Third Party & Independents: Archives

He seems to be against every idea that gives Americans more authority, more choices, and more control over our own lives. It’s the same old Washington mindset: We’ll give the orders and you will pay the bills.

Rather ironic coming from the Administration that rammed the so-called PATRIOT act through, isn’t it?

Rob:

You make some good points about Bush’s comments being funny while at the same time caustic. In past elections, one can see some of the same tactic used successfully by Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan—the ability to target an opponent without appearing “mean”.

Kerry is trying to offset Bush’s ability to do this by pre emptively decrying “smear tactics”. His statements about Republican “attack ads” have come before any such ads have played, and his attempts to paint any discussion of his voting record as an attack on his patriotism are examples of his efforts. If Kerry is successful in making Bush appear petty, angry, vengeful and full of spite, it gives Kerry a huge surge of momentum.

If Bush can continue that kind of humorous “too close to home” jabbing, it will bode well for him.

You mean if his speech writers and handlers can continue to come up with that kind of humorous “too close to home” jabbing.

“My opponent says he approves of bold action in the world, but only if other countries don’t object.”

Well, he can cross “obviously misconstrue my opponent’s positions” off his schedule for the day. The fact is, I’m sure Kerry would support unilateral American action in cases where it warrants it. His objection about Iraq centers around the lies and misrepresentation that this administration engaged in during the lead up to the War. The Administration torpedoed at least 2 peace efforts, discouraging the very idea that a political solution could be found. They had no interest in anything other than invasion. The evidence is overwhelming, and I wont bother to cite it (because I’m not being paid to spend the time compiling it).

I think this whole arguement comes down to one issue: Bush has done more to hurt America’s security than help it. The fact is that we need international cooperation to solve international terrorism. Obvious, right? The Bush Administration has driven away allies, nearly gotten Blair ousted (or so it seems), and driven anti-americanism through the roof. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq that now have relatives or friends who were killed in the invasion. Bush’s actions make it all the easier to recruit the next round of terrorists, ensuring a never-ending cycle. America has never voted out an incumbent during wartime. Convenient that we’ll always be at war, isn’t it?

You mean if his speech writers and handlers can continue to come up with that kind of humorous “too close to home” jabbing.

Not even his speech writers and handlers. Bush just mangled an attack made by a Dean aide a few weeks ago.

“John Kerry never met a side of an issue he didn’t like”

- Jay Carson

““He seems to be against every idea that gives Americans more authority, more choices, and more control over our own lives. It’s the same old Washington mindset: We’ll give the orders and you will pay the bills.”

The overwhelming irony of that sentence should make any intelligent, rational voter sit up and gasp! This from the administration that has proposed a Constitutional Amendment to tell Americans who they can and cannot marry; sounds like control over ones’ life to me. This from the Party that proposes another Constitutional Amendment to tell women what to do with their own bodies; hummm more control. Sounds like the same old Washington mindset to me….

ceejay, the Patriot Act, love it or hate it, was every bit a bipartisan bill passed with overwhelming support on both sides. Sen’s. Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton, Boxer all voted for it. Russ Feingold was the only person to vote against it. The vote was a bipartisan landslide in favor. The fact that the Democrats decry the Patriot Act while overwhelmingly voting for it makes me trust them less.
joe, i agree and think you’re spot on with your analysis. Kerry with his ‘letter to George Bush’ decrying talking about Vietnam, while simulataneously bringing up his record in every one of his appearances, as well as refusing to call George Bush “President Bush” (even President Bush refers to John Kerry as Senator Kerry) looks petty and so far at least, less classy than President Bush. Bush still get his jabs in while looking classy, and that’s not easy.
I agree with comments about these comments coming as much from handlers and speech writers as the candidates. But it happens equally on both sides, and the candidates won’t say anything if they don’t personally approve it first. little ground for either side there, IMHO.
Gaelen, Kerry did vote for “pre-emptive” war against Iraq. (link ). sorta the ‘both sides’ point the President was making. won’t go into the whole Iraq pros and cons here, only that I couldn’t disagree more strenously that President Bush has hurt our security.
Not eddy, thaks for the link, I do wish Dean was the nominee, better than kerry, IMHO …

There now see, I knew GW Bush had a career after the whitehouse, Comedian. He is perfectly trained in taking a grain of truth and stretching and twisting it into something entertaining which makes the chimp smirk if no one else.

By all means, we should hasten GW Bush on to his new career, he will be far better and more competent as a Comedian than he ever was as a President. Let’s give him a hand in November - aw heck, give him the boot too, just for comedic effect.

ceejay, the Patriot Act, love it or hate it, was every bit a bipartisan bill passed with overwhelming support on both sides.

No joke. Really? I hadn’t noticed! </sarcasm>

I’m just as ticked at the wimpy Dems for voting for the act, too. Doesn’t change the fact that the Bush Administration pushed it through, and it doesn’t change the fact that the Bush Administration is claiming to give us more authority, more choices, and more control over our own lives when they’re doing exactly the opposite.

>But I’ve always found them too timid to take on the Democrats. They’ve always let the other side dominate and define the issues, not to mention letting them demagogue those same issues. Their rhetorical skills have been too often dry and uninteresting

So those attack radio ads, mailings and push polling against McCain in South Carolina were an example of ‘too timid’?

How about the hatchet job on Max Cleland?

I do have to admit, the Bush’s campaign rhetoric, so far, has been impressive, sharp and cynically evasive.

If the boys at RoveVision were prepared for the 9/11 commercial footage backlash, what was the upside? Extra unpaid airtime?

If they knew there would be anger from 9/11 victim’s families, and used it anyway, what does that say about the campaign’s strategy?

If we had a strong, robust economy, were well on our way to 2.6 million new jobs and Iraq was well under control, would this footage appear in any Bush TV spots?

Ho hum. Usual GOP anti-government rhetoric.

As if the Republicans don’t control every branch of government. As if Bush hasn’t overseen the biggest expansion in spending since LBJ. As if Bush hasn’t used every Machiavellian tactic his cronies have come up with to stay in power.

If this is the best they can do, Kerry may actually have a chance.

He seems to be against every idea that gives Americans more authority, more choices, and more control over our own lives. It’s the same old Washington mindset: We’ll give the orders and you will pay the bills.

He spends more than any other president in history, while he instructs the public not to worry about all the new intrusive laws he’s created. This guy is just buttering your people up to support him. He’s playing on your prejudices, which is bad enough, but he’s also got no intentions of really reining in his abuses, which makes it twice as bad for your people. Kerry, at least, is not trying to BS you on his intentions. You at least know to oppose him.

My opponent admits Saddam Hussein was a threat, he just didn’t support my decision to remove Saddam from power. Maybe he was hoping Saddam would lose the election in Iraq.

I can almost hear the smirk.

Define Threat: A contained dictator who has WMD related program activities going on, or a rather poorly contained one who has stockpiles of chem and bio weapons, and an active relationship with terrorists wishing to get them. Saddam has turned out to be the first rather than the second, and so the whole question of whether Kerry underreacted to the threat is overrided by questions of whether Bush overreacted. That’s the issue.

My opponent says he approves of bold action in the world, but only if other countries don’t object

Bold solutions and actions are not necessarily ones which are smart and effective. I’d rather my president succeed meekly than fail boldly.

Overall, the president has a credibility problem that only gets worse the better educated people are about what he’s done. He likes to dress his deeds up in great-sounding names, but in the meantime most of what he’s done has backfired, or failed to reach it’s goals. We don’t have Osama, we have an armed insurgency in Iraq killing hundreds of people, we have an economy that’s tanking even worse than before, an academic system that’s being handed the standards to live up to, but not the funds to do it, and our chemical plants, ports and infrastructure are still not secured against terrorist attack.

The Bush White House’s response? They’re generating so much spin people are practically walking on the walls of the oval office. Bush has no room to talk about being inconsistent, though plenty of experience to draw from.

Gaelen,

“His objection about Iraq centers around…” his pursuit of the democratic nomination.

Rob—

You, my friend, have hit the nail on the head in your posts. I notice that many base their conclusions on what THEY like or dislike—but you focused on the process and the issues themselves.

Your points about how both parties voted to pass the Patriot Act shows precisely what happened. It amazes and amuses me to see those who simply dislike Bush blaming him and the Republican party for the passage of the bill. Additionally, your point about both parties having speechwriters seemed so obvious as to not need to have been said—-yet again, it was in response to Eddy and Michael, who apparently are so anti-Bush that they have no assumed the Republican party is the only one with speechwriters.

Rob—while I disagree with your conclusion (ie, that Dean would be the better nominee), I appreciate and congratulate you for your even handed approach. Well done

> I’ve always found them too timid to take on the
> Democrats. They’ve always let the other side
> dominate and define the issues, not to mention
> letting them demagogue those same issues. Their
> rhetorical skills have been too often dry and
> uninteresting, while the Democratic machine is
> well oiled, slick and ready to attack the
> Republicans for literally anything they try to
> do politically.

It’s funny that I’ve always felt the exact same way - but with the parties reversed!

With the notable exception of Bill Clinton, of course, who was a skilled politician.

-Cf