We don't change leaders during a war? Wrong!

iamthewalrus109 · 09-29-2004, 09:20 AM

In last couple of days it dawned on me, in 1952 under heavy pressure, "Give them hell" Harry Truman left the White House to Ike during the Korean War. Ike was able to convince the electorate that he could get us out of Korea with honor, while maintaing a democratic government somewhere on the peninsula. What I'm getting at here is that all this talk by many voters, pundits, and so called experts about America not changing leaders in a time of war is just wrong, it's happened before and it can happen again. I think the Bush camp has so many people scared that they can perpertrate these falsehoods by implied language and inference, sometimes even with direct fear talk.

Problem with the equation is it has always been a Republican ousting a Dem, as in the cases of Eisenhower in '52 and Nixon in '68. This doesn' mean that Kerry couldn't put an oust in the dems column on this one, but he really needs to outline an exit strategy for Iraq in the debates. If he slam dunks this, he has an opportunity to win. As of late he's been hammering Bush on the distraction that Iraq has been from the real threat, ie Al-Qaida. Now if Kerry can find a way to rhetorically button up Iraq, marginalize his votes on the issue, move to what he thinks is the future of the war on terror is, and make George Bush look evasive and cocky about Iraq, he's won in my eyes. But this is a tall order, even for the 6'4 ex-Navy liet. If Kerry can bang out any sort of message by Thursday, and stick to it, he's won, because Bush can only stick to it, Kerry has other abilities, he just can't look undecided or overtly complex. Let the battle begin, we shall see where the chips fall on Thursday.

-Walrus

For a good outlook on some of what I brought up in this thread see Buchanan's piece in WND: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40677

404Error · 09-29-2004, 11:34 AM

Quote:

....Kerry has other abilities, he just can't look undecided or overtly complex....

Uh, it's a little late for that, don't you think?

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

Buddha · 09-29-2004, 07:21 PM

here you go:

09-29-2004, 09:20 AM	#1
iamthewalrus109 High Propagandist Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 111	We don't change leaders during a war? Wrong! In last couple of days it dawned on me, in 1952 under heavy pressure, "Give them hell" Harry Truman left the White House to Ike during the Korean War. Ike was able to convince the electorate that he could get us out of Korea with honor, while maintaing a democratic government somewhere on the peninsula. What I'm getting at here is that all this talk by many voters, pundits, and so called experts about America not changing leaders in a time of war is just wrong, it's happened before and it can happen again. I think the Bush camp has so many people scared that they can perpertrate these falsehoods by implied language and inference, sometimes even with direct fear talk. Problem with the equation is it has always been a Republican ousting a Dem, as in the cases of Eisenhower in '52 and Nixon in '68. This doesn' mean that Kerry couldn't put an oust in the dems column on this one, but he really needs to outline an exit strategy for Iraq in the debates. If he slam dunks this, he has an opportunity to win. As of late he's been hammering Bush on the distraction that Iraq has been from the real threat, ie Al-Qaida. Now if Kerry can find a way to rhetorically button up Iraq, marginalize his votes on the issue, move to what he thinks is the future of the war on terror is, and make George Bush look evasive and cocky about Iraq, he's won in my eyes. But this is a tall order, even for the 6'4 ex-Navy liet. If Kerry can bang out any sort of message by Thursday, and stick to it, he's won, because Bush can only stick to it, Kerry has other abilities, he just can't look undecided or overtly complex. Let the battle begin, we shall see where the chips fall on Thursday. -Walrus For a good outlook on some of what I brought up in this thread see Buchanan's piece in WND: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40677 Last edited by iamthewalrus109; 09-29-2004 at 10:18 AM.

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

09-29-2004, 07:21 PM	#4
Buddha Enlightened Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: homeless Posts: 24	here you go: Attached Images __________________ People love their obstacles. Only the enlightened ones transcend them.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)