|
I'm replying to you because, well, because I missed the hell outa ya! So here's my angry liberal reply bub!:
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
D'oh!
Nice change of topic, Opus! |
I changed the topic?
I thought I was just talkin' about one of the few topics given by that article - the polls?
Was I wrong to do so?
| quote: | | I agree, there's a long way to go. Kerry certainly is having his share of blowups recently. I'm sure Bush will have plenty more--it's all a question of timing in the end! |
True, in fact it almost seems like a certain degree of luck is required in the end.
| quote: | | Thing is, Bush has never tried to run on his National Guard service and he's never made it an issue in his campaign. |
True, though I tend to think that past history is open season on any candidate, regardless of whether or not they make it a part of their campaign. It doesn't help much with the desire to focus on present day issues, but that's politics for ya.
| quote: | | Kerry, on the other hand, has tried to make a 4 month stint in Vietnam the central focal point of his campaign and it is constantly blowing up in his face. |
I dunno, I tend to see it a little different (I know, a real shocker from a partisan liberal  ). I agree (yet again) that he overplayed his Vietnam record on the campaign trail after the Dem. Convention, but for things to blow up in his face on a factual level there has to be substantive evidence that he was lying about his record.
We know now that the group charging all that crud against his record has been riddled with a slew of inconsistencies and contradictions in their own account as well as Naval record and actual eyewitnesses to Kerry's actions.
Of course in the long run, it's not so much the factual evidence (or lack thereof) that sticks in the minds of undecided voters. Like I've said before, the Conservatives have the political mudslinging down to an art. Throw enough mud and see just how much will stick.
The Dems. are playing catch up in this regard.
| quote: | | If he actually had a record to run on from his senate service, he might be doing better. |
Well see, I think he has quite a record to run on here. By that logic we would have to examine Cheney's record in the House and see just how effective he was. How many bills did he contribute to that passed? 4 was it? Vs. how many Kerry took part in?
Ahh hell, there were other affairs to be sure - Iran/Contra, BCCI, normalizing relations with McCain with Vietnam, supporting numerous defense bills post 1997 (prior to that many in Congress, including Cheney, as well as Bush I were interested in cutting defense for fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction), etc. etc.
It's incredibly easy to take apart a Senator or Representative's voting record and twist it upside-down and backwards on itself. As an example, take a look at how Bush and the Conservatives (oh yeah, Zell Miller too) twisted Kerry's vote on the $87 billion package for Iraq, which Occ did a splendid job outlining just how easy it was to twist around:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...87&pagenumber=4
So we have 2 bills here, and Kerry was trying to be fiscally responsible with how to spend the money. Bush used that against him, even though he threatened to veto the first bill because it didn't suit him. And this was the same guy who said that supporting our troops isn't complicated?
Twisting his Senatorial voting history is wonderful fodder for the Conservatives. It works too, unfortunately, because much of the public doesn't realize just how many stipulations and additions/subtractions go into 1 Bill trying to be passed. Nevertheless, I anticipate the Conservatives attempting to go after this regardless in the coming weeks.
I think, however, that the Conservatives need to be careful attacking Kerry's record on Defense. And here's why:
http://www.alternet.org/election04/19832/
Hypocracy anyone?
| quote: | | I find it funny that a guy who had a film crew with him in Vietnam doesn't have any footage of the so called "Daily attrocities" that were committed by he and so many thousands of other soldiers who were over there. |
Now Shakka, if you've read Kerry's transcript, you'd realize that Kerry wasn't referring to his troops committing atrocities, nor did he himself state that he committed atrocities. Rather, he was reporting what other soldiers had told him from a previous event in Detroit:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=244
He did participate in free fire zones, however, which he later stated that he found out that those were against the Geneva Conventions. His anger was NOT towards the troops, but from the Pentagon and our incorrect government policy that was passed down onto the troops.
And I hope you're not stating that atrocities in general weren't taking place. The My Lai massacres were well known prior to Kerry's testimony, thanks to one of the Conservatives' favorite authors, Seymor Hersh, and other massacres such as the Tiger Force and Son Thang were exposed afterwards (not by Hersh, mind you).
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=244
| quote: | | Like I said, there's a long way to go in this election(Hell, the debates don't even start for a few weeks), but it looks like Kerry needs to do something to save his dwindling momentum. |
Are you sure you're not talking about your own party's leader? Isn't is true that Bush received the smallest gallop "bounce" in history AFTER the Repub. convention? And that huge 11 pt. Newsweek "bounce", why did it fall back down to 6 points IN ONE WEEK?:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5971162/site/newsweek/
How can an incumbent president who's so strong in the polls lose 5 points so quickly? That's staggering to me. 
But I'm like you, nothing's interesting about these stupid polls until the final weeks. So I won't pay too much attention to them until then if you won't either.
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|
We all do buddy.
