Should Kerry be Torecellied?

[Guest MikeSC]

At least Bush didn't call a S.S. agent a naughty name when he stumbled on that goofy contraption...

I imagine Bush spouting profanity sounds manly, while Kerry swearing resembles a Mormon cursing for the very first time.

-=Mike

[Guest Crazy Dan]

Just my two cents on this issue. I don't think Kerry should be replaced. I still think that he has the best chance to beat Bush in the November elections. No other Democrats would have a better chance of unseating Bush, than Kerry at this point. I would be more concerned if Bush had a 70-30 lead, then that would be time to panic, but the polls are fairly close. Some show Kerry leading, some show Bush leading, but it is never by a huge margin either way.

 

So I do see another close election this year. Bush should not take Kerry lightly, becuase for all the money he has spent attacking Kerry the last few months, it hasn't damaged him as much as it could have been hoped for. And the one thing that will keep this thing close is Iraq. Now if the post Saddam era was going like it was supposed to, where we would be greated as liberators and stuff like that, well Bush would have this in the bag. But it hasn't. When we keep hearing of more soldiers being killed, that does sway opinion. When I see Iraqis cheer dead soldiers being dragged through the street, and where it appears that maybe this might not have been throughly thought out (which should be a lesson to all future presidents, Democrat and Republican, when four/five star Generals have reservations about invading a country that they have experience fighting in, you might want to take their advice a little more serious, but that is a whole different issue). So I see that Bush will lose votes in that regards, especially if Iraq does not improve, which I hope it does for the sake of our men fighting over there.

 

A recovering economy will help Bush of course, but if many people still can't find work, guess who is losing those votes. And another thing that could hurt Bush, which I hope does not happen, but another terrorist attack on US soil, will hurt Bush badly, maybe enough to cost him the election.

 

So I see this being very similiar to 2000 (hopefully people in Florida have taken a course on how to properly vote for the candidate they want so that is not an issue) with Kerry winning the Northern Atlantic States, sans New Hampshire, and with him taking California as well. And maybe states like Oregon and I do see Kerry maybe winning Ohio. Depending on who Kerry picks as his VP could also help him pull in a few more states, especially if he chooses a Southerner running mate. I see Bush winning most of the Southern States, and a good chunk of the midwest. So this is will be another close election. Becuase half the people love Bush, and the other half hate him. But one key to winning this election, which has not been brought up, but I feel is very important will be the three debates that the candidates will have.

 

For Kerry to have any chance of swaying votes to his side, he needs to win the debates. He must not do what Al Gore did, which cost him dearly, as he ended up agreeing with everything Bush would say, and then when Bush was claming up, Gore ended up looking like a frustrated candidate who couldn't get Bush to really debate any issues without comming off as a complete jerk. Kerry needs to be able to present his side, and be able to retort anything Bush says. But, I hope he does not get visiably frustrated, as Gore did. Kerry I think is a better debator of the two, and so hopefully he comes up with a strategy that makes him look like he is a good choice, and not the bully Al Gore came off looking like.

 

That being said, Bush will probably win, barely, at this point. Not that I will be happy about it by no means, but sometimes you don't get what you really want. I am begininning to understand what Republicans must have felt when Clinton was in office for 8 years. If that is the case, so be it. But if that does happen, at least John Edwards has a chance to make a serious run in 2008, and he is the Democratic candidate that I actually ended up liking the best. But until then, let the mud slinging begin. And no I don't want Hillary as the Democratic choice.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I would just like to add to this conversation that I was just completely hit by a car today on my ride to work.

 

I was at a crosswalk, about to cross when some guy peeled out and was looking left when turning right. My front half of the bike is fubar. I'm fine but still. Man.

 

MY BIKE :(

That sucks.

 

Did you get his plate number/did he stop?...

[EricMM 0]

Yeah I got all his shit. I'm gettin a new bike off him, rest assured.

[Vyce 0]

Yeah I got all his shit. I'm gettin a new bike off him, rest assured.

One word: upgrade.

 

Get a better, more $$$ bike off this schmuck.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I met EricMM for the first time yesterday...

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I was thinking of making an AoO joke, but I left the honor to you (Was going to say "Anyone see AoO today?")

 

So, Eric, did he just drive away or did he stop? And if he drove away, are there any witnesses?...

[Guest MikeSC]

Just my two cents on this issue.  I don't think Kerry should be replaced.  I still think that he has the best chance to beat Bush in the November elections.  No other Democrats would have a better chance of unseating Bush, than Kerry at this point.  I would be more concerned if Bush had a 70-30 lead, then that would be time to panic, but the polls are fairly close.  Some show Kerry leading, some show Bush leading, but it is never by a huge margin either way. 

True --- but Bush has had ALL of the Dems trash him for basically a year straight --- and Kerry doesn't have a lead? Heck, Kerry hasn't even FACED a serious attack yet.

A recovering economy will help Bush of course, but if many people still can't find work, guess who is losing those votes.  And another thing that could hurt Bush, which I hope does not happen, but another terrorist attack on US soil, will hurt Bush badly, maybe enough to cost him the election. 

Consider the economy like a truck. When it's basically stopped, it takes a while for it to get moving. When it gets going, it only gains momentum.

So I see this being very similiar to 2000 (hopefully people in Florida have taken a course on how to properly vote for the candidate they want so that is not an issue) with Kerry winning the Northern Atlantic States, sans New Hampshire, and with him taking California as well.  And maybe states like Oregon and I do see Kerry maybe winning Ohio.  Depending on who Kerry picks as his VP could also help him pull in a few more states, especially if he chooses a Southerner running mate.  I see Bush winning most of the Southern States, and a good chunk of the midwest.  So this is will be another close election.  Becuase half the people love Bush, and the other half hate him.  But one key to winning this election, which has not been brought up, but I feel is very important will be the three debates that the candidates will have. 

The problem a lot of Dems have, though, is that they DON'T support Kerry --- they just hate Bush.

 

And as Dole showed in 1996, that doesn't work.

That being said, Bush will probably win, barely, at this point.  Not that I will be happy about it by no means, but sometimes you don't get what you really want.  I am begininning to understand what Republicans must have felt when Clinton was in office for 8 years.  If that is the case, so be it.  But if that does happen, at least John Edwards has a chance to make a serious run in 2008, and he is the Democratic candidate that I actually ended up liking the best.  But until then, let the mud slinging begin. And no I don't want Hillary as the Democratic choice.

I don't think Edwards will even be on the national stage in 2008. Odds of him being in Congress aren't exactly strong. And if the Dems have any brains, Hillary won't even be given consideration.

-=Mike

[EricMM 0]

Damn, all this time AoO was an 80 year old man teaching at a Christian School in Greenbelt, MD.

 

Does your treason know no bounds?

 

Oh he pulled over, and the cops pulled over (two vehicles mean an accident in MD) so I'll be getting in touch with him soon. This is my birthday weekend however, so I'm really really busy. I assume there's no statue of limitations on the reparations for this...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Oh my god, Mike is so blind when it comes to Bush.. *cries*

 

Okay, maybe you've had your TV off the past two months, so go to georgewbush.com and you'll see them there. That stupid ad about the gas taxes being raised 50 cents (not true, he voted to raise gas taxes by a smaller amount many times it popped up, and they simply added them together) and that recent one with all the military weaponry, which accuses him of voting down stuff when at the time even Cheney wasn't approving of most of those either.

 

And they've been running this for 7 weeks or so all over the place. They even show up here in Cali where it's already a foregone conclusion Kerry will win because Bush has such a huge war chest.

[Guest MikeSC]

Oh my god, Mike is so blind when it comes to Bush.. *cries*

 

Okay, maybe you've had your TV off the past two months, so go to georgewbush.com and you'll see them there. That stupid ad about the gas taxes being raised 50 cents (not true, he voted to raise gas taxes by a smaller amount many times it popped up, and they simply added them together) and that recent one with all the military weaponry, which accuses him of voting down stuff when at the time even Cheney wasn't approving of most of those either.

 

And they've been running this for 7 weeks or so all over the place. They even show up here in Cali where it's already a foregone conclusion Kerry will win because Bush has such a huge war chest.

Jobber, if this is your idea of attacks, you are painfully naive.

 

And what Cheney supported is immaterial. Cheney isn't the President and has no need to defend himself.

-=Mike

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Damn, all this time AoO was an 80 year old man teaching at a Christian School in Greenbelt, MD.

 

That's me, alright.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And what Cheney supported is immaterial. Cheney isn't the President and has no need to defend himself.

-=Mike

But they're accusing him of having crippled the war on terror because of past actions.

 

And if that's the case, then so did Cheney.

[MrRant 0]

I keep thinking Tortellini pasta when I go past this thread...

 

[Guest MikeSC]

And what Cheney supported is immaterial. Cheney isn't the President and has no need to defend himself.

                                -=Mike

But they're accusing him of having crippled the war on terror because of past actions.

 

And if that's the case, then so did Cheney.

Cheney isn't running for President.

 

Kerry is.

 

There is a tiny difference there.

 

It'd be like me griping about how much of a flipping idiot Maxine Waters is.

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

That stupid ad about the gas taxes being raised 50 cents (not true, he voted to raise gas taxes by a smaller amount many times it popped up, and they simply added them together) and that recent one with all the military weaponry, which accuses him of voting down stuff when at the time even Cheney wasn't approving of most of those either.

See, I have to laugh at the first response because the charge is still true; he has raised taxes on gas by 50 cents. Even if it adds up over time, it's still true.

 

You have a better argument for the second one, but even then he still voted against what passed the Senate (The vote was 87-12, I believe, too; pretty bi-partisan, eh?), even though he supported a failed version that would have repealed the tax cuts. It's all his fault; he voted against it trying to get his name out as someone who would fight against Bush, but he did it on a pretty bi-partisan bill and one that, well, was pretty vital to our troops. It's basically a publicity stunt that bit him right in the ass and he deserves.

 

And technically, Mike is right one Cheney: What the VP does really doesn't mean shit if it isn't the President. Unlike all the political junkies on this board, your average voter doesn't vote for a ticket because of the VP, comparing Kerry to Cheney is pretty invalid when it comes to relevance.

 

You act like this is the "Tank Ride" ad from Dukakis, dude, when it's just Kerry's record coming back to kill him. This is why we haven't had a Senator win since JFK: Senators compromise on everything, which makes them look very weak on just about every issue. If you want to be President, you go through the route where you can stand true to your beliefs, like the Executive. At least, that's what I've learned from my professors.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

See, I have to laugh at the first response because the charge is still true; he has raised taxes on gas by 50 cents. Even if it adds up over time, it's still true.

Did they all pass? The charge was that he would raise gas 50 cents if given the chance, when he's simply voted yes to raise it 4 and a half cents on the eleven different occasions it's been brought up. For all we know, he might just want to raise it eighteen cents. He could just want to raise it nine cents. Or maybe he actually just wants to raise it four and a half cents.

 

And technically, Mike is right one Cheney: What the VP does really doesn't mean shit if it isn't the President.

Well, the hidden message is that he's somehow unpatriotic or loathe of the military. But if we were to gauge on funding for things like Patriot missile systems and Trident subs and whatever, Cheney would be almost as loathe.

 

Unlike all the political junkies on this board, your average voter doesn't vote for a ticket because of the VP, comparing Kerry to Cheney is pretty invalid when it comes to relevance.

 

True, but if the message is "vote for us because we're pro-military and he isn't," and it seems the shoe does fit...

 

I mean, I've been hearing about how Kerry's whole campaigning has been revolving around "Vote for me because I'm not George Bush" and how he really has no plan. Seems to me Bush is doing the same thing. There's no other reason to run a negative campaign ad other than to say "Vote for me because at least I'm not like this guy."

[Guest MikeSC]

Did they all pass? The charge was that he would raise gas 50 cents if given the chance, when he's simply voted yes to raise it 4 and a half cents on the eleven different occasions it's been brought up. For all we know, he might just want to raise it eighteen cents. He could just want to raise it nine cents. Or maybe he actually just wants to raise it four and a half cents.

Seeing as how ALL we know is that he voted for it every single time --- the charge is accurate.

Well, the hidden message is that he's somehow unpatriotic or loathe of the military. But if we were to gauge on funding for things like Patriot missile systems and Trident subs and whatever, Cheney would be almost as loathe.

The only people even MENTIONING patriotism is the left. Good lord, people, you are OBSESSED WITH IT.

 

All the GOP has said is that Kerry votes against defense weapons --- which he does regularly --- and that he has never shown any strength when it comes to nat'l defense --- which he hasn't.

 

The GOP has not ONCE criticized Kerry's "patriotism" --- much as we wishes they would.

True, but if the message is "vote for us because we're pro-military and he isn't," and it seems the shoe does fit...

Or it COULD be --- You've SEEN what we do militarily.

 

This is what HE has done historically.

 

You willing to take the chance?

I mean, I've been hearing about how Kerry's whole campaigning has been revolving around "Vote for me because I'm not George Bush" and how he really has no plan.

Which is quite accurate.

Seems to me Bush is doing the same thing. There's no other reason to run a negative campaign ad other than to say "Vote for me because at least I'm not like this guy."

Bush has a record. Kerry has to create a reason for people to decide to go for him over the incumbent.

 

And he is doing a horrible job.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Seeing as how ALL we know is that he voted for it every single time --- the charge is accurate.

No it's not, it's logically incorrect. It operates off assumptions and imaginary conclusions. It is spin. It could be worded a little more carefully and be correct, but it's not.

 

All the GOP has said is that Kerry votes against defense weapons

 

Defense weapons they claim is vital against the war on terror, drawing the viewer to the conclusion that he's undermining it.

 

The GOP has not ONCE criticized Kerry's "patriotism" --- much as we wishes they would.

 

That would really drives they home.

 

Bush has a record.

 

But the recent round of ads haven't touted it one bit.

[Guest MikeSC]

Seeing as how ALL we know is that he voted for it every single time --- the charge is accurate.

No it's not, it's logically incorrect. It operates off assumptions and imaginary conclusions. It is spin. It could be worded a little more carefully and be correct, but it's not.

No, you just assume he only wanted it once and kept voting for it to happen.

 

I liken it more to a guy with a frigid girlfriend. He begs her for sex over and over --- does that mean he only wants to get nailed ONCE?

All the GOP has said is that Kerry votes against defense weapons

Defense weapons they claim is vital against the war on terror, drawing the viewer to the conclusion that he's undermining it.

Which is accurate.

The GOP has not ONCE criticized Kerry's "patriotism" --- much as we wishes they would.

That would really drives they home.

OK, I'm lost. What are you saying here? Kerry has made a running joke out of questioning his record = he's not patriotic.

 

When SNL gets around the parodying him regularly, rest assured that will be a huge part of the character.

Bush has a record.

But the recent round of ads haven't touted it one bit.

Since it's RIGHT THERE to see --- they don't NEED to.

 

Challengers need to give voters a reason to vote against the incumbent.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The point of the whole ad debate is he's "undermined the war on terror" about as much as Cheney did in that administration. Guess who's now Mr. War On Terror now? (here's a hint: Halliburon.) Admittedly, this rebuttal doesn't make a very good 15sec soundbyte, which is why the public will never find out, so I'm not bitching about the ad's effectiveness. I'm bitching because it intentionally misleads.

 

And what happened to those destroyed towers American flag raising coffin of firefighter being carried out adverts he was running before? Regardless of whether it was a good move or not to put the footage in, that was actually positive advertising in terms of boasting his record and talking about himself instead of Kerry.

 

And no, the incumbent doesn't need to just sit and throw mud. He can, but that's pretty poor performing among voters. He COULD actually talk about what he plans to do if elected again, beyond hydrogen cars in 2000-whenever. Coming up with something more long term.

 

I mean, hey, I'm more than happy if Bush just wants to fling shit until November. Eventually it hurts him, and it certainly doesn't avoid the "Vote me 'cuz I'm not him" element.

[Guest MikeSC]

The point of the whole ad debate is he's "undermined the war on terror" about as much as Cheney did in that administration.

And if terrorism was a major issue in the 2000 campaign (as much as Clinton wishes to claim it was a big deal to him, it clearly wasn't) and Cheney was running for President, he'd have to answer questions.

 

And nobody is saying those votes undermined the war on terror. His decision to not fund the troops did --- but those votes just indicate a profound weakness on the issue of nat'l defense.

 

If you're trying to say that what a VP does and what a Presidential candidate does are of equal importance in a Presidential race --- you are sadly mistaken.

Guess who's now Mr. War On Terror now? (here's a hint: Halliburon.) Admittedly, this rebuttal doesn't make a very good 15sec soundbyte, which is why the public will never find out, so I'm not bitching about the ad's effectiveness. I'm bitching because it intentionally misleads.

Last time I checked, Cheney isn't spending a lot of time touting HIS record so much as BUSH'S record here.

 

Again, Cheney isn't running for the Presidency --- Kerry is.

 

They aren't even comparable.

And what happened to those destroyed towers American flag raising coffin of firefighter being carried out adverts he was running before? Regardless of whether it was a good move or not to put the footage in, that was actually positive advertising in terms of boasting his record and talking about himself instead of Kerry.

It happened on his watch.

 

GET OVER IT.

 

Jesus, Bush has DOWNPLAYED 9/11 big-time.

 

Look at FDR's 1944 campaign to see how to REALLY play up a tragedy.

And no, the incumbent doesn't need to just sit and throw mud. He can, but that's pretty poor performing among voters. He COULD actually talk about what he plans to do if elected again, beyond hydrogen cars in 2000-whenever. Coming up with something more long term.

"Mud-slinging" is when you actually mention a guy's record?

 

Man, how sad is that?

 

What will Bush do? Well, probably, HE'LL CONTINUE WHAT HE'S DONE THUS FAR.

 

It's not like Clinton unveiled a huge new plan in his 1996 campaign.

I mean, hey, I'm more than happy if Bush just wants to fling shit until November. Eventually it hurts him, and it certainly doesn't avoid the "Vote me 'cuz I'm not him" element.

Man, has the left lost any semblance of testosterone that they might have had? Hard to believe that the party of "Give 'em Hell" Harry has become THIS bunch of wimps and crybabies.

 

Bush isn't INVENTING stuff --- he's mentioning KERRY'S RECORD.

 

Deal with it.

 

This is, as has been noted before, why Senators don't often become President.

-=Mike

Edit: Kerry is using the Abu Gharib situation for his fundraising efforts --- so he'd best not criticize a soul for "exploiting a tragedy" for political gain

[NoCalMike 0]

I don't really buy the Dole-Kerry comparison because when Dole ran, yes the republican party hated Clinton, but the majority of americans didn't and Clinton's job approval was still very high, as opposed to now, with Bush being about 50/50 with the american people, and his job approval on just about everything, plunging to all new lows for his tenure. It isn't just which politicians like the candidate. Clinton had the majority of america on his side, Bush doesn't(not right now at least).

[Guest MikeSC]

I don't really buy the Dole-Kerry comparison because when Dole ran, yes the republican party hated Clinton, but the majority of americans didn't and Clinton's job approval was still very high, as opposed to now, with Bush being about 50/50 with the american people, and his job approval on just about everything, plunging to all new lows for his tenure. It isn't just which politicians like the candidate. Clinton had the majority of america on his side, Bush doesn't(not right now at least).

Hate to tell you, but Clinton never had a large majority of voters on his side (there is a reason he never won a popular vote majority).

 

The myth of Clinton popularity is up there with the myth of JFK's popularity.

-=Mike

...No, JFK was hardly "universally liked" either

[NoCalMike 0]

I don't really buy the Dole-Kerry comparison because when Dole ran, yes the republican party hated Clinton, but the majority of americans didn't and Clinton's job approval was still very high, as opposed to now, with Bush being about 50/50 with the american people, and his job approval on just about everything, plunging to all new lows for his tenure.  It isn't just which politicians like the candidate.  Clinton had the majority of america on his side, Bush doesn't(not right now at least).

Hate to tell you, but Clinton never had a large majority of voters on his side (there is a reason he never won a popular vote majority).

 

The myth of Clinton popularity is up there with the myth of JFK's popularity.

-=Mike

...No, JFK was hardly "universally liked" either

"the myth of the Clinton popularity"

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I don't really buy the Dole-Kerry comparison because when Dole ran, yes the republican party hated Clinton, but the majority of americans didn't

Exactly. The partisans were ready and waiting, energized by the Rush Limbaugh rants, but the normal, not-really-into-politics people who vote only because "it's your duty" really weren't with them.

 

That's the question the Democrats will find out this November. I'm pretty sure the average Joe Democrats out there have figured out why Bush is bad for them, which is why it's so close.

[snuffbox 0]

Shits gettin deep Mike....

[Some Guy 0]

I would just like to add to this conversation that I was just completely hit by a car today on my ride to work.

 

I was at a crosswalk, about to cross when some guy peeled out and was looking left when turning right.  My front half of the bike is fubar.  I'm fine but still.  Man.

 

MY BIKE :(

Does a "vehicle" belong in a crosswalk? Were you walking the bike or riding it? If you were riding it, di you have the right of way? Seems to me that you bikers want to regonized as both vehicles and pedestrians.

BTW, I've been hit by a car twice while riding a bike (I was too young to drive). The first was my fault, I crossed the street on an angle and the woman couldn't see me when she turned onto the street. The second was whole I was riding on the sidewalk and someone backed out of a driveway into me. I, nor the bike were hurt in either. Rather than getting mad at the people who hit me, I realized that I did not belong on the road on a bike. Because they are not safe when you're up against an automobile. And no, I was certainlynot wearing spandex.

 

To whoever posted the pictures of the Pres, he was not on a bike, he was tryign out one of those two-wheel electric things that Justin Timberlake was riding around on at the MTV awards. They are ghey, but he was playing around.

 

QUOTE (TheMikeSC @ May 8 2004, 08:14 PM)

Seeing as how ALL we know is that he voted for it every single time --- the charge is accurate.

 

 

No it's not, it's logically incorrect. It operates off assumptions and imaginary conclusions. It is spin. It could be worded a little more carefully and be correct, but it's not.

 

I agree with Jobber on this one. It is misleading. If the ad said that Kerry voted for tax increases on gas that add up to 50 cents, it would be more acurate. The way it is said it seems as though he voted for one massive tax hike. I think the truth is actually better in this case (well the truth is better in every case, but you know what I mean), they could easily portray Kerry as a guy hell bent on raising gas taxes, that's better than one vote. One vote could be an aberation, multiple votes are not.

[Guest MikeSC]

I don't really buy the Dole-Kerry comparison because when Dole ran, yes the republican party hated Clinton, but the majority of americans didn't and Clinton's job approval was still very high, as opposed to now, with Bush being about 50/50 with the american people, and his job approval on just about everything, plunging to all new lows for his tenure.  It isn't just which politicians like the candidate.  Clinton had the majority of america on his side, Bush doesn't(not right now at least).

Hate to tell you, but Clinton never had a large majority of voters on his side (there is a reason he never won a popular vote majority).

 

The myth of Clinton popularity is up there with the myth of JFK's popularity.

-=Mike

...No, JFK was hardly "universally liked" either

"the myth of the Clinton popularity"

His personal approval numbers were what?

 

He got a majority of the vote how many times?

Exactly. The partisans were ready and waiting, energized by the Rush Limbaugh rants, but the normal, not-really-into-politics people who vote only because "it's your duty" really weren't with them.

 

That's the question the Democrats will find out this November. I'm pretty sure the average Joe Democrats out there have figured out why Bush is bad for them, which is why it's so close.

Hold onto that pipe dream.

 

Yeah, the current Democratic Party isn't more rabidly anti-Bush than the 1996 GOP was anti-Clinton.

 

Suuuure.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

well I know for a fact that Clinton's approval ratings went up when Kenn Starr started his shenanigans. I mean the main focus on what they HOPED would bring Clinton down, totally backfired. Yes it gave the right and late night talk show hosts plenty of fodder to play with, but for your average joe, most thought the whole impeachment thing was lame.