Tit for Tat- Texans for Truth

[Matty]

http://texansfortruth.com/index.html

The ad will begin airing (on friday (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2257-2004Sep7.html)).

But I do think a much more damaging and despicable ad would be the "(Bush was involved in an illegal abortion (http://www.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=159))" rumor. We could see if his entire pro-life congregation managed to ignore it.

Here's to hoping the anti-Bush internet fundraising machine is up to the challenge.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
Who is More Credible?
Flynt vs. Drudge

Flynt was Right
Bob Livingston cheating on his wife
Bob Barr's secret abortion
Dan Burton's out-of-wedlock child
Henry Hyde breaking up his mistress's marriage
Newt Gingrich's secret girlfriend

Drudge was Wrong
Sid Blumenthal beating his wife
Clinton fathering the black baby
Secret Service catching Clinton
Anti-Clinton books he guaranteed "would bust Washington DC wide open"


[/ QUOTE ]

Who is more credible is a good question. Does anyone else think this is going to be the nastiest election ever?

[Utah]

The democrats are very desperate and they are attacking Bush in the wrong place. They simply dont get it.

Bush cant be beaten as a war president. The people are very clear on that. Why the democrats keep focusing there is simply baffling. If they are going to win, which is unlikely in any event, they need to attack Bush of domestic issues such as the economy. However, that is tricky too as the improving economy takes steam out of that argument.

I think the reality is that Kerry is toast. Kerry is a weak candidate without a platform to run on. The democrats have themselves to blame for choosing such a loser. The whole democratic party appears to be in complete disarray. Not only will they likely lose the election, they will probably lose more seats in the house and senate. WTF happened to the democrat party?

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush cant be beaten as a war president. The people are very clear on that. Why the democrats keep focusing there is simply baffling.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post has nothing to do with war.

[andyfox]

I'm not sure that Bush can't be beaten as a war president. I'm pretty sure Kerry won't do it though. Kerry should read James Fallows' "Blind into Baghdad" article. Or somebody in his campaign should do it. The problem is Kerry's position is not distinguishable from Bush's and never has been. So it's pretty hard for Kerry to criticize it. He should not criticize the policy, then, but rather it's inept and hubristic execution.

Unfortunately for my wallet, I am sensing that Kerry, indeed, may well be toast. I'm not sure if the party is in complete disarray, but if it is, it's because A) political parties don't mean much any more; and B) these things go in cycles.

Regards,
Andy

[adios]

Voter thinks: Wow these people are saying George Bush was AWOL from the National Guard and assissted a woman in getting an illegal abortion. If that's true he's sure changed a lot since then.

[anatta]

You forgot that Drudge was the first to break the "story" of Kerry's supposed affair with a female staffer about four months ago, which of course turned out to be another sad lie.

[andyfox]

Happy to see the word "tit" gets past the censors.

[MMMMMM]

"Unfortunately for my wallet, I am sensing that Kerry, indeed, may well be toast."

Andy you will save much more in taxes than you will lose on the bet so it will actually be "fortunately" for your wallet;-)

[jokerswild]

Because Bush was a coward in Vietnam, and permitted 9-11 to take place. He only had a month of warning.

This election is far from over.

[jokerswild]

The election is far from over. Zogby has had the best track record. He shows a 3% difference. Rasmussen has it dead even. The Plame grand jury has yet to be heard from. The Bush team that permitted 9-11 and outed a covert CIA official hasn't won yet.

[jokerswild]

The Bush campaign runs primarily on lies. They have no record to speak highly about. The false notion that America is safer under this administration is just dogma. They are the ones that let 9-11 happen.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
The election is far from over. Zogby has had the best track record. He shows a 3% difference. Rasmussen has it dead even. The Plame grand jury has yet to be heard from.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Kerry could still win especially if he does well in the debates.

[ QUOTE ]
Bush team that permitted 9-11

[/ QUOTE ]

Your medication must have worn off the moment when you got to writing that portion of you post.

Stu

[cjromero]

I guess you figure that if you say "Bush let 9/11 happen" enough times, that people will start to buy the argument.

And the Bush team didn't out Joe Wilson's wife. Wilson's claims about the administration seeking retribution against him for his statements on Iraq's attempts to buy nuclear materials from Niger have proven to be false. As it turns out, all of Wilson's claims concerning the Iraq/Niger link, and the subsequent developments, have proven to be false. It turns out that he is just another bitter shill trying to sell a book.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry is a weak candidate without a platform to run on.

[/ QUOTE ]So why is Bush running away from debates?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3586-2004Sep7.html

[Utah]

Easy. He has much to lose and little to gain. That is almost always the position of the frontrunner. Its also almost always the position of the challenger or the guy behind to ask for many debates.

[Matty]

Then why did he agree to them in the first place?

[nicky g]

"Wilson's claims about the administration seeking retribution against him for his statements on Iraq's attempts to buy nuclear materials from Niger have proven to be false. "

Tell us more.

[cjromero]

As requested, here is a link from a July 10, 2004 article in the Washington Post concerning the debunking of many of Joe Wilson's claims.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle

Here is a link to an editorial about Joe Wilson, this one from National Review Online. I concede that NRO has a conservative bias, but I think the editorial is nevertheless worth reading because it contains some interesting quotes directly from the Senate intelligence report.

http://nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
And the Bush team didn't out Joe Wilson's wife. Wilson's claims about the administration seeking retribution against him for his statements on Iraq's attempts to buy nuclear materials from Niger have proven to be false. As it turns out, all of Wilson's claims concerning the Iraq/Niger link, and the subsequent developments, have proven to be false. It turns out that he is just another bitter shill trying to sell a book.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does the falsity of Wilson's claims have to do with his wife being outed?

[nicky g]

""Wilson's claims about the administration seeking retribution against him for his statements on Iraq's attempts to buy nuclear materials from Niger have proven to be false. ""

I don't see that either of the articles prove this.

[cjromero]

There is no evidence that the administration broke any laws by revealing the name of Joe Wilson's wife or that the administration revealed her name as some form of payback against Wilson.

Plume wrote a memo recommending her husband for the mission. The fact that she worked for the CIA doesn't, in and of itself, make the divulging of her identity a crime. It only becomes a crime if she was working as an undercover agent and the CIA intended to keep her identity secret.

There is also evidence to suggest that others in the CIA talked openly about Plume to reporters (including to Clifford May of NRO), which implies that the agency wasn't doing much to keep her identity a secret.

Subsequent evidence may come to light that it was a crime to reveal Plume's name and that it was done as retribution against Wilson. Currently, however, I have seen no evidence to support either conclusion.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is Kerry's position is not distinguishable from Bush's and never has been.

[/ QUOTE ]Not true.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5636198/site/newsweek/

[ QUOTE ]
What would Kerry do differently in the fight against Al Qaeda? He wants to double the number of Special Forces and spies. He also wants to deploy a bigger international force to secure Afghanistan, not least in Al Qaeda and Taliban territory on the border with Pakistan. He also might scrap the color-coded alert system—aides say it's become ineffective—for a new one that incorporates more specific information about what precautions people should take. Beyond military force, Kerry wants to win the war of ideas in the Arab and Islamic world, with stronger trade and improved educational programs.

While the president talks about stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction, Kerry wants to spend more money, and sign new international agreements, to secure loose nukes. While the president talks about closing down terrorist finances, Kerry wants to name and shame uncooperative banks and countries—and even shut them out of U.S. markets. And where Bush would create an intelligence director outside the White House and the cabinet, Kerry says he would give the new czar full power to control funding and personnel across the intel community.

[/ QUOTE ]

[andyfox]

He needs to get the message out then.

[andyfox]

They have to have debates, they're now de rigeur in a presidental election. Bush probably fears the give-and-take format of the town election type of debate. Actually, I think this is a mistake on his part, as his personality will shine in that format, and Kerry's pedantic stiffness will also come out. Also, the more debates the more people will ignore them, so the less for the frontrunner to lose.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
They have to have debates, they're now de rigeur in a presidental election. Bush probably fears the give-and-take format of the town election type of debate. Actually, I think this is a mistake on his part, as his personality will shine in that format, and Kerry's pedantic stiffness will also come out. Also, the more debates the more people will ignore them, so the less for the frontrunner to lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe this is just spin. If I point out that in the past liberals have gotten into these debates pretending to be "undecided" so that they could ask liberal questions, more effort will be made to keep this debate fair and free of such liberal manipulation.

[Matty]

This sounds stupid, but Kerry has an advantage in being taller than Bush. In most (if not all) modern presidential elections (I think maybe 2000 was the one exception, even though Gore got 500k more votes), the taller man has won.

It goes in line with research that shows a positive correlation between height and average salary.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Voter thinks: Wow these people are saying George Bush was AWOL from the National Guard and assissted a woman in getting an illegal abortion. If that's true he's sure changed a lot since then.

[/ QUOTE ]
Some voters may think that. Conversely, sut some voters may also think and realize that Bush is a sham and the worst president this country has ever had. He hasn't changed alot, he's still a spoiled blueblood boy who screwed around most of his life and was then lucky enough to use his family name to enter political office and eventually become appointed president.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They have to have debates, they're now de rigeur in a presidental election. Bush probably fears the give-and-take format of the town election type of debate. Actually, I think this is a mistake on his part, as his personality will shine in that format, and Kerry's pedantic stiffness will also come out. Also, the more debates the more people will ignore them, so the less for the frontrunner to lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe this is just spin. If I point out that in the past liberals have gotten into these debates pretending to be "undecided" so that they could ask liberal questions, more effort will be made to keep this debate fair and free of such liberal manipulation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nice spin. God forbid they allow someone to view a political debate who doesn't share the extremist conservative viewpoint.

Bush doesn't want to participate in the debates because:
1) They won't be scripted like his press conferences.
2) The crowd won't be required to sign a "loyalty oath" before entering the building (like has been done with many of his appearances).
3) He won't be able to have his "attack dogs" on stage with him to help put down his opponent while keeping himself "above the fray."
4) He has little public speaking ability and will look foolish as he constantly looks at his notes (like he does in most all of his speeches).
5) He may actually have to debate Kerry.

[cjromero]

As usual, Rooster, your comments contain some truth, but they are filled with too much hyperbole to be taken seriously.

The comments you make about how Bush will be bad in the debates are the same comments many of the pundits made prior to the Gore/Bush debates in 2000. Did you actually watch the debates in 2000? By almost every account, Bush won 2 of the 3 debates. More importantly for political purposes, Bush came across as incredibly likable and down to earth, whereas Gore came across as condescending and mean-spirited. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that the way Bush and Gore came off in the debates had a lot to do with many people deciding to vote against Gore. I am not talking about people who follow politics and policy closely, but people who decided to vote for Bush over Gore simply because they liked him better.

I think that the upcoming debates will actually widen Bush's lead over Kerry. Kerry simply does not resonate with the American public. He comes across as elitist and will come across as condescending. Just like Gore. Kerry will also be hurt in the debates by his changing positions on many of the national security issues, and the endless permutations he has adopted on his views on Iraq. Bush will come across as more likable, more honest, and as a straight talker, which is what many average Americans want. People may not agree with all of Bush's policies, but they at least know where he stands. That is important to a lot of people.

I am not arguing the merits of the positions of either candidate. I am simply stating that Bush will come across better in the debates than Kerry, which is the key factor in trying to influence undecided voters.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not arguing the merits of the positions of either candidate. I am simply stating that Bush will come across better in the debates than Kerry, which is the key factor in trying to influence undecided voters.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there may be a debate or two where the instant analysis is that Kerry won, but within 24 hours one or two of his statements are shown to be flip-flops, and he will lose ground in the polls as a result.

I wonder who will dig up these flip-flops. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

W

[jdl22]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I think this is a mistake on his part, as his personality will shine in that format, and Kerry's pedantic stiffness will also come out.

[/ QUOTE ]

For whatever reason Bush is apparently quite good at connecting with people in this way. I think this format suits Kerry well though, certainly better than most think. I watched bits and pieces of the various debates for the primaries and Kerry seemed to do well with the town hall format.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
I am simply stating that Bush will come across better in the debates than Kerry, which is the key factor in trying to influence undecided voters.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is sad but true. Kerry does not resonate as well with the US public as Bush. The ironic thing is that Bush is just as much of a blueblood elitist as Kerry, but many people don't see Bush that way. I mean seriously, why do people think that Bush is such a likeable guy? Is it because of his mannerisms such as mispronunciation and his good ol' Texas cowboy image (LOL)?

I did watch the debate in 2000, I don't think Bush proved any great points then either. He did come off better than Gore. But who wouldn't come off better than Gore?

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not arguing the merits of the positions of either candidate. I am simply stating that Bush will come across better in the debates than Kerry, which is the key factor in trying to influence undecided voters.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think there may be a debate or two where the instant analysis is that Kerry won, but within 24 hours one or two of his statements are shown to be flip-flops, and he will lose ground in the polls as a result.

I wonder who will dig up these flip-flops. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

W

[/ QUOTE ]

GWB, will you be laying down some rails prior to the debate? Or popping the top on a few cold ones? I would imagine you would want to "get in the mood" for the debate.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am simply stating that Bush will come across better in the debates than Kerry, which is the key factor in trying to influence undecided voters.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is sad but true. Kerry does not resonate as well with the US public as Bush. The ironic thing is that Bush is just as much of a blueblood elitist as Kerry, but many people don't see Bush that way. I mean seriously, why do people think that Bush is such a likeable guy? Is it because of his mannerisms such as mispronunciation and his good ol' Texas cowboy image (LOL)?

[/ QUOTE ]Reminds me of this:

http://whitehousewest.com/

Funniest political ad I've ever seen.