The Cellar - View Single Post - We don't change leaders during a war? Wrong!

iamthewalrus109 · 09-29-2004, 02:24 PM

Bush and co. might have done a good job as pinning Kerry as a flip-flop artist, but it tends to hang on the Iraq issue. Kerry's folly was not simplifiying and explaining his votes in the Senate to the people of the US, Bush's folly is Iraq itself, plain and simple. If Kerry can just keep to any message he'll be able to come out of this better off than GW. He should just stick to a message Thursday, even at the risk of dumbing it down, which will already be a factor with GW Bush involved, and then maybe expound more in the domestic debate to prove to informed and more articulate voters that he's the smarter choice. This would be a wise move for Kerry. He can reduce the flip-flop image and stay in touch with more complex voters by utlizing this type of model, it will be the last mass image people will see of the candidates before the election and it's all or nothing on this one.

The fact is: Accusations against Kerry's votes on Iraq divert attention from the actual conflict. It's just smoke and mirrors to deceive those who don't the difference between decision making in the legislative branch and decision making as an executive. One should also realize this is another argument against Kerry, being that he's never held an executive position, except a brief stint as Lt. governor, but you can't judge someone's resolve on a handful of Senate votes, that's just Karl Rove's crafty political whittling at work. It's almost preposterous. Another way of looking at it is, he at least dissented once he saw where the conflict was going. Voting to remove Saddam, but then agree to a prolonged occupation are two different things, Kerry just hasn't articulated that well at all, or in some cases over articulated the point and paid too much attention to the attacks, thereby giving Rove and co. ammuntion to be able to calling him negative, someone who rather sling mud than propensiate a positive message for America. The debates could well be Kerry's chance to make this a true nail biting election, but no matter what, if the debate does go well for Kerry, there will be a raised terror alert or a pre-made military operation to either to scare or prove to the American electorate the GW needs to be in power, or else.

-Walrus

09-29-2004, 02:24 PM	#3
iamthewalrus109 High Propagandist Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 111	In politics it's never too late Bush and co. might have done a good job as pinning Kerry as a flip-flop artist, but it tends to hang on the Iraq issue. Kerry's folly was not simplifiying and explaining his votes in the Senate to the people of the US, Bush's folly is Iraq itself, plain and simple. If Kerry can just keep to any message he'll be able to come out of this better off than GW. He should just stick to a message Thursday, even at the risk of dumbing it down, which will already be a factor with GW Bush involved, and then maybe expound more in the domestic debate to prove to informed and more articulate voters that he's the smarter choice. This would be a wise move for Kerry. He can reduce the flip-flop image and stay in touch with more complex voters by utlizing this type of model, it will be the last mass image people will see of the candidates before the election and it's all or nothing on this one. The fact is: Accusations against Kerry's votes on Iraq divert attention from the actual conflict. It's just smoke and mirrors to deceive those who don't the difference between decision making in the legislative branch and decision making as an executive. One should also realize this is another argument against Kerry, being that he's never held an executive position, except a brief stint as Lt. governor, but you can't judge someone's resolve on a handful of Senate votes, that's just Karl Rove's crafty political whittling at work. It's almost preposterous. Another way of looking at it is, he at least dissented once he saw where the conflict was going. Voting to remove Saddam, but then agree to a prolonged occupation are two different things, Kerry just hasn't articulated that well at all, or in some cases over articulated the point and paid too much attention to the attacks, thereby giving Rove and co. ammuntion to be able to calling him negative, someone who rather sling mud than propensiate a positive message for America. The debates could well be Kerry's chance to make this a true nail biting election, but no matter what, if the debate does go well for Kerry, there will be a raised terror alert or a pre-made military operation to either to scare or prove to the American electorate the GW needs to be in power, or else. -Walrus