(Gary on A-I Jane started this, and some of the following suggestions are his, including the first one, which I think is hysterical.)
Since the presidential campaign of Senator John F. Kerry is foundering so badly--down 13 points nationally according to the latest Gallup poll--perhaps what the campaign needs are some new slogans. Here are some helpful suggestions:
(1) "I will keep our enemies guessing, TOO."
(2) "If you don't like my position on the issues, just wait a day or two."
(3) "I'm for whatever you're for!"
(4) "Projecting American Strength Through Complex Nuance."
(5) "I'm the anti-war candidate--I'm the man to lead America in the war on terror."
(6) "My running mate and I are joined in supporting same sex marriage--let us share our family values with you."
(7) "I may have the most liberal voting record of any senator, but I'm really a conservative."
(8) "I'm proud of my service in Vietnam, even though I confessed to being a war criminal."
(9) "Even though I was AWOL in the Senate for 20 years, I'm reporting for duty now!"
(10) "I'm the non-racist candidate!"
[ September 18, 2004, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: (6) "My running mate and I are joined in supporting same sex marriage--let us share our family values with you."
Except neither actually supports it...
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Edwards was unequivocally in favor of it, before becoming Kerry's running mate. Kerry tries to naunce the issue by saying he favors legalization of same-sex "unions," or else that he is opposed to a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, or else that if he were a citizen of Missouri (I think it was where he said it) he would have voted in favor of a constitutinal ban on same-sex marriage like most of his listeners did, as long as it did not forbid same-sex unions--or something like that.
Pinning Kerry down exactly would seem to violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It's like he's the electron candidate. Is he here, is he there--it's all a matter of probability. All you can do is describe a range of positions.
[ September 18, 2004, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Maybe we should compare these slogans against the Bush camp:
quote:(1) "I will keep our enemies guessing, TOO."
You never know when your country might be invaded.
quote:(2) "If you don't like my position on the issues, just wait a day or two."
If you don't vote for me, the terrorists win.
quote:(3) "I'm for whatever you're for!"
I know most Americans are against assault weapons, but my principled leadership tells me to stick to my guns.
quote:(4) "Projecting American Strength Through Complex Nuance."
What is this "nuance" you speak of?
quote:(5) "I'm the anti-war candidate--I'm the man to lead America in the war on terror."
By WMDs I meant bringing democracy to the Iraqi people. And by democracy I actually mean a Haliburton occupation.
quote:(6) "My running mate and I are joined in supporting same sex marriage--let us share our family values with you."
My running mate's daughter is gay and I want to champion a constitutional amendment to curtail her rights--let us share our family values with you.
quote:(7) "I may have the most liberal voting record of any senator, but I'm really a conservative."
I may have given tons of tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, but I'm really a compassionate conservative.
quote:(8) "I'm proud of my service in Vietnam, even though I confessed to being a war criminal."
Of course I have an exit strategy for Iraq, I had one for Vietnam didn't I?
quote:(9) "Even though I was AWOL in the Senate for 20 years, I'm reporting for duty now!"
Even though I didn't want to risk my life during the Vietnam war, I'm willing to risk your children's lives in the Iraq war.
quote:(10) "I'm the non-racist candidate!"
I'm the first president since the 1930s who has not met with the NAACP.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
How about this old lyric from Pete Townsend that kind of sums it up no matter who wins:
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
"Kerry vs. Bush: No matter who wins, we lose."
--j_k
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"I went to see the president He had a bruise on his shoulder where big business places its thumb His breath was powerful, and he reeked of compromise."
Jeb Puryear
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
It's always refreshing to see a rigorous discussion of the issues in a calm and useful manner.
Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
I do not think that either way we lose. I do not think that either man is anywhere near ideal, but I think that who wins will determine how the next 20 years goes. Why was i born 8 months too late for this election?
[ September 18, 2004, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: Allegra ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So much for my feeble attempts to raise the level of political discourse.
Dagonee
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Well, I never get involved in these discussions, but I really do feel that compromise can be the death knell for us all. I am a Dead Dog Democrat, but I have admired Bush for pushing his agenda through. I grudgingly respect him for his ability to choose strong "help," and for delegating responsibility without saying it was all his idea in the first place. In fact(deep breath, because I can't believe I am saying this) I think he is a good leader. The best leaders share. Period. I will vote for Kerry, but I really don;t like him. I will be voting for him because I am a Democrat, and that is all. Sad, that.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I would probably have more opinions on the election if it weren't for the media seems to only talk about the authentuity of their militairy records.
But my stance is probably somewhere inbetween libritarian and republican. My belief is that Bush made some mistakes, very true. But if you look at some of the plans he wishes to bring out, and how... good a leader I suppose he is, I think that he could do well again.
But, I must say I am getting rather tired of hearing how people have been raging about no WMDs there. Thing is, that wasn't the point. It was that he believed, and still does believe that Sadaam was connected to the bombing in 9/11. As such he shouldn't be trusted to continue to lead his people in such tyrany. The WMDs were a point, but not THE point for going into the war.
Personally, I want to hear what Kerry plans on doing once in office. That way I can look at his history on the subjects that he wants to do and see how true to his word he is. If he says one thing, but does the other. I don't think he should win. However, if he holds true to his word, had good plans, and shows true patriotism for the people, I would consider voting for him.
Pity I'm fourteen and have no voice in the say of our country's leadership.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:So much for my feeble attempts to raise the level of political discourse.
Aw Dag, when you try to change the board, you become Mr. Squicky. I think it'll drive you crazy unless you accept it for what it is.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
George Bush's slogan for 2004!
"I am Jesus! I am the Way, The Light and The Truth! And if you don't believe I am perfect you are going to Hell!"
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Of course I have an exit strategy for Iraq, I had one for Vietnam didn't I?
I admit it, I was laughing inside when I read this.
Hobbes Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
More Bullshite...then again, what should we have expected, from suck a strong "Democrat" as Ron.....
As fair and even a treatment since.....
The Swift Vet Thread....
Kwea
[ September 18, 2004, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Edwards was unequivocally in favor of it, before becoming Kerry's running mate.
Sorry, but I specifically recall hearing Edwards say, during an interview on a local TV channel here in central California when he came here to campaign during the primaries (and thus long before he became Kerry's running mate), that he was not personally in favor of gay marriage but that he was also not in favor of banning it. That is very different from being "unequivocally in favor of it".
Also, sorry for no link, but the clip did not appear on the web.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:In fact(deep breath, because I can't believe I am saying this) I think he is a good leader.
*sigh* I wish that leadership qualities came hand in hand with knowing where to go.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
As much as I dislike much of what Bush has said and done since taking office, I find that much of what I dislike about him has to do with his party and the people in it. Not all Republicans, mind you, but the attitude of the party in general and true loyalists in particular.
But then I look on the Democratic side and see much the same thing. Party politics and the people who work to promote parties have always given me a vague feeling of disquiet. But over the past 10 years or so, it's gotten worse. I feel like we're back in the days of Nixon, wherein loyalists will do anything and say anything in order to win. Truth be damned.
What no-one who does this ever seems to realize is that what they see as a war (in which all is fair) gives the rest of America a powerful reason to distrust our political process and our politicians. Of course, since politicians are also our leaders and appoint the heads of our institutions, it gives people a powerful reason to distrust our leaders and our institutions too.
And so, we do.
Or I do.
Some people get off on this sort of thing. And they bemoan the apathy of the American voter, etc. etc. But they don't seem to see how poisonous the entire process seems from any perspective but one of pure party loyalty. And how futile if one truly wishes to vote one's conscience. Because such votes are lost in a sea of party warfare.
Sorry to be such a cynic, but I have so totally lost interest in either of these candidates and those surrounding them that I despair no matter which of them gets into office.
And sadly from that perspective none of the jokes are funny. From either side. It's all just cynical party-driven sniping. And, truth be told, it probably weakens America as much as some of the "recognized" things that people keep moaning about. Because laying underneath it is the apparent belief that if one's "side" doesn't win, the country is doomed.
I'm beginning to believe that our doom is awaiting us no matter which of these groups is in charge at any given time. It's like a city deciding which gang or mafia family is going to control its crime.
[ September 19, 2004, 07:04 AM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: I feel like we're back in the days of Nixon, wherein loyalists will do anything and say anything in order to win. Truth be damned.
The further danger of this is that it allows both sides to assume any defense of the other is just loyalists saying and doing anything, and thus not worthy of serious discussion. It's a feedback loop of frightening proportions.
Dagonee
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Tuesday, November 18, 2003 Senator John Edwards released the following statement
quote:As I have long said, I believe gay and lesbian Americans are entitled to equal respect and dignity under our laws. While I personally do not support gay marriage, I recognize that different states will address this in different ways, and I will oppose any effort to pass an amendment to the United States Constitution
Now that wasn't very hard to find. Yet no matter how often your sources are caught out as liars, RonLambert, you never bother to make the simplest of checks. Which ought to tell you something about yourself.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Aspectre, you must not be very fluent in "doublespeak." Edwards said he was opposed to a ban on gay marriage, yet said he was personally "opposed" to gay marriage. Somehow this reminds me of the similar position held by liberal democrats where they say they are personally opposed to abortion, but yet vote in favor of every "pro-choice" law that is proposed.
The "naunce" Kerry and Edwards now try to spin is that they do not object to civil unions for gays, but do not think that same-sex marriage is proper. Yet they have never, ever voted for any legislation that would in any way prevent same-sex marriage from being legal, nor did they speak in disappoval of those efforts in San Francisco and in Massachusettes to issue marriage licenses for same-sex marriages. They have spoken out in opposition to a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
So you tell me, what do you honestly believe they would do in office, if presented with legislation either favoring or probiting same-sex marriage? What kind of judges would they appoint, who hold what views on the subject?
I think it is obvious that their support for same-sex marriage is unequivocal, despite how they may try to equivocate about it. Or does that seem to be too "nuanced" a statement?
[ September 19, 2004, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
It simply ignores what "liberal" means, thats all.
Liberals believe that government shouldn't tell people how to live, and so will not vote for legislation banning, for example, same sex marriage, even if they find the idea personally repugnant.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, You are raising the level of political discussion on the board. Don't doubt that. Before Mr. Boy left, I was thinking of declaring a Hatrack golden age in terms of serious discussions, as the quality was, in my opinion, looking to be better than at any other time that I was around.
Labert, I've said it before. There is a reason why most of us here don't frequent Ornery. I wish that you would respect that and keep this sort of thing over there.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Please don't bring it to ornery. We don't like it, there, either. THis isn't serious discussion, its political masturbation.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Paul, You and I obviously have very different impressions of what goes on at Ornery.
edit: That is at least partially a joke.
[ September 19, 2004, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
We probably do, but people who posted this sort of thread on a regular basis got banned from ornery... in large part, for doing exactly this sort of thing. Trying to keep a political discussion board productive is a ridiculously hard thing to do, and we don't need people like you trying to shunt crap over to us. Its not serious discussion here, and its not serious discussion there.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not true...masturbation at least serves a purpose.
[ September 19, 2004, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
ACtually, this serves exactly the same purpose as masturbation. It makes the user feel good, but doesn't do anything for anyone else, and just leaves a mess that needs to be cleaned up.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Liberals believe that government shouldn't tell people how to live, and so will not vote for legislation banning, for example, same sex marriage, even if they find the idea personally repugnant.
While that is an accurate description for part of the left, liberals during my lifetime have played a role in legislation that makes it illegal for most landlords to refuse to rent based on their own prejudices. (Remember, I was a "liberal" back when it wasn't a dirty word.)
*shrug*
Both the left and right get into people's private business - they just disagree on what parts of people's private lives and choices there should be restrictions on.
Conservatives believe in "deregulation" when it comes to operating a business. Depending on the conservative, the same principle may or may not apply to people's private sex lives.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: And sadly from that perspective none of the jokes are funny. From either side. It's all just cynical party-driven sniping. And, truth be told, it probably weakens America as much as some of the "recognized" things that people keep moaning about. Because laying underneath it is the apparent belief that if one's "side" doesn't win, the country is doomed.
Thank you, Bob!
You know, as a voter who is still unsure who I will vote for and is becoming more and more stressed as election day approaches, I am really annoyed at threads like this. They do not help me one iota. I think it is childish. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
sndrake, nowhere is this more evident than in the conflict between free exercise of religion and the establishment clause.
Here's an an example from California. Note the presence of the ACLU on one side, effectively mandating that employers violate their religious principles in order to allow individuals to exercise their right to privacy.
quote:In a precedent-setting decision, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday that a Roman Catholic charity must offer birth-control coverage to its employees even though the church considers contraception a sin.
The 6-1 decision marked the first such ruling by a state's highest court. Experts said the ruling could affect thousands of workers at Catholic hospitals and other church-backed institutions in California and prompt other states to fashion similar laws.
California is one of 20 states to require that all company-provided health plans must include contraception coverage if the plans have prescription drug benefits.
The high court said that Catholic Charities is no different from other businesses in California, where "religious employers" such as churches are exempt from the requirement. Catholic Charities argued that it, too, should be exempt.
But the Supreme Court ruled that the charity is not a religious employer because it offers such secular services as counseling, low-income housing and immigration services to people of all faiths, without directly preaching Catholic values.
In fact, Justice Kathryn Werdegar wrote that a "significant majority" of the people served by the charity are not Catholic. The court also noted that the charity employs workers of differing religions.
The California Catholic Conference, which represents the church's policy position in the state, said it was disappointed with the ruling and feared that it could open the door to mandated insurance coverage of abortion.
"It shows no respect to our religious organizations," said spokeswoman Carol Hogan.
The American Civil Liberties Union applauded the ruling and called it "a great victory for California women and reproductive freedom."
Justice Janice Rogers Brown was the lone dissenting judge. Brown wrote that the Legislature's definition of a "religious employer" is too limiting if it excludes faith-based nonprofit groups like Catholic Charities.
"Here we are dealing with an intentional, purposeful intrusion into a religious organization's expression of its religious tenets and sense of mission," Brown wrote. "The government is not accidentally or incidentally interfering with religious practice; it is doing so willfully by making a judgment about what is or is not a religion."
Dagonee
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Let me get out here, that "liberal" in the context I am using, is classical liberalism... not modern american labels.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
"Somehow this reminds me of the similar position held by liberal democrats where they say they are personally opposed to abortion, but yet vote in favor of every "pro-choice" law that is proposed."
So are you insinuating that these 'liberal democrats' are actually in *favor* of people having abortions? Contrary to what you imply, it is possible to oppose something personally yet feel that it's not the government's place to outlaw it. Examples: smoking, eliminating helmet laws, the Backstreet Boys.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I feel that issue to be similar to the Pharmacy thread...
No blocking access to ANY medical treatment approved by a Md.
This sucks...in defending peoples right to access of medical care I end up sounding like I want everyone to have abortions, when the opposite is true.
Talk about a catch-22....
Kwea
[ September 19, 2004, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Classical Liberalism respect for the
1) Rule of Law 2) Democracy 3) Liberty 4) Equality 5) Individualism
The numbers aren't in any sort of order, and different weights are allowed since some of the tenets can be mutually exclusive when construed in different ways, but those are the five tenents, if I remember correctly.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
It is amusing how thin-skinned and humorless some Kerry supporters can be when it is their candidate who is the target of political satire. It seems that they can dish it out, but they can't take it.
Irami, as you and others have mentioned, there is a wide variety of definitions for "liberal." It looks like what used to be called "liberal" a hundred years ago is closer to what is called "conservative" now. Less interference by the government in the lives of the individual and fiscal responsibility such as balancing the budget, used to be "liberal" doctrines a hundred years ago. Now they are doctrines that typically you hear from the most conservative Republicans, or maybe even from members of some minor, splinter parties.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Minor, splinter parties like the Democrats?
Seriously, neither the Dems nor the Republicans do more than give lip service to classical liberalism.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I was thinking of parties like the Libertarians, but it is true that both major parties pay lip service to the ideas at times. But both issues are essentially identified with conservative Republicans, who are the ones who really push for them.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Are you kidding, Ron?
The republican party is all about putting their social values into legislation. In fact, I suspect thats why many people here vote for republicans.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Paul, we have a Republican President, and Republicans control both the House and Senate. We do not have anything near a balanced budget. So who is it who really believes in a balanced budget? Certainly not the Democrats, but evidently not the mainstream Republican party, either.
[ September 20, 2004, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I think it'll drive you crazy unless you accept it for what it is.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)