MichFan Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 I simply cannot believe that the Kerry campaign has allowed things to get to this point -- Max Cleland and Jim Rassman (the guy Kerry pulled from the river) are being dispatched to Crawford, TX to hand deliver a letter from Kerry to Bush calling for condemnation of the SBVT ads. I just can't imagine what in the heck they are thinking. This has got to be embarrasing for even the staunchest Dems. It will be interesting to see how Bush handles this, as there is a great opportunity to make the situation blow up in the face of the Kerry campaign. Hopefully they are ready with a wheelchair accessible media platform, pitcher of lemonade, and a letter documenting the veracity of the 527's that have lined up against Bush and the smears they have leveled at him. For Kerry to think he is above any criticism while Bush is nothing but a whipping boy is the height of arrogance. I thought it couldn't get any worse than Gore in 2000, boy was I wrong. I can only imagine what this indicates about Kerry's foreign policy tactics if he becomes president. I can just see it now -- widows of fallen GI's delivering a letter to Chirac asking for French involvement in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Arrogance and Taxachusetts go hand in hand... but at least there is some assemblance of intelligence there in that Kerry brain. 2000: Big difference: Gore couldn't even WIN HIS OWN FREAKIN STATE! That was so pathetic. Does anyone ever tell Tenny that? What in the HELL is going on there anyways? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 MY GOD, this is beyond ridiculous. What part of ALL is too difficult for the lefties to understand? "Well, when he said all, did he mean all-all or just all-all? Do the SBVT fall under the all, or are they part of a different all? Is all really all, or just all?" The desperation is laughable. The fact that they are getting into semantics over all is down-right embarrasing. So, how long before one of the leftie apologists chimes in with the typical "yeah, but Bush blah...blah...blah...?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 MY GOD, this is beyond ridiculous. What part of ALL is too difficult for the lefties to understand? "Well, when he said all, did he mean all-all or just all-all? Do the SBVT fall under the all, or are they part of a different all? Is all really all, or just all?" The desperation is laughable. The fact that they are getting into semantics over all is down-right embarrasing. So, how long before one of the leftie apologists chimes in with the typical "yeah, but Bush blah...blah...blah...?" 7313[/snapback] What is your definition of sex? If I was Bush I would have them shot on sight for trespassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 I simply cannot believe that the Kerry campaign has allowed things to get to this point -- Max Cleland and Jim Rassman (the guy Kerry pulled from the river) are being dispatched to Crawford, TX to hand deliver a letter from Kerry to Bush calling for condemnation of the SBVT ads. I just can't imagine what in the heck they are thinking. This has got to be embarrasing for even the staunchest Dems. It will be interesting to see how Bush handles this, as there is a great opportunity to make the situation blow up in the face of the Kerry campaign. Hopefully they are ready with a wheelchair accessible media platform, pitcher of lemonade, and a letter documenting the veracity of the 527's that have lined up against Bush and the smears they have leveled at him. For Kerry to think he is above any criticism while Bush is nothing but a whipping boy is the height of arrogance. I thought it couldn't get any worse than Gore in 2000, boy was I wrong. I can only imagine what this indicates about Kerry's foreign policy tactics if he becomes president. I can just see it now -- widows of fallen GI's delivering a letter to Chirac asking for French involvement in Iraq. 7265[/snapback] "These ads are a big problem for us. Let's address that." "Whoops! Out addressing those ads drew attention to them and made them a bigger problem. We'd better address them more strongly." "Hey, now they're a bigger problem. We'd better personally, publicly and directly complain to the President about it now." "Wait...now they're an even bigger problem! Let's hand deliver a letter to the President letting him know upset we are about it. That should put things to a stop." Who in the hell is running Kerry's campaign, and what part of "If you keep picking at it, it'll never heal" doesn't he understand? And here I thought watching malevolent epiliptic monkeys box would be at least mildly entertaining...it's not. It's just depressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted August 25, 2004 Author Share Posted August 25, 2004 Who in the hell is running Kerry's campaign, and what part of "If you keep picking at it, it'll never heal" doesn't he understand? I think they are at the point where they know these ads are doing damage in a way no liberal 527 could harm Bush. The only way they can save any face on this is to try to motivate the hate-Bush base. The problem is that the undecideds probably want this either to end -- in which case he's irritating the heck out of them now -- or for him to just address the issues and move on -- which obviously he can't do because he's told too many stories over the last 30 years. The Swifties are not going away. This has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with a passionate hate they feel for Kerry. Just wait for the commercial that discusses all the changes Kerry has made to his story since they started exposing falsehoods in his stories -- it's going to be the cherry on their sundae. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBorn1960 Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 MY GOD, this is beyond ridiculous. What part of ALL is too difficult for the lefties to understand? "Well, when he said all, did he mean all-all or just all-all? Do the SBVT fall under the all, or are they part of a different all? Is all really all, or just all?" The desperation is laughable. The fact that they are getting into semantics over all is down-right embarrasing. So, how long before one of the leftie apologists chimes in with the typical "yeah, but Bush blah...blah...blah...?" 7313[/snapback] Remember the Dems have trouble with definitions as it depends on what your definition of is... is... same goes for all unless you understand what all means.. By the way does this remind you of Mikey Moores Film Roger and Me? Seems the Dems are smitten with his tactics... Oh well I hear that they get all the kool-aid they want for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Who in the hell is running Kerry's campaign, and what part of "If you keep picking at it, it'll never heal" doesn't he understand? 7348[/snapback] This my dear sir, is my biggest problem with Kerry. He has some very bad handlers that will get key positions if he wins. This just goes to show you how horrible his administration will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain America Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Its ok because losers start grasping for anything, and Kerry and his crew are losers . Take MaxCelland and roll him over a cliff :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: All thse losers want is the lime light.The reason most veterans are upset wiht Kerry is not the service in 'Nam' but his testimony to congress when he got back . To Kerry and the rest of his losers :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Its ok because losers start grasping for anything, and Kerry and his crew are losers . Take MaxCelland and roll him over a cliff :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: All thse losers want is the lime light.The reason most veterans are upset wiht Kerry is not the service in 'Nam' but his testimony to congress when he got back . To Kerry and the rest of his losers :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: 7381[/snapback] I'd MUCH rather have a controversial Congressional testimony than a worthless war where a thousand soldiers and sailors lose their lives for a cause that was fabricated. It's not difficult to choose who to vote for when you compare the two men's worst moments. Somehow Kerry seems a bit more humane.... and of course, since Iraq is now free, terrorists are less likely to threaten us. YEAH RIGHT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCow Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Is there a undecided poster (between Bush and Kerry, not the other insignificant candidates ) or pro-Kerry poster who really agrees with posts on this thread saying that this whole SBVT issue is a Kerry campaign blunder? These posts seem a bit too "hopeful" about Kerry's so-called mistake. Those who supported Kerry aren't going anywhere and it's likely the GOP attacks have strengthen their support of the Democrat (and very happy Kerry is vigorously pushing back on the lies). Likewise, those supporting Bush (or just anti-Kerry or non-supporters in general) are all in a lather that this is somehow a bad move on Kerry's part (and some actually believe Bush is a new clean campaign advocate). The only people that matter are soft supporters on either side and the very few undecided voters in the middle. I've yet to hear from one but I'd think defending Kerry's "distiguished" war record from slander from the right doesn't strike me as a bad thing. Likewise, I can't imagine these voters would feel comfortable with a campaign to question Kerry's service record especially when his record is a stark contrast to the President's. Bush supporters took a gamble and lost -- they tried to discredit his record and failed -- now the Kerry folks are simply attempting to put a dagger in the issue. If Bush supporters back off then we can examine Kerry's next move, but to suggest this is some kind of Kerry blunder is to ignore the key battlegrounds on the political landscape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Sorry, RCow...just dont agree. I think what a lot of voters are going to see is Kerry being petty. Bush HAS condemed the ads, he HAS come out against them...but Kerry is still poking his stick at this "dead dog" with the hopes tha tthe issue stays alive. Furthermore, as each day goes on, more and more people are getting wise to the fact that Kerry has his own band of 527s and people MUCH closer to HIM pulling the strings with those groups (Ickes). Bottom line for me, IMO is that each day Kerry keeps this thing alive is nore more day "Joe American Voter" gets wiser to the inconsistencies here...inconsistencies that will only hurt Kerry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain America Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 I'd MUCH rather have a controversial Congressional testimony than a worthless war where a thousand soldiers and sailors lose their lives for a cause that was fabricated. It's not difficult to choose who to vote for when you compare the two men's worst moments. Somehow Kerry seems a bit more humane.... and of course, since Iraq is now free, terrorists are less likely to threaten us. YEAH RIGHT. 7400[/snapback] Thats just what need someone who is more humane when we are fight the War on Terror.How about those scum you know the ones the killed 3000 people probaly should treat that situation with more kindest.You libbers are really great maybe you all should volunteer to be beheaded and give our enemy a little satisfaction. I am sure they would stop and Germany and France would immediatley come to our aid .Komrade Kerry is a loser and so are his followers :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 a worthless war where a thousand soldiers and sailors lose their lives for a cause that was fabricated. I have no idea why you guys keep saying this. Kerry voted for this war based on the same information that Bush had, and recently stated that given what he knows now, he would make the same decision (as reported in two NYT stories.). If you think the war is fabricated, and you want to blame Bush, you also have to blame Kerry. You can't have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 If you think the war is fabricated, and you want to blame Bush, you also have to blame Kerry. You can't have it both ways. No...BUSH LIED. FLIGHTSUIT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 I have no idea why you guys keep saying this. Kerry voted for this war based on the same information that Bush had, and recently stated that given what he knows now, he would make the same decision (as reported in two NYT stories.). If you think the war is fabricated, and you want to blame Bush, you also have to blame Kerry. You can't have it both ways. 7458[/snapback] but... but... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Is there a undecided poster (between Bush and Kerry, not the other insignificant candidates ) or pro-Kerry poster who really agrees with posts on this thread saying that this whole SBVT issue is a Kerry campaign blunder? These posts seem a bit too "hopeful" about Kerry's so-called mistake. Those who supported Kerry aren't going anywhere and it's likely the GOP attacks have strengthen their support of the Democrat (and very happy Kerry is vigorously pushing back on the lies). Likewise, those supporting Bush (or just anti-Kerry or non-supporters in general) are all in a lather that this is somehow a bad move on Kerry's part (and some actually believe Bush is a new clean campaign advocate). The only people that matter are soft supporters on either side and the very few undecided voters in the middle. I've yet to hear from one but I'd think defending Kerry's "distiguished" war record from slander from the right doesn't strike me as a bad thing. Likewise, I can't imagine these voters would feel comfortable with a campaign to question Kerry's service record especially when his record is a stark contrast to the President's. Bush supporters took a gamble and lost -- they tried to discredit his record and failed -- now the Kerry folks are simply attempting to put a dagger in the issue. If Bush supporters back off then we can examine Kerry's next move, but to suggest this is some kind of Kerry blunder is to ignore the key battlegrounds on the political landscape. 7432[/snapback] Whatever you are smoking, I wish you would share it with the rest of us. The flaw with your theory comes in, when the SBVT started building up the attacks, it exposed "inconsistencies" in Kerry's story. As a result, Kerry has changed his story on "what really happened," since these attacks started. So, to say that this is a "failed gamble" on the part of the Bush supporters would be incorrect. It is having an effect, and that can be seen by Kerry changing his story. Now, Kerry wants to suppress this group, get the publisher to stop printing the book and trying to pressure media outlets into not showing their ad. As someone who does not want to see either of these candidates win, I have to say that Kerry is playing this all wrong. Right now, he sounds like a spoiled, whiney little beotch who can't handle criticism. He is definitely not showing leadership qualities, and the more he presses this issue, the worse he looks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted August 25, 2004 Author Share Posted August 25, 2004 Bush supporters took a gamble and lost -- they tried to discredit his record and failed -- now the Kerry folks are simply attempting to put a dagger in the issue. Weren't you the one citing polls in another thread today? Surprised you don't recognize that the ads have had an effect on Kerry's support among war veterans (split post convention, Bush has 20% lead now) and that something like 27% of "undecideds" polled say these ads have impacted their opinion of Kerry. But getting back to the point of this thread -- sending Cleland and Rasmussen to Crawford will work like scratching fingernails on a chalkboard to all but the most diehard Kerry supporters (which your polls would also show there aren't many who label themselves as such). It's a stunt that will probably make the average American turning on the news tonight face another day of something they wish would just go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 I'm not surprised. The Dem's exploitation of physical injury and debilitation for political gain is not new. Christopher Reeve. James Brady. Appalling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 I'm not surprised. The Dem's exploitation of physical injury and debilitation for political gain is not new. Christopher Reeve. James Brady. Appalling. 7629[/snapback] Bob Dole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts