posted
First, an apology for the Trollishness of this thread. If you are tired of the political debate, get out of here.
Is it me or is the secret behind President Bush's Campaign Strategy to take of of his own (President Bush's) weaknesses and claim they are Senator Kerry's.
Examples.
President Bush was elected originally based on his self-portrayal as a moderate, yet his Presidential Record shows him as much more of a Conservative. Being far away from the center, he is campaiging on Senator Kerry's non-centrist supposed liberalness.
He complains that Senator Edwards will be unable to leave his previous career--Personal Injury Lawyer--behind him. Mr. Cheney has lingering issues with his own previous career--Haliburton, or to be more generic--CEO's of multinational companies.
There are Republican inspired complaints about Senator Kerry's Vietnam War service. President Bush's Vietnam Service can be considered far less than impressive.
President Bush campaigns that Senator Kerry's economic plan must result in hirer taxes because someone has to pay the bill eventually. President Bush has created the largest deficit in US history. How is he planning to pay for this?
President Bush shouts that if Senator Kerry was president, Saddam Hussein would still be free, yet President Bush is president and Osama Bin Laden, leader of the people who attacked us, is still free.
I could go on, but I am sure there are Republican apologists waiting to rip these accusations, or me, to shreds.
What I am more interested in discovering is, does anyone think that this is a actual Republican Election Policy?
In that light I present my last example.
During President Bush's time in office the US faced the worst terrorist incident in its history. Thousand's of American's died that day, and more die around the world as we prosecute the War on Terror. Another attack on US soil is not only possible, but predicted. The US is not safer now than it was before President Bush took office. I am NOT blaming President Bush for this. It is a fact of timing. It is one that some Democrats would take advantage of in campaigning against him.
He says that if we elect President Kerry, we will be even less safe from the terrorists.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
When talking about Edwards's previous career there is relevance when trying to establish a link between frivolous lawsuits and medical costs. Likewise there is relevance if you're afraid Bush will give tax breaks to corporations and their CEOs. Both attacks are relevant although they may not be the case and that is why there are debates back and forth.
The complaints about Kerry's service were inspired by other veterans. There wouldn't be attacks if Kerry hadn't made it the centerpiece of his campaign. I still think attacks on his post-war activities are quite valid.
I'm not sure how the deficit argument fits into your theme and as Edwards admitted in the VP debate all the things that the Dems' ticket is promising aren't going to happen. Personally I don't see the point in making campaign promises that you're not even pretenting that you're going to keep.
I think that Osama bin Laden is being pursued and I don't Kerry would have even sent in American troops into Afgahnistan to begin with. I imagine he would have taken the Clinton approach and just launch cruise missiles until the Taliban surrendered power.
I think we will be less safe from terrorists because I don't believe Kerry will as aggressive in pursuing them.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
You were more polite than I would have been. I would have simply said that the Bush re-election policy was just to Lie, Cheat and Steal the election, just like they did four years ago.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its good that excuses are already being made for a Bush victory. Really it is, it goes along with that whole platform of not accepting responsibility. Don't have a job blame the Republicans, lost money in the stock market blame the Republicans, vote for Buchanan instead of Gore blame the Republicans even though a Democrat designed the ballot, got pregant because you were too lazy to use protection get an abortion, don't do well in school try to ride affirmative action, lose the election because you can't field a credible canidate blame the Republicans for cheating.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except for that frustrating, nagging fact that Republicans did not lie, cheat, or steal the last presidential election.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My big question is: how Conservative is George W. Bush really?
He's talked a good game, or his handlers and the media have, for him being the Conservative candidate.
His track record just doesn't scream Conservative, even in the more modern sense of the word.
Has prayer been returned to schools? Nope.
Has Roe vs. Wade been overturned? Nope.
Has the government shrank any? Nope.
Have we become less involved in world politics? Nope.
Has our government been more responsible with its budget? Nope.
Do we feel that our armed forces are sufficient to protect us? Nope, things are looking a bit thin. If China invades North Dakota, we're up the creek. But if you want to invade us in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait or South Korea, we're ready for ya.
Are education and hard work being rewarded? Nope.
Are our taxes really any lower? Nope.
Man, as a conservative, Mr. Bush really kinda sucks.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well since the only country that can invade North Dakota is Canada we're actually pretty safe there. With the fall of the USSR the only threats to mainland United States are long range missile attacks (why Bush wants ABMs) and terrorist attacks (why Bush is aggressively pursuing terrorists abroad).
Taxes really are lower. Whether they are significant on an individual level for middle class families is debatable.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that Pres. Bush has been quite a bit less moderate than his first presidential campaign promised. Some of that, I feel, can fairly be attributed to 9-11, which simply demanded an immoderate response.
Others, notably financial and energy policy, I am shall we say 'unhappy' with.
However, Sen. Kerry's voting record is very liberal. Just because it's the Bush campaign saying he's behaved quite liberally doesn't mean it's untrue.
I don't really have a problem with Sen. Edwards, except that I distrust lawyers in general but not really in specific. Vice. Pres. Cheney, though, I like less than I like Sen. Edwards or Sen. Kerry.
Most 'Republican-inspired' comments about Sen. Kerry's military service have less to do with his three months in Vietnam and much more to do with what he did once he got home. Which is fair friggin' game, since Sen. Kerry went to great lengths to be public about what he was doing.
Swift Boat Vets. for Truth is a different matter, and if Michael Moore isn't going to be linked to the DNC, then they shouldn't be linked to the RNC, damnit.
The deficit is something I am most dissatisfied with Pres. Bush over, but then again that does not at all mean Sen. Kerry's plans will work, either. It takes Congress, not a President, to take care of the deficit.
Pres. Bush is right (probably) in saying that if Sen. Kerry were President, Saddam would still be free. That depends on whether or not Kerry's nebulous minimums of international allies (which we have), flouting of UN rules by Saddam (which we had), and the presence of danger posed by Saddam if he had WMD (which, for all we could tell-remember, he wasn't letting us find out)-he had, if those minimums were ever met.
No one really knows if OBL is dead or alive or injured, and it takes more than a Presidential decree to capture him. He kind of, you know, runs away when we do that and sort of, you know, shields himself with fantically loyal followers whom money almost certainly won't buy. If there is a more consistently irritating, irrational, and stupid criticism of Bush it is that he hasn't captured OBL yet.
Oh, and Democrats in general and the Kerry Campaign in particular do their own fair share of 'shouting'. But don't mind me, I'm just another frothing, ditto-headed Republican apologist. One of those registered-Independant kind.
[iquote]The US is not safer now than it was before President Bush took office. I am NOT blaming President Bush for this.[/quote]
Could have fooled me.
But to answer your question, I really do think that the points you've made play into the Bush Campaign. I say that without sarcasm; I think they play into the Kerry Campaign, too.
Are you high? Whether or not you think it's a good thing, regardless of deficit problems, taxes are lower.
And China poses a conventional military threat only to those nations with which it shares a land border.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
China was just chosen at random there. How about Gabon or Micronesia.
And I'm sure not feeling much of a reduction in my taxes. How about the rest of you? And with that deficit looming, it sure looks like it will get a might more expensive in the near future.
I'll stand by it: taxes lower -- nope. Income lower -- Yes!
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm amazed at how liberals hate Pat Robertson and company so much but are willing to believe what he says if it hurts Bush.
And personally I dislike Robertson no matter what he says even if he were to be soley responsible for Bush's reelection.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Well if we're going by the rubric of what you 'feel' your taxes are, then there's no point arguing about it. But despite your feelings on the matter, your taxes are lower. Whether that's a good or bad thing, and whether or not the means by which it was done are good or not are another matter (personally, I think good to the first, bad to the second)
----
What conversation might that be? Keep in mind I trust Pat Robertson about as high as I can jump.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I now pay substantially more in state and local taxes to make up the shortfall that Bush created when he gave money away to the rich, and starved the mandated but economically unsuported programs he foisted upon the states and local municipalities.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, curse those rich. After all, nearly half of their income is a pittance! They should be grateful we don't 'liberate' more from them, those foul robber-barons!
posted
No amount delusional medication changes the fact that Bush has no direct or indirect control of local and state taxes.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:No amount delusional medication changes the fact that Bush has no direct or indirect control of local and state taxes.
Not exactly true. The irony, however, is that in Florida, where I believe Rakeesh, Ela, and you (nfl) live, it is Bush's brother who has the most control.
Forget that little fact? Been hitting the bottle yourself, eh? I really dare you to claim that the president has no influence with his brother. Please. I dare you to attempt to quantify such a ridiculous statement.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Bush has a fairly large influence on state taxes. Just as an example...he hasn't funded any of his homeland security programs, so states need to find the revenue to fund federaly mandated programs, that aren't being covered by federal spending. Thus, higher taxes, in many cases.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, don't leave him an opening to dodge my challenge to him. I seriously want to know what he has smoked to convince him that George Bush has no sphere of influence over a state that his brother, Jeb Bush, is the governor of.
Please share with the rest of the class.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, um, Florida does not have a state income tax, for one thing.
-o-
Yay, this thread has helped me rediscover the middle! I don't think Bush "stole" the 2000 election. nfl, is that your honest appraisal of what those of us who don't care for Bush as president stand for, or were you backed into that caricature by the hostile posts that preceded yours?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, um, Florida does not have a state income tax, for one thing.
That's a good start, but there are lots of other taxes, so how does it stand to reason that people aren't paying lower taxes, yet live in one of the states where one of the president's family lives in?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Dagonee, it's "direct or indirect control" that I changed to "influence." Influence involves a reasonable degree of indirect control. Nice tactic of misquoting to attack my argument there, Dagonee.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please. you know it's absolutely ridiculous to contend that Pres. Bush has any meaningful input on Florida tax policies. It's a plain stupid argument.
posted
It's not meant to be heated. I'm mostly just jabbing at Dagonee, and I'm teasing nfl because he seems to be choosing an extreme position to counter what he obviously sees as an alternate extreme position. Not very wise in the realm of politics, IMO.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right. I just can't match your masterful rhetoric: "I seriously want to know what he has smoked to convince him that George Bush has no sphere of influence over a state that his brother, Jeb Bush, is the governor of."
I mean, it's such an obvious argument you feel no need to provide any evidence. And the nice little drug reference to automatically discredit his response before he makes it.
Congratulations! You've surpassed the idiocy that's already been posted today.
quote:I mean, it's such an obvious argument you feel no need to provide any evidence. And the nice little drug reference to automatically discredit his response before he makes it.
No, the drug reference goes back to "delusional medication" that nfl implied anyone who doesn't believe him is taking, and I'm actually demanding that nfl back up his sweeping generality before expecting anyone to back it up.
If you damn my rhetoric, you may as well damn newfoundlogic's first, and even others' in this thread. Surprising that you're singling only my statements out.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even though I pointed out how everything I challenged on had to do with statements someone else used in their posts. Good form.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't care about the drug reference - not that wasn't in my original post. It's the subtle changing of others' posts that pisses me off. So I commented on that. Then you asked for a substantive response to your post, so I pointed out why it didn't deserve one.
posted
Even though I pointed out how I didn't change it? Good job. I think that from the first you were really just replying to me, rather than looking at what I was replying to. In essence, you were looking for things to yell at me about instead of looking at what I was scoffing at to begin with. Shame on you. At least Icarus made the single good point so far.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope. I was just cruising through. Even indirect control doesn't mean the same thing as influence. If it did, you wouldn't have bothered changing it, would you?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't change anything. George has plenty of indirect control, since direct control would be signing the state bills himself or directly ordering Jeb to do so. Since neither are realistic, I focused on the part that is not only far more realistic, but practical in terms of the duties of the governor with regard to federal fiscal policies to begin with, whether being related or not. The being related part just leaves a whole lot more fraternal influence on decisions, which I'd love to see someone debunk.
Still waiting for that explanation.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't say to someone who just asked someone to prove what they said is true to prove it is not true. That is a weak attempt to divert away from the original incorrect statement.
Quantify the original statement made first, and then I will explain the ridiculousness of it. Otherwise, all I'll get is "straw man" this and "straw man" that. The onus is on newfoundlogic's claim.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't care about the substantive argument.
<yoda> That is why you fail. </yoda>
When I hear nfl or you make a substantive argument for that ridiculous claim, I will address it with a substantive response. Until then, I will simply say, "prove it."
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Had you just said prove it, we wouldn't have had this conversation. Instead, you said, "You're wrong." Had you just said that, we still wouldn't have had this conversation.
I did no such thing. I specified exactly where he was wrong. Had he said only "direct control," then there is little one could say. The scope of indirect control is so vast that I would love to see it explained how any president doesn't have such indirect control, let alone the current president having no indirect control over the state his brother is governor of.
You get points for trying, though.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But despite your feelings on the matter, your taxes are lower. Whether that's a good or bad thing, and whether or not the means by which it was done are good or not are another matter (personally, I think good to the first, bad to the second)![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
