John Kerry: Unfit For Command

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

At any rate, how often has the public at large given a flying **** at a rolling donut about the legislative accomplishments of someone running for an executive office?

It's hard to give a flying **** about anything else in Kerry's record, given that he has no sort of experience that would reflect on his ability to serve in an executive office. His legislative record is all we have to go on and it isn't very impressive.

As opposed to being a do-nothing governor, a failure of a baseball GM, half-assed at every other business venture set up for him, and living off of daddy's connections?

It doesn't matter what a piece of **** he is or might be. He's not Bush.

What an intelligent and logical way to look at things. Yet another person lost...

It worked with Hoover. Bush is a half-assed president on his best days, he has wiped his ass with the Constitution, he has failed to accomplish anything of note except embroiling us with inadequate forces in a mideast war and driving the global price of oil to record highs.

Bush's records:

Highest deficits in US history.
Largest national debt in US history.
Record market prices for oil.

And it all goes down from there. The fact that the US isn't a basket case in any overt sense is just an indicator that no President can **** things up that badly in four years, which means Kerry couldn't possibly **** up more than Bush.

Blogs are wonderful things. I should start one about the time that a drunk, coked-out George W. Bush molested me when I was a kid in Houston. I can even prove I was in Houston.

That's not going to get you too far. The best blogs are surprisingly well researched and do a great job of covering stories the Big Media refuse to.

I can do "well researched" - how many people actually audit and verify cited sources which aren't available in the public domain? Not many at all.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
Well, MtG, you've got a problem assuming Bush also lacks integrity. (But where is there evidence of this?) If I were you, I would sit this one out or vote Libertarian, Green or whatever strikes your fancy. Nader at least is personally honest, I think.

Being a draft dodger in all but name, being a sponge off daddy's connections virtually his entire life, being an arrogant, entitled, self-righteous little ***** is good enough for me.

Cromwell and Khomeini had integrity too, is that supposed to be a ringing endorsement?

I could probably sit this one out, since Kerry will stomp Bush's ass in California and everyone knows it, but instead, I'm a volunteer for the Kerry campaign. And with some work I may have coming up, I might just be able to squeak by the registration deadline and vote in another state where my vote has more effect.

[chequita guevara]

I wish the Repugs would actually come up with some valid criticisms of Kerry, instead of just hurling mud and hoping it sticks. I have my criticisms of the man, but since they come from a socialist perspective, I'm sure you don't care.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I wish the Repugs would actually come up with some valid criticisms of Kerry, instead of just hurling mud and hoping it sticks. I have my criticisms of the man, but since they come from a socialist perspective, I'm sure you don't care.

I'm not a big Kerry fan either. I'm just a big "the ony guy who's in the race and has the numbers to beat Bush" fan.

And I have nothing against socialists, at least as long as they're not in power.

[chequita guevara]

Kerry is opposed to gay marriage. That's a good reason to oppose him. I gues the Repugs can't really use that one though.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Ned
Nader at least is personally honest, I think.

You mean I can't whinge at him for accepting Republican funds in his election campaign?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Gibsie
You mean I can't whinge at him for accepting Republican funds in his election campaign?

He accepts funds from Democrats too. Stop the presses!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Kerry is opposed to gay marriage. That's a good reason to oppose him. I gues the Repugs can't really use that one though.

Being in favor of gay marriage is political suicide in the United States as a whole.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


He accepts funds from Democrats too. Stop the presses!

Some hyperliberal Dems like Nader. I don't think the Republicans who were working to qualify him on ballots actually were interested in voting for him, and he knew that - he was just whoring for his ego, knowing full well the only intent was to sabotage Kerry in some tight races.

[chequita guevara]

Doesn't matter. It's still a valid criticism of his politics.

[Pekka]

I think Bush Team is going at the wrong target in Kerry. I think there are high value targets to attack, and they are just going at the wrong ones. The go after his military service, which isn't a good idea, no matter how you look at it, it just ends up backfiring at the end. It's like a 300 pound man calling 250 pound man fat. While you might be making a point that is based on a fact, it makes you look even more what you're claiming the other one to be, and since you started it, it's like a double mistake.

So, they should instead attack ONLY on things their own base is clear. This way the criticism can't be countered so easy.

I feel, that because of this failure in the strategy, I can't say the the people making the shots are really paying attention, and thus Bush should fire them all and get the second team in to make waves.

The flipflop issue is good to attack. Which they do. But they're overdoing it already. They should attack the plans about Kerry going after some businesses, like medical companies, and no doubt the oil business. I mean, while his theme is good, independent of mideast oil and especially Saudi Arabia, remembering that Saudi investors have so much money in the US, do you really want to wage a big confrontation with them? I don't think so. You might make some distance, but you still have to kiss some butts to keep the money in.

And about the other businesses, where Kerry says he will make businesses more responsible for things, while this might be a good idea, they should attack and claim he will alienate big businesses and while he would say he wants to keep the jobs in the US instead of other countries, the exact opposite will happen because of his hostile policies. That would be a good claim, and good attack. And about the rest of the stuff, they should try to claim it's impossible to do and then 'prove' why it is impossible, and that in fact it would hurt the country because they are not in touch with reality and would try them out.

And then finally, they should go strong on their own issues and stop attacking his persona, and claim the high moral grounds, while attacking his issues all the time.

I think it would work way better than this current strategy. Hell, I know it would work better. So I have to conclude that the strategists working for his team are incompetent, and don't want to work after hours so they just go with the easy one, attacking the persona and the too obvious ones which ends up just backfiring anyway, doing more damage than good.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Pekka
I mean, while his theme is good, independent of mideast oil and especially Saudi Arabia, remembering that Saudi investors have so much money in the US, do you really want to wage a big confrontation with them?

I don't think Bush wants anyone to think about the Saudis at all, not after F911.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Doesn't matter. It's still a valid criticism of his politics.

Sure it matters - the guy with "great" politics who never gets elected is meaningless.

Good politics is about getting elected so you can implement something, not about posturing so you can be the next Harold Stassen.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I don't think Bush wants anyone to think about the Saudis at all, not after F911.

What's a Saudi?

[Pekka]

That's right, but Kerry keeps mentioning it, and it's not going to stop unless he comes up with a clever counter to it. He should figure out a way to make him shut up about it, and not countering doesn't equal shutting up about it in this case. He should come up with an indirect attack to that issue, so it would make the Kerry's obsession with mentioning Saudi Arabia all over again stop. Take the concentration on something else. Kerry has a whole plan for the future of energy and reserach, and he's promoting that, and like I said it's a good theme so he should counter it somehow.

When they attack on his persona, he will keep beating the Saudi Arabia issue. Maybe think about a pre-emtpive strike on this issue and announce new deals with Russia with the oil or something like that. Announce even bigger and better program for research of alternative energy resources. But what ever the team is doing now, will not carry them to the second term, they need to step up or they will be walked over.