Hats Off To The GOP Dirty Tricks Committee

[Knockwurst]

I want to congratulate the GOP with all sincerity on their incredibly effective campaign tactics, the likes of which we haven't seen since Lee Atwater's Willie Horton ads (with the possible exception of Ed Rollins paying off African-American churchs to suppress the vote in Christine Whitman's gubernatorial campaign).

The Swift Boat "controversy" is a crowning achievement for Karl Rove -- an incredible display of ingenuity -- a body blow that Kerry is still reeling from like a drunken sailor.

Just when it looked like Bush could not possibly recover from events in Iraq and a sluggish economy at home, along came the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Calling into question events that could no longer be confirmed one way or the other 30+ years after the fact, the Swifities attacked Kerry where he thought he was strongest.

An added touch of brilliance was starting with a modest $500,000 advertising budget, so that the Kerry campaign would initially ignore them hoping the story would go away, only to have the GOP-friendly cable outlets such as Fox pick up the story and run with it, providing wall to wall coverage of the controversy the likes that advertising couldn't buy.

All the while, Bush/Cheney et al. profess nothing but admiration for Kerry's service record. Now that Kerry is finally responding about 14 newscycles too late by attacking Bush/Cheney's service or lack of it, he looks like some wildly frothing maniac maligning our President, who has offered nothing but kind words about Kerry's service.

And now they're moving from his wartime activities to his anti-war activities after he returned from his service. They're changing gears on Kerry faster than you can say NASCAR Dads. They got me so I can't stand the guy, and I'm voting for him.

If they pull this off (and it looks like they will), this will go down as one of the greatest tactical displays of all time. F'ing Incredible.

And please spare me the Oh-the-GOP-doesn't-have-any-connection-to-the-SBVT-ads bs. I'm congratulating you, it was a helluva job. I only wish the Dems had it in 'em.

[Utah]

I think it has more to do with Kerry's ineptness at campaigning. Additionally, the democrats made a bad choice in Kerry as their candidate. I think Lieberman would have won easily as his record is solid and he would have pulled in a lot of moderates.

Kerry is not dead, but it looks like the wheels are coming off the campaign. Still, 60 days is an enternity in politics. Kerry has a lot of time to self correct.

[MMMMMM]

If your thesis is true, and the Republicans are actually that much more tactically adept than the Dems...then I know which which party I should prefer for the purpose of designing and implementing strategies against Islamic terrorists.

[ThaSaltCracka]

First of all Lieberman wouldn't have won easily, he is Jewish. Now, thats not a negative to me, but you better believe it is for many dumb people.

Secondly, he is congratulating you guys. Just take the compliment. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[cjromero]

You're right, Knockwurst, the Swift Boat ads are much worse than the Moveon.org 527's that run ads comparing Bush to Hitler. Or the fact that 85% of the money going to the soft money 527s is going to support ads for the Democrats. Or all of the inaccuracies in Moore's "documentary."

Have you actually seen the ads? The current Swift Boat ad does nothing more than use Kerry's own words against him, as it contains portions of Kerry's testimony from 1971 as they talk to Swift Boat vets, including one man who was in the Hanoi Hilton, and remembers the North Vietnamese piping in Kerry's testimony to their jail cells as a form of torture, to show that Kerry (and presumably America) didn't support what they were risking their lives for.

As I have said in other threads, I am neither a hard core conservative nor a fervent Bush supporter. But when it comes to all this Vietnam stuff, Kerry has no one to blame but himself. It was his decision to make Vietnam, and his service in the war, as the centerpiece of the Democratic convention and his main argument for why he would be an effective Commander in Chief. His acceptance speech was basically, "I was born. I served in Vietnam. I deserve to be President."

The rumors about his questionable medals (and his campaigning for them) had been floating around Washington for years. He had to know that his entire military record was going to be examined with a fine tooth comb, and that his anti-war activities would be criticized.

Personally, I don't think Kerry's activities during and after the war necessarily prevent him from being an effective Commander in Chief, although you can make a credible argument that the Vietnam experience (and the development of his anti-war feelings) has shaped Kerry's views on when it is appropriate to use military force, and his view that America's current foreign policy is too unilateral.

[wacki]

As far as Kerry's service there are only two things that affect the way I think. They are:

Bush's Quote: "Kerry should be proud of his service". Which in my mind is a big + for Kerry's character (for being brave and serving his country) and even a little + for Bush (for showing that he is capable of being honest about his opponent). It also made me almost totally ignore the swift boat vets. The commercials using his own words, however, I couldn't ignore.

Then there is this article which is an even bigger strike against Kerry:
Kristol, in his own words. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/512cdccw.asp)

I tend to lump Kerry's military and Intel voting record with the Vietnam stuff since it's proabably all related, atleast psychologically. And that is a HUGE, and unavoidable, strike against Kerry in my book.


Don't misunderstand me, I can't stand all this mud slinging. And I can go on, but you have to admit, Bush may sound dumb, but Kerry has made some really dumb decisions. He shot himself in the foot.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Just when it looked like Bush could not possibly recover from events in Iraq and a sluggish economy at home, along came the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Calling into question events that could no longer be confirmed one way or the other 30+ years after the fact, the Swifities attacked Kerry where he thought he was strongest.


[/ QUOTE ]

Kerry knew about the book and the group even before he won the Illonois primary. Besides these guys are not new, some of them have been attacking Kerry for 30 years now. Kerry figured he could weather it instead of formulating a plan to deal with it. Kerry makes it easy for the GOP to look brilliant because he is such an idiot.

stu

[Cyrus]

"The Vietnam experience (and the development of his anti-war feelings) has shaped Kerry's views on when it is appropriate to use military force, and his view that America's current foreign policy is too unilateral."

I tend to trust people more about taking me towar if they had actually tasted combat themselves. Clinton was the first post-WWII President who did not personally have any military experience at all. (We will pardon Reagan's affable gimmickry during WWII.)

So, right, I tend to trust Bush Senior more than Bush Junior.

As to John Kerry, Vietnam was a long time ago. Many people will be surprised with his Iraq policy, if he is elected in November : Kerry will, more or less, stay the course. The main difference will be his "internationalisation" of the effort.

Plus, it will not be that bad for the GOP to lose the election: The next Prez will have to do battle with a monster more ugly than bin Laden's six-month unwashed ass: The monster deficit of the Budget.

[cjromero]

Many economists with disagree with your premise on the long-term negative effects of the deficit. Not being an economist, I have no idea.

As for Kerry's Iraq policy and his pledge to "internationalize" the rebuilding of Iraq, there is no evidence that it will ever come to pass. The reasons France, Germany, and Russia did not support the Iraq war have absolutely nothing to do with Bush and their view of him as a cowboy. They have everything to do with the financial ties those countries had to Iraq (especially France and Russia) and their belief that a "multilateral" foreign policy like the one adopted by President Clinton will help keep America's power and influence in the world in check.

If Kerry stays the course in Iraq, there is no credible reason to think that France, Germany, and Russia will send any troops or that they will contribute in any greater way than they are now.

[Utah]

The next Prez will have to do battle with a monster more ugly than bin Laden's six-month unwashed ass: The monster deficit of the Budget.

The deficit is not that bad. Additionally, strong productivity can wipe it out very quickly.

[tanda]

Yeah.

How 'bout that dirty trickster who dressed-up like John Kerry in 1971 and repeated the lies and fabrications of a discredited group under oath, on television and in the Senate and committed a vile slander on American servicemen.

That trickster was the key to the whole plot. Masterful.

Oh ... Dukakis did grant Willie a furlough. Or did you forget?

[tanda]

Your reaction to the 1971 testimony is similar to several other's who I know who are moderates/non-partisans.

It is devastating.

It appears that the limitations to the damage it does to Kerry will only be the limits to which it is disseminated. Nobody who sees it can deny its effect. The best his supporters can say is "well, he was not lying, he was just repeating what others told him." In other words, he was a dupe. True, but not much of a defense.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
If your thesis is true, and the Republicans are actually that much more tactically adept than the Dems...then I know which which party I should prefer for the purpose of designing and implementing strategies against Islamic terrorists.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's a big difference between dirty tricks and policies.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
If your thesis is true, and the Republicans are actually that much more tactically adept than the Dems...then I know which which party I should prefer for the purpose of designing and implementing strategies against Islamic terrorists.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There's a big difference between dirty tricks and policies.

[/ QUOTE ]


I want someone who will fight the terrorists by using dirty tricks, too.

[jdl22]

We've been through this before. There were no ads by moveon.org that compared Bush to Hitler. They had a contest where the winner placed an ad in the Super Bowl. Out of the thousands of entrants a couple compared the Patriot Act to early 1930's Germany and featured images of Hitler. All ads were placed on the webpage. When they realised that these ads were inflammatory they pulled them from the web page.

How is moveon.org pulling the ads bad?

[jokerswild]

The sad truth, Stu, is that chicken hawks like you that never saw any combat duty participate in a smear and support a deserter. You are all for the Red White and Blue as long as true soldiers die for your freedom.
You could have chosen combat, too, but you chose not to do so.

You have a lot in common with cowards such as Cheney, Bush, Wolfowitz, Libby, Hastert, and the rest of the chicken hawk elite.

[trippin bily]

joker....EVERY time u post u make me proud to be a republican. Please keep posting. with your help kerry has managed to fall 11 points. ty
by the way i was in the military and i did serve. am i a chicken hawk?

[West]

I'm confused, what exactly did he "lie" about in his testimony?

[MMMMMM]

"The sad truth, Stu, is that chicken hawks like you that never saw any combat duty participate in a smear and support a deserter. You are all for the Red White and Blue as long as true soldiers die for your freedom.
You could have chosen combat, too, but you chose not to do so."

"You have a lot in common with cowards such as Cheney, Bush, Wolfowitz, Libby, Hastert, and the rest of the chicken hawk elite."


So, Jokerswild...did you choose combat, or do you too "have a lot in common with the chickenhawk elite[/i]"?

See how stupid it sounds?

[ACPlayer]

Of course if being good at campaigning makes you a great president and leader then you must admit that Slick Willy was perhaps the greatest leader of all times.

[vulturesrow]

I have over 100 hours of combat flight time and I support Bush. What say you to that?

Chris

[cardcounter0]

Could you show some evidence or proof that "The deficit is not that bad." Maybe a link or two to that amazing assertion.

"Additionally, strong productivity can wipe it out very quickly."

True. But we aren't going to see the double digit productivity gains we saw the entire last decade. There is a limit to productivity growth, even to the most wildly optomistic and I think we have seen the peak.

Please show proof or evidence (or even a link) that productivity is going to vastly increase in the near future.

[vulturesrow]

If we operated with a deficit for a long time, that would be bad. If we always had a surplus, that would be bad too. These are normal things due to the cyclic nature of our economy. A deficit in and of itself is not a bad thing.

[cardcounter0]

Please re-read my post. Where did I say the concept of deficit spending was "bad". However, Bush has vastly increased the deficit in his 4 short years, to new record levels never seen before. The assertion was made that the current deficit is "not that bad", and I am wondering not that bad compared to what? Link, proof, or evidence please.

[vulturesrow]

I guess my answer to that would be, not that bad in the context of events in the United States. The Bush administration inherited a recession, and then took a major economic blow in the aftermath of 9/11. Now add in the cost of military operations, and I think its a valid argument.

That being said, lest you think I am just toeing the party line here, I am very unhappy with the amount of discretionary spending by this administration. Someone of it may have been necessary in order to build political capital but overall the Bush administration certainly hasnt done much to help themselves with the budget problem.

Ill see if I cant find some numbers so we can take a look at it empirically.

Chris

[cardcounter0]

You have provided some justifications for the budget to be at an all time record inbalance. Didn't see any mention of how this is "not that bad".

For instance, if the bank calls me and tells me my checking account is overdrawn by $2.00, it is "not that bad", I can probably find some change in the couch and make it right. If the bank calls me and tells me my checking account is overdrawn by 3 Trillion dollars, I don't think "oh, it's not that bad" would be an acceptable response.

If you dig up some numbers, please try to make sure they include the Billion or so for Iraq, that remains off-budget.

[vulturesrow]

To use your analogy:

Lets say you spent that trillion dollars to deal with situations that you either had no other recourse to deal with it or felt you had no other recourse. Furthermore, you can make a fairly reasonable assumption that your future earnings over time would eventually be able to make up that difference. Then I would say, no its no that bad.

[cardcounter0]

Nice happy thoughts. I'm thinking we have a huge wave of baby boomers retiring, further increasing the budget burdens. So where is this white knight in the future going to come from to pay off all the debt? Link please.

[vulturesrow]

First off, categorizing something as "not that bad" is completely subjective. To go back to your analogy, 2000 dollars overdrawn may be "not that bad" to you, but to another individual could very well be near catastrophic. Its not something that is easily quantifiable. Basically it boils down to a couple questions in my mind. One, is the American economy robust enough to handle the swings. Two, if it comes down to it, will the US be able to tighten the purse strings if necessary. The second question is the one that is had to predict. We'd like to think the answer is yes but there is no way to say for sure.

[cardcounter0]

The statement was made "it is not that bad".

I haven't seen one bit of proof that it is subjectively or emphically not "not that bad".

If my checking account is overdrawn, and my job has just been outsourced to India, thinking some mythical future earnings (oh, yeah my insurance rates just went up) makes it "not that bad" is pretty stupid.

[MMMMMM]

On the flip side of things, just curious what the evidence is that it IS "that bad".

[vulturesrow]

If something is subjective, than by definition it cant be proved. That being said, if you think that future earnings are mythical, than in effect you are saying that you dont think the US economy will continue to grow and that productivity will never increase. Is that what you are saying?

PS Outsourcing is a way to increase productivity in an economy /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Could you show some evidence or proof that "The deficit is not that bad." Maybe a link or two to that amazing assertion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Will the CBO suffice? Heres the link (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table2)

The relevant data is on table 2 Revenues, Outlays, Surpluses, Deficits, and Debt Held by the Public, 1962 to 2003 (as a percentage of GDP).

Percentage of GDP is the best way to view a nations ability to run a deficit. Not the actual dollar figures as the lefties would suggest. Heres a simplified example as to why.

When I was making $3.60/hr, $250 of credit card debt was quit a bit of a burden on me. When I was making $36.00/hr, $250 or credit card debt hardly any burden at all. Even though the dollar amounts are the same, the increase in my income, decreased the negative effects of $250 of credit card debt.

According to the CBO the largest deficit as a percentage of GDP occurred in 1983. According to the CBO the Clinton deficit of '93 is actually larger than the Bush deficit of '03


Stu

[nothumb]

Your facts are plain wrong.

Moveon.org never paid for an ad that compared Bush to Hitler. Someone submitted one to their website in a contest, where it was visible to the public, until it was pointed out, at which time it was removed.

And the SBVT ad using "Kerry's Own Words Against Him" leaves out the fact that he is quoting other veterans - something he states right before the clip in the ad is edited to begin. They try to make it sound like Kerry personally accused people of these things rather than conveying what had already been told to him by other vets.

These things have both been pointed out before but some people keep repeating them anyway.

NT

[cjromero]

If I stand corrected about some specifics, then I stand corrected.

My general point on both issues is still valid, however. One point being that the soft money 527s are helping Kerry much more than they are helping Bush, by an 85% to 15% margin.

Another point being that Kerry brought the Vietnam issue entirely on himself by making it the most important qualification for why he should be President. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

The bottom line is that the Kerry campaign has absolutely no clue of how to present their candidate to the American public. That is no one's fault but his own. Rather than focus on domestic issues, Kerry chose to frame himself at the convention as qualified to be president based on his four months of service in Vietnam. He put himself in a box when he voted to authorize Bush to use any means necessary to deal with Iraq, only to later vote against the $87 billion for the troops solely because he was in a heated battle with Dean for the nomination. Advisers close to Kerry, and some of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate, have conceded that Kerry voted the way he did based purely on political expediency.

In every presidential campaign, both sides run negative ads that contain inaccuracies and exaggerations. Both sides do so because the ads are effective, despite the fact that people say they don't want to hear any negative ads.

I have said it before and will say it again. If Kerry can't beat an incumbent president that was not elected by a majority of voting Americans given the current state of the economy and the fact that we are in a war that half the nation doesn't support, then he deserves to lose. It's the same with Gore in 2000, when he couldn't beat Bush despite the fact that we were at peace and coming off the largest and longest economic expansion in recent memory.

[cardcounter0]

Does the '03 Bush numbers include the off-the-books Iraq expenses?

Interesting the '93 Clinton numbers would have been his first year results. What happened after that? Remember the good times of the 90s?

The '03 Bush number is after three years in office. What is the trend? Are times so much better we should continue down this path?

Again, explain how these '03 numbers "aren't that bad". The ecomony is shrinking, jobs are being outsourced, growth in productivity is not there, and the high income baby boomers are retiring, so you can't count on tapping those pockets for income much longer.

[trippin bily]

kerry has personally said that HE committed atrocities and saw them committed. i believe it was the dick cavit ( not sure how to spell it ) show. that is why so many of the swift fellas are against him
kerry also made this claim while many soldiers were being tortured to say what kerry was saying. heck the bad guys pumped kery saying those things into their cells as a way to demoralize them more. any wonder they dont like kerry

[vulturesrow]

Every administration has off the books numbers. Why do you insist on focusing on this ones?

Where are your numbers that suggest that the economy is shrinking and productivity growth isnt there?

As for your aging baby boomers, lets not forget that income isnt the only tax revenue the government receives. Its a big part but I think your retiring baby boomers argument is not as strong a point as you think it is.

BTW, outsourcing is good for the economy. Basic economics here. Yes it is sad that people lose their jobs to it. I support helping retrain workers. But it is an overall plus for the economy.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, explain how these '03 numbers "aren't that bad".

[/ QUOTE ]

I should not have to spoon feed this to you cardcounter.

Anyways the largest and "most bad" deficit (in terms of GDP) occurred in 1983. It was a whooping 6% of GDP. The 2003 deficit, according to the CBO, came in at 3.5% of GDP. Heres why these '03 numbers "aren't that bad". I'll put it in bold in consideration for those of you out there stricken with ADD.

3.5% is much less than 6%

If thats to difficult to understand, perhaps you will understand it if put present it another way. Here goes....

6% is much more than 3.5%

And there you have it. Mathmatical proof that the 2003 deficit is "not that bad".

[ QUOTE ]
The ecomony is shrinking, jobs are being outsourced, growth in productivity is not there....

[/ QUOTE ]

Its your turn to post a link substantiating your position. Good Luck to you.

Stu