|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Oct 13th, 2004 10:35 PM | ||
| Preechr |
Well, I honestly didn't expect Bush to engage the domestic policy debate as wholeheartedly as he did. With a little bit of Afghanistan, Iraq and Kerry's bad POV on the WOT right there at the beginning, he actually focused on the subjects at hand. Another draw. At least this one had a sufficient amount of data and statistics in it. Much less fluff, but still nobody grabbed a chair and used it on the other's head. I was really hoping for that. |
|
| Oct 13th, 2004 02:38 PM | ||
| Preechr |
I saw that... Andrew has been scouring the web looking for anything that might validate his new view that Bush won't win because he doesn't deserve to.... for backing the FMA. He gets all pissy when he's accused of withdrawing support based on that one thing, but I'm not buying. There's plenty of predictions out there that support either outcome, and I believe my view, of course, is the one that's right. Who wouldn't? Nobody formulates an opinion that they believe is wrong, do they? I don't technically have a dog in this fight, so I tend to believe my opinion is objective. No matter who wins, my point of view as to the direction this country should be headed will be ignored, so I suppose I'll be counted among the losers when the election is finally decided by the courts in January or so. Maybe the legal battle will render all this dissection of voter intentions so much wasted time. |
|
| Oct 13th, 2004 02:25 PM | ||
| Brandon |
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/cry...=LJS2004101201 "We continue to believe that President Bush absolutely, positively MUST have at least a 51 percent approval rating in the nation as a whole to be reelected. Second, given our surmise that the undecideds/leaners will break somewhat more heavily for Kerry, we think Bush needs to have built a lead of at least several points overall to win narrowly. In other words, a polling tie probably results in Kerry's election." "Another reason for concern in the Bush ranks ought to be the likelihood of an enormous turnout (by American standards)--somewhere between 55 and 60 percent of eligible adults. The Crystal Ball suspects that the larger the turnout, the more likely there will be at least a slight Democratic tilt to the additional increment of participants. In our travels this election season, we've seen both anecdotal evidence and some statistical proof in the party identification of new registrants that supports our suspicion. We are tempted to argue that Bush actually needed his full 5 to 6 percent September lead to insure a narrow victory." |
|
| Oct 13th, 2004 02:14 PM | ||
| Preechr |
Quote:
Additionally, to say Kerry's winning them over ignores a few facts... the first of these being that they aren't making decisions based on issues but on impressions. Yes, Kerry has made his issue positions clearer than has Bush during the debates, but that only affects those that already know what the issues are and those folks are not undecided voters. Second and Third, while so-called "independents" generally do not vote Republican, "undecideds" are moderate centrists and those folk generally vote for incumbents in times of war. Kerry has allowed the debate to continue to be centered on how he would be a suitable replacement for Bush as the leader in the War on Terror. This is exactly where he shouldn't be standing. While this tack might shore up his queasy base, making their partisan support feel more reasoned, it puts him in a defensive position where Bush can easily attack him from all angles. Kerry has recently become more coherent in his attacks on Bush's war handling, trying to take the offensive, but whatever ground he gained he has since lost. There's a reason Bush is already signaling tonight's debate will once again focus on Iraq, despite the advertised agenda. It's Bush territory and he knows it. Kerry will want to focus on domestic issues, as he feels stronger there. He won't be able to if Bush presses him on foreign policy, as I suspect he will. Bush can take Kerry's dumbass "nuisance" gaffe and apply a straw man methodology to Kerry's entire world-view that Kerry will have to spend 90 minutes defending, leaving little or no time left for offensive maneuvering. I honestly did not believe that Bush would be allowed to make all 4 debates Iraq-centric, but it doesn't look like anyone's stopping him. So far the debates haven't favored either side conclusively, so tonight is a winner-take-all event as far as the debates go. Kerry will have to do more than just successfully defend himself to sufficiently impress anyone who's not already made up their minds. He's going to have to parry Bush's attacks... which were given to Bush by Kerry himself... and attack Bush a helluva lot more effectively than he's been able to pull off at any point in the last year. If Kerry wins tonight by this criteria, we will all be sitting here tomorrow saying "Wow!" It will have been probably the greatest political performance in American History. I'm not holding my breath. I'm betting Kerry's team would rather just skip this last debate at this point. Team Bush© on the other hand, is probably chomping at the bit. Dubya's all fired up and ready to crow about Afghanistan and squawk about Kerry's 9/10/1 mindset. Dubya-GOOD, Kerry-BAD. Kerry hasn't shown an ability to manufacture rebuttal on the fly, so he'll counter nearly all of the attacks with random lame-ass canned stump speech excerpts... Yes, I've got a negative attitude. Kerry sucks at this. |
|
| Oct 13th, 2004 12:42 PM | ||
| Preechr |
How Kerry can win By Robert Kuttner | October 13, 2004 JOHN KERRY gained ground in the first two debates to the extent that he was tough and clear. He is credible as a tough leader on terrorism not based on how many times he uses the words "kill terrorists" but based on how tough he is in standing up for what he believes. To the extent that he evades difficult questions, Kerry looks weaker across the board. Just being resolute wins voter respect, even from those who may disagree with him on the issues. One thing the conservatives have done brilliantly is to make progressive Democrats feel embarrassed about their own first principles. The federal government has been turned into the enemy (except when George W. Bush wants to promote fantastical expeditions by the armed forces at the direction of the Defense Department, a branch of the government that is somehow seen as uniquely competent). For instance, when Bush claimed in the St. Louis debate that Kerry wanted a "government program" for health insurance, I was waiting for Senator Kerry to respond, "Mr. Bush, 40 million seniors have secure health coverage -- the only health plan where you can still freely chose your own doctor and hospital, the only one where they don't discriminate against people with histories of serious illnesses. It's called Medicare. In case you forgot, Medicare is a government program. Are you against that? "We Democrats enacted it because the private sector didn't want to insure seniors. The Republicans didn't give us much help. And you, Mr. Bush, get your insurance through a government program, as do I and every other member of Congress. I want every American to have insurance coverage as secure as the government coverage we get. Anything wrong with that?" When Bush called Kerry "a liberal," Kerry recoiled as if Bush had called him a dirty word and declared that the president was trying to scare voters by "throwing labels around." I'd like to hear Kerry say: "Let me tell you about my kind of liberal. It's a leader who keeps America militarily and economically strong while winning the world's respect -- the legacy of FDR, Harry Truman, and JFK. It's a leader who opens up opportunity and provides security through great liberal programs like Social Security, Medicare, and college aid. It's leadership like Bill Clinton's, to clean up Republican fiscal messes and to provide 20 million new jobs. It's leadership like Martin Luther King's, fighting for civil rights. That's a label I don't run from. I wear it proudly." I'd like Kerry to tackle the issue of abortion and the courts more steadfastly. "Mr. President, based on the far-right lower-court judges you've appointed so far, you and I both know that you will appoint judges likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. I want the fewest possible abortions, but I defend a woman's right to choose. I'm not sure that you do." On the issue of the Catholic hierarchy's meddling in politics, John Kennedy faced that head on. Kerry needs to declare that as an observant Catholic, he would never support the efforts of his church or any church to dictate public policy on stem cell research, birth control, abortion, or anything else. He needs to remind viewers how Bush plays footsie with the theocratic right. The founders wisely kept religion out of government so that faith could flourish as a matter of individual conscience. Bush is fighting radical Islam but seems to want to move the United States towards a theocracy. Kerry should also introduce the issue of voter-suppression --the blatant efforts of Republican operatives to intimidate black voters and hold down voter registration of other citizens inclined to vote Democratic: "Mr. President, people bled and died for the right to vote, from 1776 in Lexington to 1963 in Selma, Alabama. I have no intention of letting your operatives take away people's right to vote, the most fundamental democratic right, and I call on you to shut down these disgraceful ballot suppression operations. We can't export democracy to Iraq if we undermine it at home." He will win far more undecided voters by sounding tough, resolute, and consistent than by waffling in the hope of peeling off the odd antiabortion voter as well as prochoice ones and the government-bashers as well as people who value Medicare. Voters will respect him for sticking to principle. Sometimes politicians do the right thing as a last resort. I bet Al Gore wishes he had been as tough and consistent in 2000 as he has been since 2002. He'd be president. As in the Iowa caucuses that effectively won him the Democratic nomination, John Kerry is at last winning by running as if he had nothing to lose. More, please. Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect. His column appears regularly in the Globe. |
|
| Oct 12th, 2004 09:43 PM | ||
| Preechr |
The faggotry is on the way. It cannot be stopped. Think of it this way, bad things only get worse with time. We've done nothing to fix anything having to do with courts deciding elections in 4 years. Ergo, the faggotry of 2004 is gonna make 2000 look straighter than a hunting dog painted camo. You forget that Americans don't actually fix problems. We add fuel to whatever fire happens to be burning and whatever happens we act like it was good. If you survive the next month, wait'll you see what we do for 2006. We're gonna get our politicians, the ones that made the problem so ridiculously stupid to begin with, to fix the problem. That's gonna be really fun to watch... |
|
| Oct 12th, 2004 07:44 PM | ||
| AChimp | I think that Kerry stands a very good chance of winning this election. Of coures, it will have to be by a convincing margin in order to avoid the recount faggotry of 2000. | |
| Oct 12th, 2004 07:33 PM | ||
| Brandon |
Quote:
Look at this way: who made more of an impact on the undecideds in the debates? Kerry. |
|
| Oct 12th, 2004 03:58 PM | ||
| Preechr | One of the plants in my office agrees with you, but other than that, yes. | |
| Oct 12th, 2004 02:15 PM | ||
| Brandon | Am I the only one who thinks that a Kerry win is the likeliest scenario at this point, barring any last minute surprises by Rove and his underworld minions? | |
| Oct 12th, 2004 10:56 AM | ||
| mburbank |
Good post. I think, even as he is right now, (and I agree it's awful) he could win the election. I have much larger doubts about his ability to win the post election litigation, which I think is not certain, but likely. A brutal legal race to the Supreme court is something Republican discipline is far more capable of then Democratic... lack of discipline. I think Kerry is scuh a bad campaigner for a good reason and a bad reason. The bad reason? This is who he is. Not a flip-flopper, but someone who is constitutionally unable to give a simple answer. He's like scientists I know who can NOT say that something is proved, or given, even for the sake of argument, if there is even a statistical possability some assumption is wrong (and since the finl instrument of measure is the human brain, there is always a statistical possability) And the truth is, all the issue that face us now are INCREDABLY difficult. But kerry's problem is that with a figurative gun to his head, he still can't boil anything down. The Republican spin is that this paralyzes him, but I think that's wrong. Like the scientists I talked about, this hedging is a form of discipline personal truth, and in now way stops them from doing good science. The fact that nothing can be absolutely known doesn't mean you don't know how and when to move forward with the best information you have. Command and Debate are too entirely different things. What it does mean is he's a handicapped campaigner. What's good about that? In this respect he's true to himself, and I'm sure he knows it could (probably will) cost him the election. He gets handled, for sure, he spins, for sure, be he won't, maybe can't pretend he can tell you anything meaningful about Iraq or Health care or the economy that would fit on a bumpersticker. I'm dissapointed in Kerry. He is not (at this stage in his life) the man I would pick to be president. But the main thing he has going for him is he isn't W, and no ne can take that away from him. I also think (thank God) he'd be a far better president than he is a campaigner. And I've had, four years of seeing how much worse a President than a campaigner W is. And I don't think highly of him as a campaigner. |
|
| Oct 12th, 2004 08:50 AM | ||
| Preechr | Kerry could! He should, as well, if he's wanting to win. Technically, we invaded Saddam's Iraq, then toppled Saddam, liberating it. Then, we left so we wouldn't appear to be occupying the country as if we were going to make it a new Puerto Rico. | |
| Oct 12th, 2004 08:46 AM | ||
| Zhukov |
First of all, well done. I thought it was real. But: Quote:
|
|
| Oct 12th, 2004 08:34 AM | ||
| Preechr |
Sorry! 
|
|
| Oct 12th, 2004 12:29 AM | ||
| Emu |
Now I feel stupid. 
|
|
| Oct 11th, 2004 11:41 PM | ||
| Preechr |
Maybe I should have indicated that I wrote that. What he needs to say is so simple some bored idiot from Georgia can hack it out in like ten minutes. That's what puzzles me so much about his awful, awful campaign. Bush should be anyone's whipping boy that cares to pick up a stick, yet somehow he's going to walk away with this election. Funny how the third-parties are suddenly intentionally invisible, too. If I was a conspiracy nut, I'd be all over this crap. I'm starting to wonder if Kerry himself isn't a Rove plant! The point of this thread was to get y'all to post what you felt would need to be done or said to win the election for Kerry. I'm willing to bet we could collectively come up with ten different strategies that could beat Bush that won't be used by Kerry's highly paid, professional campaign planners and speechwriters. Oh... BTW, I pretty much agree with OAO that the Halliburton crap just ain't gonna stick. File it away with the Swift Boat Vets and moveon. The American public just isn't going to buy it, and with all the hyperbole, I don't blame them. |
|
| Oct 11th, 2004 08:06 PM | ||
| Emu | If only he could speak that way during the debates. | |
| Oct 11th, 2004 07:56 PM | ||
| Preechr |
How Kerry could win "You know, I hesitate to say this for fear that the president and his campaign team will twist my words to their favor, but I feel that's it's improtant that the American people understand just how much contrast there is between my plan for the War on Terror and his. Obviously, as I have said many times over in the last few months, his has proven to be a failure. I have been accused of being less than clear about my own plan, and I accept that criticism as fair. I'm here today to state unequivically for the campaign record just how wrong the president is when he claims that my plan is 'just like his.'" "The president has prosecuted this war so far based in the mistaken belief that we can and therefore should punish the so-called 'state-sponsors' of terror groups. His theory holds that with the threat of overwhelming force we can coerce certain leaders to crack down on terrorists operating within their borders or, as in some cases, stop them from actually funding terrorist activities overtly. To a degree, he has a point, though his theory is fundamentally flawed." "In the 1980's, I served in the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations. Our group was charged with finding and eliminating the illicit methods Latin American drug cartels were using to launder their money in certain international banks. Though were we weren't investigating Middle-Eastern terrorists at the time, I learned a few things about how operations such as Osama Bin Laden's attack of September 11, 2001 are funded and planned. The methods we developed back then were adopted as fundamental parts of the Patriot Act and are used to chase terrorist money funnelled through the same channels today." "Where I come from, bragging is not considered civilized behavior. I do the things I feel are important, rather than spend time tooting my own horn about past accomplishments. When the president accuses me of being unwilling to discuss what he derisively calls my 20 year liberal record in the Senate, I'd ask you to remember that I was fighting to protect my country from international threats back when he was still managing a baseball team in Texas." "My view of how terrorists operate and how we can best defeat them is better informed than the president's theory that simply threatening and posturing to so-called state-sponsors will somehow make the terrorists go away. He says I prefer a law-enforcement approach. At the risk of sounding politically incorrect, I'll explain why that's the only approach with any hope of victory in the War on Terror." "Terrorist groups like Al Qaeda impose themselves on weak regimes such as that of the Taliban in Afghanistan. They operate like bullies, common street thugs, just as we are now witnessing first hand in Iraq. They operate outside the law, and law-enforcement is exactly what they need. The president has called the War on Terror a 'clash of civilizations.' I say that's giving terrorists far too much credit. Those that kidnap aid workers and force tearful pleas for mercy from them before sawing their heads off are not what I'd call civilized. Terrorists are the enemies of civilization." "My fellow Americans, this is a clash between civilization and the forces of chaos. Terrorists do not function because of state sponsorship. They operate in spite of the existence of states and nations, despite the rule of law. Their goal is to destroy governments, not to be sponsored by them. Our experiences in Iraq have shown us that terrorists, like vermin, hide when our troops show up to invade a country. We attacked and deposed Saddam Hussein, but that did nothing to hurt Al Qaeda." "President Bush is too heavily invested in his flawed theories to understand this. These are the same flawed theories that brought more chaos and thus Al Qaeda and terror to Iraq. We need to be asking ourselves honestly what the president's plan is after Iraq. Which country are we going to attack and destabilize next? Part of regime change is inevitably a weakening of the government structure of any country, and Iraq is proof that weakness attracts terrorism and terrorists. Which country are we planning to spread terrorism to next?" "Contrary to the president's claims, very few of the fighters captured in Iraq are foreigners. The terrorists we are capturing in Iraq are mostly Iraqi people, driven to insurgency by the president's inability or refusal to make the necessary plans for peace after Saddam Hussein was deposed. He thought all we had to do was attack the country and everything else would magically fall into place." "Instead of falling into place, the situation in Iraq has fallen deeper into chaos, which is the ideal breeding ground for terrorists. By removing what little civilization was left in Iraq after 12 years of brutal sanctions, the president strengthened the power of terror by inflicting it on the Iraqi people. They have hope to be better off than they were before, nut there's still a lot of hard work to do. I supported the removal of Saddam Hussein. He was a terrible man. I also support the War on Terror. The single greatest threat to civilization in this new century is the chaotic threat of terrorists with Weapons of Mass Destruction capable of leveling entire cities in any country they choose." "I do not, however, support the decision the president made to rush to war in Iraq without thinking it through, without taking the time to make sure it was done right. The people of Iraq deserved more than hope and luck, and we should have given them more. The fathers and mothers of the American soldiers that have fallen in Iraq deserved to know their sons and daughters were dying as a last resort, not because their Commander in Chief felt that taking out Saddam Hussein might show terrorists how powerful America is. We know now that Al Qaeda had virtually nothing to do with Saddam's regime. What effect has the removal of Saddam had on Al Qaeda? We opened up a new front for them in Iraq, one much closer to home for them, and many people have suffered for it." "There is still hope that we can leave Iraq much better than we found it. No matter what, I am determined that America can help bring peace and democracy to the people of that nation, and I am committed that we should do whatever is required to see that happens as quickly as possible. The president has recently started to institute the kinds of plans that people like me were asking for back when he was asking us to give him a blank check for $87 Billion. Now that the presidential election of 2004 is almost here, over a year later, security and quality of life are becoming areas of greater focus in Iraq, and I'm just glad these efforts are finally getting made. When the invasion of Iraq was still being planned, make no mistake, there were people like me asking to be heard, people that wanted to make sure a plan for the peace was in place. We were shut out of those meetings, and Iraq has suffered for it. Now that the president's performance review is up, he's finally making some efforts to bring peace to Iraq. Too little, too late." "When the administration announced it's new plan for a safer, more secure Iraq last week, they said the announcement was due in part to pressure from my campaign. I ask you, if my positions on the War on Terror can influence White House policies in such a positive way before I'm even elected president, how much safer will we all be when the Kerry Administration is guiding America's foreign policy?" "I know that when you all go to vote in a few weeks that the main worry on your minds will be the safety and security of our Homeland. I want you to remember that I, like most people in Washington including the president, understand that a successful War on Terror is the key to that goal, and that I will not falter in pursing victory. I want you to remember that while the president is offering four more years of the same flawed theories, I am offering a better plan, based in the understanding that to win the War on Terror, we must go in knowing that we are fighting a war of civilization against chaos itself. We will not achieve victory by pursuing Mr. Bush's misguided plan of attacking random nations, risking lives, wasting Billions of dollars and destroying age-old alliances while making the world a more dangerous place. We must aggressively engage the terrorists themselves and destroy them. If we are to spread freedom, then that can only be done by example, not at the threat of violence. America is not free because some other country forced us to be." "Despite all odds, and no matter the costs, Afghanistan and Iraq will stand as tributes to freedom and prosperity for all of the people of the Middle East to see. We will finish what we began. Freedom is indeed a temptation to those that are denied it by their governments, and if we can succeed in those two countries they will stand as beacons to oppressed people everywhere; monuments to what the world can accomplish when we all unite for the greater good. It is light and order that will defeat chaos and win the War on Terror. The prospect of four more years of misguided attacks and diplomatic failures threatens to dim that light and disorder the world further, strengthening chaos and endangering our success in this war." "If we must risk our sons and daughters and the lives of countless oppressed people all over the world that might fall in the path of our military forces, then I believe we should take great pains to make sure no life is taken unnecessarily. That is our most basic duty as the stewards of civilization, and my committment to this ideal is what will see us to victory in the War on Terror and to success in Iraq and Afghanistan." "When the president says my plan and his plan are basically the same thing, please don't let him fool you. Mine is a plan for victory, strenghtened by the many years I have fought to protect this country, both as a soldier and a Senator, and when asked, the president has admitted that he doesn't think he can win the War on Terror. He doesn't think it's the kind of war that can be won. I disagree, and that's why I'm asking for your permission to lead this country back on to the path to success, victory and freedom for all." |
|
