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

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.

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