Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SilentZ who wrote (199891)	9/3/2004 1:29:25 AM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1573682

"it's an indicator that Bush has a more effective political team than he does." Or that Bush has more people who are willing to lie through their teeth. Granted, politicians shouldn't be squeemish about that, but...

To: SilentZ who wrote (199891)	9/3/2004 2:19:16 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573682

Z, The fact that Kerry has had to stay on Vietnam is not an indicator of his state of mind or his ability to lead, it's an indicator that Bush has a more effective political team than he does. It doesn't take political genius to move the focus back onto Kerry's Senate record. Nor does it take political genius to focus on 9/11 and the war on terrorism, for defense has always been one of the GOP's strongest suits. IMO, Kerry's constant reminders of his Vietnam service are no longer politically calculated. Instead, it's getting personal for him at a time when his poll numbers are dropping and the GOP is stepping up their attacks. In other words, his buttons are being pushed. Think about it. What Kerry could have said was, "They have some nerve saying they want a safer America, when they're making a mess of things in Iraq and Afghanistan and creating more terrorists than they're killing." Instead, what Kerry really said was, in effect, "How dare they accuse ME of flip-flopping, of not being strong on defense! How dare they, a couple of draft-dodging chickenhawks, accuse ME, a Vietnam veteran!" See the difference? Kerry's first reaction was to focus on his status, not the issues. This was a reaction straight from Kerry's gut, and it's showing. Hopefully for him, the press can make up for Kerry's shortcomings, because after all, the press wants Kerry to win (#reply-20329348). Tenchusatsu

To: SilentZ who wrote (199891)	9/3/2004 8:46:04 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 1573682

Z, another guy who agrees with me that Kerry's buttons are being pushed: polipundit.com The Kerry Strategy Word is that at midnight tonight, John Kerry will begin to "fight back" against the "negative Republican attacks" by contrasting his service in Vietnam with George W. Bush's Air National Guard service and Dick Cheney's "five deferments." This is a colossal mistake. The campaign George W. Bush is running: I'll kill the terrorists, unlike that wimpy, flip-flopping John Kerry. The campaign Senator Kerry should have run: I'll fix George Bush's economy and you can trust me not to blow up the world. The campaign Senator Kerry has run so far: I served in Vietnam. The campaign Senator Kerry will soon be running: I served in Vietnam and George Bush didn't. Therefore, I'll be tougher on the terrorists than Bush. By doing this, Kerry will make terrorism the central issue, not the economy. Worse for him, he'll be making the argument that he'll be tougher on terrorists than Bush. This will scare the bejesus out of voters who intended to vote for Kerry because he won't blow up the world. Bush is already the scourge of tyrants, the Ground-Zero-bullhorn-wielding, UN-defying warmonger. Kerry's best argument against Bush is that Kerry won't blow up the world. By trying to appear tougher than Bush with military-record comparisons, Kerry will: 1. Squarely bring the focus to terrorism, overriding issues that naturally favor him. 2. Make it acceptable to question his Vietnam service and anti-war protesting. 3. Lose the battle on toughness. The Ground-Zero-bullhorn-wielding Commander-in-Chief will always be voters' first choice on toughness. Undecided voters will break for the incumbent in times of war. 4. Lose voters who'd vote for Kerry because he'd run a more "nuanced," "sensitive" War on Terror. Voters who're afraid Bush will blow up the world. 5. Lose voters for whom the economy is issue #1. 6. Make it difficult for down-ballot Democrats to win. All of the competitive US Senate races are in red states. Most of those Democrat candidates aren't Vietnam veterans. All of the Republican candidates, however, will be presumed to be tougher on terrorism. So what prodded Kerry to this act of lunacy? Well, mostly the Swiftees. And the attacks on him at the GOP convention (remember the Purple Heart bandaids that some delegates wore?) By giving into his emotions, Kerry is throwing Bush into the brier patch, just as Bush wants.