The reverse-speak ias almost OrwellianFollow

Good thing you watched f-911, otherwise you never would have come up with such a comparison.

Good thing I don't know you or have any way of having you prove it, otherwise I'd call BS.

It's mostly a reply to the initial thrust of Mr. Bush's. That somehow Kerry has not accomplished anything, despite his years of public service. So typical of Bush, accuse your opponent of not accomplishing anything, when you yourself spent a helluva lot less time in public service.

It is his common theme - do one thing - say another. This article was from today, not pre-F911.

Trickybeck, if your sockpuppet avatar wants to be a classy coke head he would be snorting the blow through a Benjamin not through Andrew Jackson.

Off the stomach of an underaged, overpriced prostitute.

Ok. I read your post, and your replies to Bush's statements. Um. I get that you disagree with what Bush has done, but you failed to actually refute his statements. What has *Kerry* done?

Bush lists of a set of things that he's done as president. You may not agree with them, but they are accomplishments. If you want to refute that then you need to actually come up with accomplishments that Kerry has done, and show how they are more important or valuable then what Bush did.


But I guess it's more important to just slam Bush then actually explain why Kerry would be better. Fits right into the Dem plan of "Kerry's not Bush". The problem with that approach is that while it appeals to the folks who already don't like Bush (and are likely already Democrats who would vote for Kerry anyway), it does nothing to attract voters who might otherwise vote for Bush to Kerry's camp.

Lots of people will vote for the incumbent simply because he's already president and there'll be a smooth transion (ie: No transition). This is especially important in this election. While a big deal hasn't yet been made of it (although I'm sure it will once we get closer to election day), there's a pretty clear argument that 9/11 was at least helped along by the fact that 2001 was a transition year, and the Bush administration simply could not come fully up to speed on the ongoing security issues (like Bin Laden and Al-queda) in the 9 months they had after taking power. There will be some people who'll vote for Bush purely becuase they see the current foreign policy issue as very volitile, and sticking a whole new set of faces into the white house with minimal understanding of "the plan", and what's currently going on policy wise, could easily cause issues to slip through the cracks.


Yes. I'm aware this is the "the sky is falling so vote for Bush" argument that Smash always rails on about. But the fact is that people generally tend away from changing presidents in the midst of what they see as a crisis. Given the delicacy of the work being done in Iraq right now, lots of those people will have to really be convinced that Kerry has a plan that will deal with that properly and *better* the Bush will handle it. So far, we've heard nothing concrete from Kerry in this regard. If he doesn't come up with a much more firm policy plank on Iraq and the middle east, I see him losing some major points come election day.

Yes. But traditionally ousting an incumbent requires a very charismatic challenger with a very popular agenda. I'm sorry. Kerry simply isn't Clinton. Not by a long shot. Clinton had charisma. Kerry doesn't. Clinton had a message and an agenda that lots of people could get behind. Kerry's only agenda so far is "I'm not Bush". That'll go so far, but no farther. If he doesn't solidfy a *real* plan and set of policies that actually excite people, those who are oohing and aaahing today about Kerry will drop to Bush once the RNC hits its stride and real issues start getting talked about.

Negative agendas just only work for so long. Kerry can ride that for a bit, because he knows that the current situation in Iraq is not very popular. But at some point, he has to nail down what he's "for" and how he'd do things differently instead of just critisizing the other guy. He just doesn't have the charisma to pull a smoke-and-mirrors campaign. If he wants to get those swing voters who are disastified with Bush and are looking for an alternative, he has to actually give them an alternative that they believe will actually be better. If he doesn't, he'll lose this election.

Yes. But traditionally ousting an incumbent requires a very charismatic challenger with a very popular agenda. I'm sorry. Kerry simply isn't Clinton. Not by a long shot. Clinton had charisma. Kerry doesn't. Clinton had a message and an agenda that lots of people could get behind. Kerry's only agenda so far is "I'm not Bush". That'll go so far, but no farther. If he doesn't solidfy a *real* plan and set of policies that actually excite people, those who are oohing and aaahing today about Kerry will drop to Bush once the RNC hits its stride and real issues start getting talked about.


Hahahah. The RNC hit's it's stride and talks about real issues.

Ahahahahahah.

Issues like health care and education?

Issues like lossing a million jobs?

Issues like lossing 1000 Us lives in Iraq?

Issues like creating a massive defecit?

Issues like creating a massive welfare program for drug companies?

Bring on the issues, I can't wait to see the RNC talk about an issue.



Negative agendas just only work for so long. Kerry can ride that for a bit, because he knows that the current situation in Iraq is not very popular. But at some point, he has to nail down what he's "for" and how he'd do things differently instead of just critisizing the other guy. He just doesn't have the charisma to pull a smoke-and-mirrors campaign. If he wants to get those swing voters who are disastified with Bush and are looking for an alternative, he has to actually give them an alternative that they believe will actually be better. If he doesn't, he'll lose this election.


Let's make a wager, shall we? That the Republican party wages the most negative campaign in history and looses.

Say, a Premium membership here for a year. For me if Kerry wins, for you if Bush wins.

What do you say? It's only $30, surely you can afford it.

Edited, Sat Jul 31 03:31:06 2004 by Smasharoo

So what happens if they run the most negative campaign and win? Or run a positive campaign and lose? Is the basis for the payoff the win or the negativity or both?


Nah, just the outcome. They could burn kerry in effigy using a 120000 foot high papaer mache doll on the white house lawn and Gbaji wouldn't pay because the fact that the light from it helped the homeless to find their way was posative.

ROFL @ smashes vivid imagery :)

It's pretty commonly accepted that both sides will run a negative campaign to some degree or another. If the candidates want to distinguish themselves they will argue on their own policies or at the least state their intentions (like what Bush did post DNC convention).