so that I could just ignore this sort of stuff. Drum, when the democrats claim that George W Bush is poisoning pregnant women, when Bush provides every record anyone can get anymore to prove his national guard service and they still call him AWOL, the Democrats are engaging in misleading, or even lying negative attacks. Take a look at the recent attacks on Kerry. Yes, aspects of the swift boat ads have been called into question for their accuracy. But beyond that, the "defense" of the attacks has not been that they're not accurate or factual -- the "defense" has been of the age old "stop picking on me" kind. Given that it is such a weak defense, do you wonder at all they're not just refuting or explaining the charges?

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

Well, I'm agreeing with you for once Chrisfan (bring out the bunting!). You can't win an election just by not being the incumbent... unless the economy is SO appallingly bad that it seems like everyone is losing their jobs and homes.

Sure, you play it safe. You don't make mistakes. You don't get TOO specific. But what you DO need is a simple message or theme that people who don't like the incumbent can at least grab on to and coalesce around. Kerry hasn't found that. He's running a campaign that has none of the simple soundbites and ideas that characterised Clinton/Blair era left-wing campaigns. He's hopeless.

[Proud]

"We need to do something about these frivolous lawsuits that are running up the cost of your health care and running good docs out of business," Bush said. "We've got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."

and now a word from our sponsor!

"media! media! media's fault! bad media! media, stop bashing bush! bad media!"

[Galactus]

It does have some good points...but it has some narrow minded bullshit too. I'm probably going to get roasted on this but it's an honest question for the "we know where Bush stands" crowd. I asked before, what is the goal? A safer America. Yes, we've heard. This is where I get that BUsh is coming from..."We'll fight terror wherever, whenever". Interesting. To what end? Are we just going to stay in Iraq untill such time as terror is erraticated? That doesn't sound like a good plan. It sounds like something people would want to hear though...very "you'll have to pry it from my cold, dead hands" we Americans like that sort of thing. It doesn't, however, make it a good idea. So then Bush has even admited that saying we are "fighting evil" might have been poorly worded. Certainly those we are fighting are evil but we don't want to sound like we're going to put on some tights and yell things like "it's clubbering time".
Again, where does it end? Do we reassign the military until we're just rotating them all in and out of the middle east? "If we have to" I hear them say...
What is the goal? A safer America. Well, thanks Potsy but that isn't a goal it's either a reason or a cop out. We should, however, be well on our way to a safer America then right? There haven't been in terrorist attacks in America since then I'd say it's reasonable to expect their shouldn't have been. Any president worth his salt would've made sure of that.
So then we must be slowly but surely bringing Al quida down? Except they have more numbers now then on 9/11 and ever "top man" we bring down just gets replaced. We got Saddam but that wasn't the goal, we've discovered there are no WMD's but that wasn't the goal either....we don't have Bin Laden but no worries there because that isn't the goal either. We're liberating the Iraqis. Well, thank God. Surely then when the Iraqis are liberated then we'll have our safer America...hang on remind me how liberating the Iraqis makes us safer?
Anyone who thinks they know where BUsh stands on this is only fooling themselves. "He'll fight it"... hot damn, does he do any other tricks?

Also, does it strike anyone else as odd that Bush is campaigning on stuff he WILL do as opposed to continuing the programs and polocies he's put into place in his first four years? He is promising to give us the tax cut again and keep fighting terrorists...is that all he's done? Looks that way. It seems to me that a wartime president wouldn't spend more time on vacation then most presidents before him who were not at war...but as long as he stops on the 15th hole to repeat that we'll be tough on terror and you'll be getting some more money back this year America is truely a safer place.

[chrisfan]

Proud said:

"We need to do something about these frivolous lawsuits that are running up the cost of your health care and running good docs out of business," Bush said. "We've got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."

and now a word from our sponsor!

"media! media! media's fault! bad media! media, stop bashing bush! bad media!"

That has to be without question is funniest blunder ever. I would have LOVED to have seen the look on Karen Hughes' face as she heard that come out of his mouth!

[chrisfan]

DED said:

It does have some good points...but it has some narrow minded bullshit too. I'm probably going to get roasted on this but it's an honest question for the "we know where Bush stands" crowd. I asked before, what is the goal? A safer America. Yes, we've heard. This is where I get that BUsh is coming from..."We'll fight terror wherever, whenever". Interesting. To what end? Are we just going to stay in Iraq untill such time as terror is erraticated? That doesn't sound like a good plan. It sounds like something people would want to hear though...very "you'll have to pry it from my cold, dead hands" we Americans like that sort of thing. It doesn't, however, make it a good idea. So then Bush has even admited that saying we are "fighting evil" might have been poorly worded. Certainly those we are fighting are evil but we don't want to sound like we're going to put on some tights and yell things like "it's clubbering time".
Again, where does it end? Do we reassign the military until we're just rotating them all in and out of the middle east? "If we have to" I hear them say...
What is the goal? A safer America. Well, thanks Potsy but that isn't a goal it's either a reason or a cop out. We should, however, be well on our way to a safer America then right? There haven't been in terrorist attacks in America since then I'd say it's reasonable to expect their shouldn't have been. Any president worth his salt would've made sure of that.
So then we must be slowly but surely bringing Al quida down? Except they have more numbers now then on 9/11 and ever "top man" we bring down just gets replaced. We got Saddam but that wasn't the goal, we've discovered there are no WMD's but that wasn't the goal either....we don't have Bin Laden but no worries there because that isn't the goal either. We're liberating the Iraqis. Well, thank God. Surely then when the Iraqis are liberated then we'll have our safer America...hang on remind me how liberating the Iraqis makes us safer?
Anyone who thinks they know where BUsh stands on this is only fooling themselves. "He'll fight it"... hot damn, does he do any other tricks?

Also, does it strike anyone else as odd that Bush is campaigning on stuff he WILL do as opposed to continuing the programs and polocies he's put into place in his first four years? He is promising to give us the tax cut again and keep fighting terrorists...is that all he's done? Looks that way. It seems to me that a wartime president wouldn't spend more time on vacation then most presidents before him who were not at war...but as long as he stops on the 15th hole to repeat that we'll be tough on terror and you'll be getting some more money back this year America is truely a safer place.

Geez DED, you're jumping to a lot of places here. I'll probably miss some, so if I miss anything that is key in your opinion, let me know so I can go back there.

First, on the war on terror -- given the number of times that it's been discussed over and over around here, I think it's safe to say that we're never going to see eye to eye on it. That said, here's my attempt to answer your questions. What are we fighting? Terror. You answered that one. How long are we going to stay in Iraq? Until it's stable, and the new leaders are confident they don't need us anymore. Have you objected to the 60 + years we've been in Germany? Because we're just starting to talk about changing that. Same with Korea. We still have troops deployed in places that Clinton sent them. Does that concern you? Yes, I agree that we should not just send our troops out to various countries with no plan as to when we won't be there anymore. But more often than not, that goal is, and has to be, stability. Stability can take time. So why is it that with Iraq, we must have a specific date, and a goal more specific than stability? How are the people of Iraq being served if we set a date rather than the focus being stability?
I have to say that I'm a little baffled by your declaratoin that this is not a good idea/exit strategy. I'd be curious to hear your critique of our presence in Germany. And the answer to your "Do we keep rotating troops" question is not "if we have to". It is yes.

I've asked this before, but no one has ever answered. You say that the numbers of al qaeda members is up since 9/11. How exactly is that determined? Is there some sort of al qaeda census? Are all of the al qaeda members summoned to some central location once a year for a head count? Is it one of those mysteries, kind of like "Why doesn't the camera man filiming abuse put the camera down and stop the abuse" as to why if they're all gathering for a head count, we don't just drop a bomb on the head count?

You say that getting Sadaam wasn't the goal. However, regime change had been the policy of the US for 3 administrations. So where exactly are you coming from in saying that it wasn't a goal?

And I have to be honest ... the minute you start talking about vacation, I picture Michael MOore standing behind you, borrowing your keyboard. It's one of the biggest BS and petty criticisms there is of Bush. The secret service prefers that when he's traveling, he stay atthe White House, Camp David, or the Crawford ranch whenever possible, because those are the three most secure locations they have for him. It makes their job easier. His being there does not always equate to vacation. It equates to the secret service doing their job. But thanks for bringing that up, to give Drum another reminder of some of the other baseless rhetoric that is being brought up by the Democrats against Bush.

[chrisfan]

I just realized I forgot to answer to your last paragraph about Bush talking about what he'll do in a second term. He's doing that, because that's what a president running for re-election does. if the only reason a person has for running for re-election is to sit back and be proud of what he's done already, then he shouldn't be running. A leader accomplishes a goal, and then sets out toaccomplish another one.

[stratman19]

Dems: Kerry's Senate Record Off Limits, Too
David Limbaugh
Friday, Sept. 3, 2004


Democrats are afraid the people are going to find out about John Kerry's Senate record. That's the only way you can explain their incessant accusations that Republicans are being mean and angry when they merely discuss his record.

The idea that Democrats have been selling is that a factual airing of their default presidential candidate's record is dirty politics.
Story Continues Below



Following Sen. Zel Miller's convention speech, the cable shows were flooded with handwringing liberals beside themselves over the "meanness" of Miller's remarks. The newspapers followed with "news" stories and editorials registering the same complaint.
The Associated Press reported, "Republicans are satisfying their convention delegates with an angry vision of the presidential race and attacks on Democratic nominee John Kerry, but it won't play well with voters in the closing weeks of the campaign, Democrats said Thursday."

Sen. Edwards told "Today" show anchor Matt Lauer, "What we heard from the Republicans in that hall last night was an enormous amount of anger." Edwards called the GOP criticisms of John Kerry "completely over the top" and said they made him mad. Watch that anger there, Senator.

I don't deny that Zel Miller delivered his remarks with a healthy flavor of righteous indignation at a party that has left him and other conservative Democrats, a party whose presidential candidate is the most liberal senator in America with an abominable record on defense.

Senator Miller has a right to be upset. We're in the middle of a war, and his party has selected a man who has made a career of emasculating our intelligence services and our military readiness. We are not playing games here.

That's why I was incredulous when Chris Matthews asked Miller last night how his speech was going to further the goal of promoting harmony among the parties and the people (my crude paraphrase). These conventions are not about promoting national harmony, but the business of selecting candidates who can lead the nation in these exceedingly dangerous times.

But Chris Matthews' question reveals the liberal mindset. They act more interested in advancing the Rodney King credo: "Why can't we all just get along?" than in adopting proactive policies to safeguard our national security. That explains why John Kerry is always so preoccupied with currying the favor of French and German leaders.

But the dirty little secret is that Democrats just pay empty lip service to promoting harmony. They've been sniping at President Bush for four years now, and it has been petty, nasty, mean-spirited and, yes, angry.

Their real gambit was to keep the public's eye off John Kerry's Senate record. Their bizarre premise has been that Kerry's allegedly distinguished combat record alone qualifies him to be commander in chief -- no matter what he has done since.

Putting aside damning questions about Kerry's Vietnam service and his anti-war crusade thereafter, it is simply ridiculous to say that one's ostensible heroism of 35 years ago justifies a gag order on his record ever since.

Yet that's what Chris Matthews implied when he said, "The idea that (Kerry) is going to shoot spitballs in defense of a country that he risked his life to defend some years ago is a personal attack on the guy." Then he asked Sen. Miller: "Do you believe … Senator, truthfully, that John Kerry wants to defend the country with spitballs? Do you believe that?"

Of course he believes that, Chris, which is why he said it. And he cited Kerry's Senate record to prove it. And it is not a personal attack, unless you consider the accurate depiction of Kerry's anti-defense record a personal attack.

What are personal attacks are when Sen. Kerry, during his convention speech, said he will not mislead the nation into war and will restore trust to the office. And it's a personal attack for Matthews to suggest that Sen. Miller is lying -- saying something he doesn't believe to pander to the GOP audience. But he does believe it, Chris, or he wouldn't even be speaking at the GOP convention.

People should be very suspicious that Kerry put all his presidential eggs in his Vietnam basket, especially since that basket is so full of holes. We have a right to know what Sen. Kerry is hiding? I'm talking about his Senate career here. Why is he trying to cover it up?

Nothing could be more preposterous than for Democrats to cry foul when the Republicans are merely trying to publicize the truth about Sen. Kerry's voting record. If that's dirty politics, then Democrats must think Kerry's Senate record is shameful. And they're right.


COPYRIGHT 2004 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

* emphasis mine

[Dr. Drum]

Chrisfan said:

Drum, when the democrats claim that George W Bush is poisoning pregnant women, when Bush provides every record anyone can get anymore to prove his national guard service and they still call him AWOL, the Democrats are engaging in misleading, or even lying negative attacks. Take a look at the recent attacks on Kerry. Yes, aspects of the swift boat ads have been called into question for their accuracy. But beyond that, the "defense" of the attacks has not been that they're not accurate or factual -- the "defense" has been of the age old "stop picking on me" kind. Given that it is such a weak defense, do you wonder at all they're not just refuting or explaining the charges?

I don’t know what you’ve been reading, Chrisfan, but the refutations of the SBVfT that I’ve seen have been entirely based on the proposition that their accusations are false. C’mon, it’s nothing more than a transparent smear campaign.

Don’t propose kicking the Bush AWOL scenario around all afternoon but when MoveOn did an ad saying Bush went AWOL from the Texas ANG, Kerry denounced it. Bush pointedly refused to do the same with SBVfT. As for the “Politics of Poison” ads, what are you upset about, hyperbole? Cause there can’t be anything else – they’re factually accurate.

www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/040227.asp

[stratman19]

JesusLooksLikeMe said:

Hmmm, not sure what to say to this. I'm not exactly a radical left-winger these days. More centrist really. I do, however, get extermely alarmed at any prospect of church and state mixing too closely, and I was merely ASKING the question of whether this might happen in the US during a Bush second term (as the article I pasted seemed to be implying). Is that a problem?

No, JLLM, that's not a problem, and I apologize if I mistook the tone of your question. I read it as dripping with sarcasm, hence my desire not to answer. Also (and you touched on it) given the bias of the British press, and that being the sources of your information, I figured there was no point.

[chrisfan]

Dr. said:

I don’t know what you’ve been reading, Chrisfan, but the refutations of the SBVfT that I’ve seen have been entirely based on the proposition that their accusations are false. C’mon, it’s nothing more than a transparent smear campaign.

Don’t propose kicking the Bush AWOL scenario around all afternoon but when MoveOn did an ad saying Bush went AWOL from the Texas ANG, Kerry denounced it. Bush pointedly refused to do the same with SBVfT. As for the “Politics of Poison” ads, what are you upset about, hyperbole? Cause there can’t be anything else – they’re factually accurate.

www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/040227.asp

Drum, the facts are outthere. It makes no sense for me to discuss this with you if you're not willing to admit to the facts, which you appear to be completely unable to do without HUGE bias. You're blinded by it more than anyone else I've come across around here.

As I acknowledged today, and in long discussons on the matter, some aspects of the Swift Boat arguments against Kerry have been proven false. However, they have not all been proven false ... especially those that use sound bites FROM Kerry. When they talk about Kerry's words being used to torture them at the Hanoi Hilton, that's FACT. Additionally, many of Kerry's claims about his Vietnam service have been proven to be false. So I'll ask you the question I've asked before -- if we can't believe the swift boat guys because some of what they've said is false, then why can we belive Kerry?

On the AWOL scenario -- I'm not limiting this to MoveOn. Terry McAuliffe has made the claim. So has Howard Dean. So have others. sorry, but you can't limit your defense here, just because Kerry hasn't denounced many of the people who are adamantly supporting him. In addition, Bush did denouncet the swift boat guys. He just didn't do so reading from a script written by the Kerry camp. Please, I beg of you ... discover the facts.

[Galactus]

There it is again..."we're not bein' negetive 'cause we're just tellin' the truth" with God and the truth on your side how can you lose? I give up.

[chrisfan]

DED said:

There it is again..."we're not bein' negetive 'cause we're just tellin' the truth" with God and the truth on your side how can you lose? I give up.

I assume you're directing that at Drum?