Shrum is too busy tallying his checks last I heard so don't get your hope up.
Posted by john at August 31, 2004 01:33 PMAnd Steve, not meaning to give the trolls any food here, but I gotta know, what do you plan to say if by say Saturday there is not an ad up about this by the Kerry campaign or MoveOn PAC?
Posted by Tony at August 31, 2004 01:37 PM"We meet today in a time of war for our country, a war we did not start yet one that we will win."
Which war is he talking about? The war in Iraq which he (BUSH) started? The one it looks like we are on the way to losing big time because it was the wrong war for the wrong time from the wrong way kid?
What gets me is how many people recognize that Bush is truly incompetent and then turn around and kiss up to him. What gives? (Yeah, John McCain, I'm asking you.) What is the payoff? It guess they don't care that we have a total C+ f*ckup running the country?
Posted by Mary at August 31, 2004 01:37 PMHe who lives by the Rove-speak can die by it as well. So much for the flip-flop charge. I’m anxiously awaiting the Kerry TV commercials showing the clip from the Today show interview juxtaposed with today’s American Legion speech, showing that they occurred days from each other, with the voiceover “This is no time for an unsteady president who flip-flops in the war on terror.”You tell em SteveAnd if that TV commercial isn’t running in all battleground states within two days, Kerry doesn’t deserve to win. I don't want to hear any damn excuses either. James Carville would be the first to tell you that a successful campaign needs to be flexible and ruthless enough to capitalize immediately on your opponent's mistakes while they are still fresh.
So take out the blade Shrum and draw some blood, and do it now.Posted by Ron In Portland at August 31, 2004 01:42 PM
What gets me is how many people recognize that Bush is truly incompetent and then turn around and kiss up to him. What gives? (Yeah, John McCain, I'm asking you.) What is the payoff? It guess they don't care that we have a total C+ f*ckup running the country?
I can't believe the payoff can be worth it Mary.
Guess Dubya also phoned into Limbaugh's show today to do some splainin to reassure the base about his "no we can't win it" comment. Same BS he stated with McCain...blah, blah, conventional war, peace treaty,...blah, blah...terrist, blah, blah, we won't back down.
It was a obviously a mega blunder if Dubya phoned into Drug Addict Limbaugh's show.
Now only thing I want to see is that smirking picture of Commander Codpiece in his flightsuit under the Mission Accomplished sign with the words..."no we can't win it" in the same commercial. Come on Kerry, or DNC it's time to... Bring It On!
Posted by emal at August 31, 2004 01:58 PMI'd do no nation building from the 2000 campaign versus one of his comments on Iraq.
I'd do the Osama dead or alive comment with a line dismissing him.
Drive in several nails.
Posted by Chris at August 31, 2004 01:58 PMhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47542-2004Aug30.html
How about running an ad on this 40mil gift Bush gave to 1 of the SWB liar ? Simple, easy connection to Bush.
Oh, sorry, forgot Shrum is still tallying his checks last I heard.
Posted by john at August 31, 2004 02:17 PMSome simple truth. Thank you.
Posted by Marisacat at August 31, 2004 02:17 PMI'm likin' the new Howard Beale-like Soto, and can certainly relate.
If you haven't read it already, this Michael Kinsley piece is a good (albeit temporary) antidote to the BS-fest in NYC. He pulls few punches. Love his repeated reference to Dubya as a "small man".
Dubya to Mary: "They started it!" ::pout::
The payoff for some of course is tax cuts and for others it's "business opportunities", but for many it's simply retaining faith in their world view. Conservatives love Bush for "staying the course" not only because that sounds tough (and lambast Kerry for "flip-flopping") but because change, in general, is anathema to them. So they excuse Bush's bungling as either media bias or with the belief that his intentions are in the right place.
Posted by Bragan at August 31, 2004 02:18 PMI'd give a great, great deal to know the answer to your question, Mary.
These utter fools must think we can war and spend and pollute 'till infinity and there will be no consequences.
Millions are out of work right now as a consequence and they do nothing. I think, when it really comes down to it, that they only truly care about themselves. If they're all right then the hell with the rest of us. It's the only answer that makes any sense to me.
Posted by paradox at August 31, 2004 02:23 PM5wppion. With65{ts, you'd think the Dems could skewer Bush on a new one daily. But they, as a party, are still trying to be nice and fair. That, in many ways describe their "base". Fair-minded people of many cultures and races and stations in life trying to just get along (sounds sappy, but....). BushCo plays to his base, which cannot be described in the same manner. Look at where Dean got by fighting fire with fire......almost nominated for president then dismissed as a madman because he "screamed". Now we see why Dean was both the GOP and the Dems worst nightmare for the same reason: he'd fight. Lets hope Kerry can inspire enough fire in his party and his campaign operatives to keep at Bush's heels........I'll give him a few more than two days before tossing in the towell. Remember, it is not that he deserve to win, only that he does.
Posted by T2 at August 31, 2004 02:24 PM(Yeah, John McCain, I'm asking you.)
I thought Guilliani's speech said it all last night, that guys like him and McCain think that Republicans are the war party and the only ones to be trusted right now, even if they privately concede (I don't think Guilliani would) that the head man is a sort of empty vessel. I don't know that Guilliani's right about Republicans being the war party. There were gaping holes in his remembrance of history. In his speech, he invoked Lincoln and praised Churchill, but treated Wilson and FDR as though they were not there and had not been Democrats.
Posted by paul at August 31, 2004 02:26 PMWhat went wrong? should say:
I understand Steve's frustration. With all the Bush screw ups, you'd think the Dems..............
Thank God Bush rarely flip-flops. Just this one and the odd gross or two. Below are some of my favorites, liberally plagiarized from here.
Saddam/al Qaeda Link
BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... [President Bush, 9/25/02]
...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT [President Bush, 9/17/03]
U.N. Resolution
BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... [President Bush 3/6/03]
...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR [Washington Post, 3/18/03]
Department of Homeland Security
BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]
Weapons of Mass Destruction
BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION… [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]
...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION … [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]
North Korea
BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... [President's Statement, 11/15/02]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM…[White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]
Abortion
BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]
...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]
Social Security Surplus
BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS [President Bush, 3/3/01]
...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS [The New York Times, 2/6/02]
Patient's Right to Sue
GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... [Salon, 2/7/01]
...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]
...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE [Washington Post, 4/5/04]
Tobacco Buyout
BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM [President Bush, 5/04]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]
OPEC
BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... [President Bush, 1/26/00]
...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]
Iraq Funding
BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]
...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]
Condoleeza Rice Testimony
BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'... [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]
...BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: [President Bush, 3/30/04]
Science
BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE... [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]
Ahmed Chalabi
BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS... [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]
...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE [Washington Post, 5/20/04]
Free Trade
BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE [Washington Post, 9/19/03]
Osama Bin Laden
BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]
...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]
The Environment
BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]
...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]
WMD Commission
BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... [NY Times, 1/29/04]
...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE [President Bush, 2/6/04]
Creation of the 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... [CBS News, 5/23/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION [ABC News, 09/20/02]
Time Extension for 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... [Washington Post, 1/19/04]
...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 [CNN, 2/4/04]
One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony
BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... [NY Times, 2/26/04]
...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]
Gay Marriage
BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE [President Bush, 2/24/04]
Nation Building
BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION [President Bush, 3/6/03]
Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict
BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... [President Bush, 04/05/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS [President Bush, 5/23/03]
Campaign Finance
BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]
...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]
Remember those democrats who stripped naked and ran down the streets of New York city over the weekend? This blog entry by Steve is kind of like the mental version of that.
The Kerry campaign is on the verge of a major shake-up according to the Wall St Journal today. Article by Al Hunt today.
"The Kerry campaign, like most, ultimately reflects the candidate. The cautious indecisiveness and occasional vacillations have become Kerry trademarks."
"Leading Democrats describe a command structure often frozen -- or at least tempered -- by too many chefs, a too-heavy reliance on polls or focus groups and an aversion to risks. As a result, the message often is muddled and the reaction to hard-hitting attacks from Republicans often is slow and unconvincing."
Posted by muckdog at August 31, 2004 02:52 PMBragan: You are quite correct. The Conservatives will just say it is the LIBERAL media.
I will vote for Kerry, but the excitment of doing so and the belief in him are waning. If you can stand by while your enemy slaps you around, you are a wimp. Kerry doesn't deserve to win if he continues to allow this idiot free rein in insults.
Hey you media dumbs--ts. Did you hear about Barnes saying he got GW out of the VietNam War? One would think that this just might be a big story. Get off your lazy asses and start doing some reporting on real news.
Posted by Judith at August 31, 2004 03:12 PMRight, Judith. It would be a huge news flash to learn that George W. Bush got help securing a spot with the Texas Air National Guard. Stop the presses.
I'm just waiting for Peter Jennings to discuss why John Kerry met with representatives of the Viet Cong and the Communist government of North Viet Nam during the Peace Talks.
Which is worse: pulling strings to get a chance at flying combat aircraft (no danger there!) or consorting with the enemy in wartime while an officer in the United States Navy?
Posted by Toby Petzold at August 31, 2004 03:27 PMYeah while Kerry was trying to bring peace to the world, bush was wrapping his car around lampposts.
Posted by GD at August 31, 2004 03:35 PMToby, maybe you should pose your which is worse pulling strings to get into the TANG to avoid active combat in Viet Nam or Kerry's Actions to the families who had no political connections to do the same and that have relatives on the Wall at Viet Nam Memorial(like me)... Dumbass!
Your boy is a LOSER....he was AWOL.
Posted by emal at August 31, 2004 03:38 PMSteve, I hope you got a freeze frame of that headline, coz now Bush has "recanted."
Not much better, but loses that "now" comment
Posted by Duckman GR at August 31, 2004 03:58 PMI'm sorry but anybody who watched the Kerry campaign throughout last year knew what to expect from him in the general election. The man had to self finance to stay in the race for goodness sake. He lacked core support and won by morphing into ABB, the mantle Joementum expected to inherit.
As much as I would love this country to engage in a real debate about Vietnam to understand how this country has repeated our stupidity in Iraq, we ain't gonna get it by asking, "What did you do in the war daddy?" And Kerry goes around shocked, shocked that his GOP "buddies" McCain and Dole wouldn't be out there backing him up; thus betraying a very weak ability to know other people. Those were colleagues or associates but never friends. Kerry thought he was so clever to ask McCain to join his ticket, when what it really did was raise McCain's reputation as a moderate (he's not one) and give McCain the tools to make Kerry look like a boob.
One of the worst President's ever and our nominee is bogged down in what or what he didn't do thirty-five years ago; even though regardless of the truth (something we'll never know because there were no objective observers there at the time and the memories of all of them are completely warped by now), his actions were more honorable than Bush's or Cheney's because he at list put his butt on the line for a war he supported.
It may not even matter if Kerry swings back hard and fast or slow and soft because all defense all the time is not a winning gameplan. BushCo fumbles a lot but relying on the defense to score all the points doesn't work. Kerry's offensive game has always been work. Guess it will be up to the special team that pulls out all the stops and gutter politics to win one more for him.
Posted by Marie at August 31, 2004 04:01 PMI once was nervous about Bush's chances of winning this election. But if you people are representative of mainstream Democrates, there is no way Bush can lose. Keep up the "good" work and this election will look like the landslide victory in 1984.
Posted by calmdown at August 31, 2004 04:14 PMFLIP FLOPPER & OTHER QUESTIONS FOR BUSH
1. Why is it that you claim to be a friend of veterans and yet have proposed so many cuts to programs benefiting veterans including the closure of some V.A. hospitals?
2. If you believe Sen. Kerry's military service was "honorable" and something "about which he should be proud," then why do you refuse to specifically condemn the Swift Boat Veterans? Aren't values more than something to which one gives lip service?
3. Former Sen. Max Cleland left half of his body in Vietnam. Yet when he came to your ranch with a letter signed by 9 other Congressional war heroes, neither you nor any of your immediate aides had the courtesy to accept the letter. Why are you afraid of a triple amputee in a wheelchair?
4. The almost 3,000 victims of the WTC attacks did not die for politicians or political parties. How do you justify hijacking emotions related to that tragedy for your own personal political gain?
5. You are quoted as having said, "One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures." Is that why you continued to read "My Pet Goat" for almost 17 minutes after Andrew Card informed you that the US was under attack? Why wasn't the security of America more important than reading a kiddy book?
6. What possessed you to use the 9/11 national tragedy as a punch line in your 'Trifecta' joke? And to follow up, why did your partisan republican audiences laugh with you?
7. Sen. Kerry has been accused of flip flopping. But is it not true that you have flip flopped on issues such as the 9/11 Commission; on calling for a UN vote on Iraq; on creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security; on a Constitutional amendment on gay marriage; on use of the military for "nation building;" on the issue of tax credits for hybrid automobiles; on extending the assault weapons ban; on steel tariffs; on spending the Social Security surplus; on the patient's right to sue; on the Federal Government's position on tobacco buyout; on disarmament incentives to North Korea; on lobbying OPEC; on the Condoleeza Rice testimony; on your pledge to issue regulation based on science; on the presence of WMD in Iraq; on restricting Free Trade; on the importance of capturing Osama Bin Laden; on mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions; on an investigation into intelligence failures in Iraq; summits in the Palestinian crisis; campaign finance; on providing financial support for the First Responders; on military benefits; on who was responsible for the "Mission Accomplished" sign; on the fingerprinting and photographing of Mexicans entering the US; on refusing to pass budget deficits; your positions on stem cells and human embryos; about your support of the Low Income Energy Support Program; your position on abortion; on racial profiling; 8. Why did your administration lobby Daschle to drop investigation of the Sept. 11th tragedies, and why haven't you released the 9/11 Commission Report to the public?
9. How many federal employees were fired following the catastrophic intelligence failures on 9/11?
10. Can you explain why did NORAD deviated from Standard Operating Procedure on the morning of 9-11, failing to scramble jets? If not, can you tell us the status of that investigation?
11. Can you explain why $50 million allocated to investigate the Columbia Shuttle disaster, yet only $3 million was allocated to investigate 9-11?
12. How did you get an Honorable Discharge when you failed to complete your service?
13. Your tax cuts have been described as "WealthCare." Why did the top 1% income bracket receive a 32.4% tax cut while the lower 60% received only a 8.5% tax cut?
14. Why did you attempt through the Secretary of Commerce to relax the definition of "dolphin safe" so commercial fisheries could catch more tuna known to be contaminated with mercury?
15. Why are two Belgium owned and operated equine slaughterhouses in your home state of Texas continuing to butcher American horses, many stolen family pets, for export to Europe and Japan as a "delicacy"?
16. How do you justify the budget cuts for veterans benefits at precisely the time you are ramping up the military for permanent war?
17. Where are the WMD?
18. Would you still go to war knowing that there were no WMD?
19. You used the term "catastrophic success.”” What exactly does that mean?
20. Forty (40) per cent of homeless men are VETERANS. What are you doing about that situation? Isn't this inconsistent with your statement that, "Home is important. It's important to have a home."——Crawford, Texas, Feb. 18, 2001.
21. 45 million people lack health coverage. Do you think basic health care is an American right? Health care costs have gone ballistic during your Administration. Why haven't you made health care more affordable?
22. "As you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say." ——George W. Bush, Oct. 28, 2003. When will the press and American people be able to ask you questions?
23. "I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things." ——George W. Bush, aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003. Recently, you admitted to making mistakes in Iraq. Don't you think being more analytical and erudite might help promote success and security?
24. You are quoted as saying, "When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive." ——George W. Bush, Washington, D.C. Sept. 19, 2001. Then why are Americans still dying in Iraq almost one year after you declared "Mission Accomplished?"
25. What exactly are the limits and parameters of the US commitment in Iraq?26. Your father has had several skin lesions removed from his face. Why do you oppose environmental legislation that would reduce skin cancer rates?
27. Regarding the patient's bill of rights, you are quoted as having said on June 13, 2001: "I haven't had a chance to talk, but I'm confident we'll get a bill that I can live with if we don't." What did you exactly mean by that?
28. At the DNC Sen. Kerry challenged you to run a positive campaign on current issues. In 2001 you said, "It is time to set aside the old partisan bickering and finger-pointing and name-calling." Do you think your current campaign is consistent with those statements?
29. If universal healthcare is important for Iraq, why not here?
30. On Jan. 14, 2001 you said, "The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants." What does your Administration intend to do to make the US energy independent with renewable fuels that protect our ecosystem & pocketbook?
31. "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." ——George W. Bush, Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000. Then why are millions of fish now dying in our lakes and streams? Why are there warnings in many states advising people not to ingest fish because of the dangers of mercury poisoning from industrial pollution?
32. Despite your tax cut program, the American economy is still ailing. You said, "A tax cut is really one of the anecdotes to coming out of an economic illness." ——George W. Bush, The Edge With Paula Zahn, Sept. 18, 2000. Then why are were still in an "economic illness?"
33. When was the last time that you spoke before a crowd of exclusively "invited guests?" ("This is what I'm good at. I like meeting people, my fellow citizens, I like interfacing with them." ——George W. Bush, outside Pittsburgh, Sept. 8, 2000.)
34. Where is Osama bin Laden? You have flip flopped on this topic, what is your current opinion of the importance of apprehending Bin Laden?
35. Why did you renege on your campaign promise to support the Kyoto Treaty on global warming?
36. "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." ——Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004. Do you really believe that national policy is beneficial to the United States?
37. With Homeland Security initiatives like First Responders being underfunded, how do you reason that creating more foreign enemies is making us any safer?
38. "The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself." - Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003. If that were true, why did we have to go after Hussein in the first place?
39. On Aug 22, 2002 you proposed deforestation as a means to combat forest fires. ("We need to understand if you let kindling build up and there's a lightning strike, you're going get yourself a big fire.") Isn't your support for deforestation actually just pandering to logging and timber financial interests? If not, do you think that we should test your theory by setting experimental fires in certain areas of Texas?
40. Why did you fail to fund your "Leave No Child Behind" initiative?
41. If you are so concerned about unemployment, why are there no unemployment extensions?
42. How can you expect people to be excited about your ““Ownership Society”” when they cannot pay their bills and put food on the table?
43. What are your real plans for Social Security?
44. On June 15, 2001 when advised of the extent of the US nuclear arsenal you said, ''I had no idea we had so many weapons, ...what do we need them for?'' Please tell us what you have done to reduce our nuclear arsenal.
45. "There's no cave deep enough for America, or dark enough to hide."——Oklahoma City, Aug. 29, 2002. Is that really how you envision America and her future?
46. "This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating."——as quoted by the New York Daily News, April 23, 2002. Is that really why you decided to invade Iraq?
47. How do you propose to form international alliances and coalitions to prevent future wars like Iraq and to protect American security?
48. "My plan plays down an unprecedented amount of our national debt."——Budget address to Congress, Feb. 27, 2001. This year we have an astounding $478 billion dollar deficit. Do you think that your "plan" has been successful?
49. "We're concerned about AIDS inside our White House——make no mistake about it."——Washington, D.C., Feb. 7, 2001. How many cases of AIDS did you find in the White House? What are you doing for AIDS research?
50. "Natural gas is hemispheric. I like to call it hemispheric in nature because it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods."——Austin, Texas, Dec. 20, 2000. Natural gas is not found naturally in most US neighborhoods. Does that make them non-hemispheric, and what are your proposals to solve the current energy crisis?
We're not crates dude. We're Americans and we're taking our country back from offshore tax haven warmonger hate spewing oligarchs like the current administration and republican dictated Congress. Oh, and bible thumping religious fundamentalists dreaming of Armegeddon sociopaths, we're taking it back from them too, you know Falwell and Robertson types.
Posted by Duckman GR at August 31, 2004 04:38 PMI agree 100% that we need an ad out. Kerry is reportedly starting a new ad buy worth 45 million. I'm glad at least the mainstream media caught on to this, and called it what it is : a flip flop.
Posted by Tim at August 31, 2004 05:11 PMIt's not round 8 yet.
Posted by Daryl at August 31, 2004 06:08 PMor consorting with the enemy in wartime while an officer in the United States Navy?
Kinda like the idiot son of George Bush doing oil deals with Saddam for private profit during the first Iraq war. Traitor!
Kerry honeymoons in Paris after getting out of the Navy, and talks peace with both sides. Pax talker!
You're correct. These are very similar, and very bad.
Posted by phidipides at August 31, 2004 07:43 PMAs a poster above notes, here's the way to do it: "Now only thing I want to see is that smirking picture of Commander Codpiece in his flightsuit under the Mission Accomplished sign with the words..."no we can't win it" in the same commercial. Come on Kerry, or DNC it's time to... Bring It On!"
F9/11 showed the way to beat Bush: put the man himself on screen and let his own words and poses do the job.
Phidipides above has it exactly right. But focus like a laser on what Bush and his advisors think is his strongest issue, the war on terror. For example,
Osama Bin Laden
BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]
...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]
Saddam/al Qaeda Link
BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... [President Bush, 9/25/02]
...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT [President Bush, 9/17/03]
Weapons of Mass Destruction
BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION… [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]
...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION … [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]
And then end with the win/can't win/win quotes.
DO IT NOW!
Posted by Chris at September 1, 2004 01:06 AMKerry better do something and do it fast. He should be out there with ads slamming the We can win the war on terror, we can't win the war on terror misspeak. Democrats had better stop being the sunshine boys. Just remember John Edwards won one state being "nice". You must fight fire with fire. I am starting to regret sending Kerry my first political donation ever. Where is the rapid response team. We need James Carville.
Posted by Lindsay at September 1, 2004 02:40 AMLindsay:
He should be out there with ads slamming the We can win the war on terror, we can't win the war on terror misspeak.
Right, because that wouldn't be an obviously desperate and unbelievable point to make.
I'm not easily bewildered by even stupid shit, but this little incident and what Edwards and Big Media are making of it is off the charts. Do any of you people actually think that Bush isn't a fighter of terrorists and toppler of tyrants? Isn't that like Complaint Number One with you clowns? And, so, based on one poorly-phrased response from the President ---completely wrenched from its context--- you think you have an entree into the argument that Kerry-Edwards is the stronger team against the terrorists? *Guffaw!*
Clearly, the Bush Administration believes that it will succeed in the war against Islamofascism. Why else would they be fighting it? Oh, right: for war profits.
Never mind.
Posted by Toby Petzold at September 1, 2004 04:25 AMcompletely wrenched from its context?
Oh, I see. He was quoted out of context when he said we couldn't win the war on terror.
Posted by Steve Soto at September 1, 2004 06:14 AMThat's right, Steve. Because, when people are having a conversation, they aren't speaking from an edited script, but are actually unpacking their cognitive minds one article at a time. Why is what Bush said not subject to its own immediate amplification in the course of that conversation? He clearly intended to say (because his actions prove it) that we are engaged in a long-term struggle to defeat these murderers that will not end in a conventional sense, but only meet its end in a continuous, if not consistent, state of safety for our own people.
Don't you have enough sense of the existential to know that the destination of some journeys is in the getting there? This war against extremist Islam is an evolutionary journey, too. The changes are gradual, but sometimes punctuated. The "end" of the war is in what gets changed for the better. That may mean absorptions and adaptations we can't see just now. And that is the thing about the liberty we are trying to propagate: it is a process that exists only in its exercise and not in some static form.
This nonsense about Bush flip-flopping on the war rings as falsely as any lie I've ever heard. You just want to spin it your way because the charge of flip-floppery has been tattooed into Kerry's forehead for everyone to read. But it's not coming off. And that's why he is going to lose.
Posted by Toby Petzold at September 1, 2004 06:54 AMBecause, when people are having a conversation, they aren't speaking from an edited script, but are actually unpacking their cognitive minds one article at a time.
Unfortunately, the suitcase that is G-Dub's cognitive mind is full of dirty socks.
Posted by Matt Davis at September 1, 2004 11:15 AMI thought Toby had died or left town. Get a grip, boy!
Posted by BushHater at September 1, 2004 03:17 PM