If the Kerry campaign was focused...

iamthewalrus109 · 09-16-2004, 08:13 AM

Lookout, your completely right on this count. On the Sept. 7th I wrote a similiar diatribe and condemnation of Kerry's tactics:

"Kerry should be smart to make a mockery out of Bush's so called war on terror by sinking into Bush's admission that a war on terror could never be won, he's right, it's a tactic, not a an enemy, notice Scott McClellan's fancy foot work on that one. Kerry should outline a vision beyond the threat of terror, one that outlines who are real enemies are, existing and emerging, including Bush's "axis of evil", notice he has mentioned these folks in a long time, and set a vision on controlling the proliferation on weapons while neutralizing beds of terroist activity as best we can, simply talking about how bad of an idea it was to go to Iraq is doing Kerry more harm then good, why he keeps walking into an issue that he's been posed as weak on over and over again is beyond me, Iraq should really be part of a larger framework, I think this charge, countercharge environment has limited the scope of what's discussed. This should be his foriegn policy board, and shore up his domestic issue board, which really should discuss outrageous government spending and the 17% medicare price increase, as well as lost manufacturing jobs. He's doing that somewhat well..."

I think this stands as point for what is wrong here. lookout's comments also add to what should be done. I think the amount of leftovers and Dem. losers like Joe Shrum, need to be deep sixed, get them out of there, I can't believe their still allowed to be involved. People like Joe Shrum are something like 4 time losers in pres. races, it's unfathomable. Like I said in my 9/7 post, Kerry's actions are those of a buffudled Washington insider whose best flailings are to call in fringe Clintonistas to try to do the dirty work. Good luck Mr. Kerry.

- Walrus

lookout123 · 09-16-2004, 09:25 AM

don't get me wrong. Bush isn't the best choice for america, but i still believe he is a better choice than Kerry. This is another reason that (not so much that bush is better) kerry is unequal to the task of potus - he can't even pull together a campaign in such a target rich environment.

iamthewalrus109 · 09-16-2004, 10:11 AM

Stands to reason if a man can't run a clear pres. election, how the hell is going to run his admin. once in office (like that's going to happen). As one of the few vocal moderate republicans left, I think it's important to keep Bush to a small margin win in November, in order to at least keep him less confident and more pliant to moderate efforts by centrist Republicans and moderate Democrats. Any big win for Bush would be too much of a mandate, especially with the fear factor in play.

-Walrus

09-16-2004, 08:13 AM	#1
iamthewalrus109 High Propagandist Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 111	Kerry's message is jumbled at best Lookout, your completely right on this count. On the Sept. 7th I wrote a similiar diatribe and condemnation of Kerry's tactics: "Kerry should be smart to make a mockery out of Bush's so called war on terror by sinking into Bush's admission that a war on terror could never be won, he's right, it's a tactic, not a an enemy, notice Scott McClellan's fancy foot work on that one. Kerry should outline a vision beyond the threat of terror, one that outlines who are real enemies are, existing and emerging, including Bush's "axis of evil", notice he has mentioned these folks in a long time, and set a vision on controlling the proliferation on weapons while neutralizing beds of terroist activity as best we can, simply talking about how bad of an idea it was to go to Iraq is doing Kerry more harm then good, why he keeps walking into an issue that he's been posed as weak on over and over again is beyond me, Iraq should really be part of a larger framework, I think this charge, countercharge environment has limited the scope of what's discussed. This should be his foriegn policy board, and shore up his domestic issue board, which really should discuss outrageous government spending and the 17% medicare price increase, as well as lost manufacturing jobs. He's doing that somewhat well..." I think this stands as point for what is wrong here. lookout's comments also add to what should be done. I think the amount of leftovers and Dem. losers like Joe Shrum, need to be deep sixed, get them out of there, I can't believe their still allowed to be involved. People like Joe Shrum are something like 4 time losers in pres. races, it's unfathomable. Like I said in my 9/7 post, Kerry's actions are those of a buffudled Washington insider whose best flailings are to call in fringe Clintonistas to try to do the dirty work. Good luck Mr. Kerry. - Walrus

09-16-2004, 09:25 AM	#2
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	don't get me wrong. Bush isn't the best choice for america, but i still believe he is a better choice than Kerry. This is another reason that (not so much that bush is better) kerry is unequal to the task of potus - he can't even pull together a campaign in such a target rich environment. __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

09-16-2004, 10:11 AM	#3
iamthewalrus109 High Propagandist Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 111	Seems to be the trend Stands to reason if a man can't run a clear pres. election, how the hell is going to run his admin. once in office (like that's going to happen). As one of the few vocal moderate republicans left, I think it's important to keep Bush to a small margin win in November, in order to at least keep him less confident and more pliant to moderate efforts by centrist Republicans and moderate Democrats. Any big win for Bush would be too much of a mandate, especially with the fear factor in play. -Walrus

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