Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Bush will beat Kerry

  1. Mar 5, 2004 #1
    Bush will beat Kerry....

    With the falling strategy.....

    1> Paint Kerry as a waffling, flip flopping, dukakis-like liberal. His voting record (90% alignment with Ted Kennedy) is enough to push this point.

    2>Make himself out to be strong on defense, remind people that terrorism is still a real challenge, and that swithing president's in the middle of such a thing is risky. Highlight defense, economy strengthening, and positives happening in Iraq.

    3>Make a smooth transition in Iraq to the governing council. Start bring troops home, thereby diminishing the number of body bags we are seeing.

    If this happens, Bush will seal the deal easily. High gas prices and the WMD fiasco are not enough if the economy and Iraq show hope on the horizon.

  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 5, 2004 #2
    In other words, Bush is going to lie, lie lie some more, and then abandon America's responsibility in Iraq, with a little more lying thrown in.
  4. Mar 5, 2004 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Well item 3 is in trouble already as the Shiites have rejected the governing council's constitution. Smooth as in ....?

    And as for the economy, jobs are still in the tank, and no hope in sight according to just about the whole range of economists (except those employed by the White House, of course).

    Unreasoning panic about terrorism is slowly fading. Pretty soon it's going to seem retro. That could happen by November if no more atrocities occur here in the states.

    So I think this theory is just Republicans whistling past the graveyard.
  5. Mar 5, 2004 #4


    User Avatar

    Or for less of a challenge, he can walk on water and raise the dead.

    To be honest, I think Kerry will lose. The man just lacks a sense of dashing enthusiasm... When I see him, I can only think of grey, grey, grey... He is an honest man, and will make a good president. But I don't think he can really capture the public's imagination.
  6. Mar 5, 2004 #5
    I hope your right phatmonky. I'm not a huge fan of Bush or anything but the last thing we need is a Kennedy in office.
  7. Mar 5, 2004 #6


    User Avatar

    LOl, thanks for the laugh
  8. Mar 6, 2004 #7


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    In fairness, its tough to be dishonest if you have no ideas in your head to lie about.
  9. Mar 6, 2004 #8
    Great rhetoric, but Bush has a record of begin tough on defense, kerry IS wishy-washy, and #3 is yet to be able to be seen :)
  10. Mar 6, 2004 #9
    Ummmm..."tough" isn't the same as "right", and Kerry being "wishy-washy" is debatable.
  11. Mar 7, 2004 #10


    User Avatar

    if gw gets elected again, i think we're going to see the country really start to go to hell in a handbasket... more than before. the only reason bush isn't totally screwing over everyone is because it's an election year. if he gets in again next year, he doesn't have to worry about polls, because he'll be done anyway.

    i hope i'm wrong about this, but i have a suspicion that bush might just slightly be responsible for 9/11, kind of how pearl harbor might have been intentionally allowed to happen. he started his own inquiry into that, but that's like nixon investigating watergate. that's definitely impartial. when the other investigations came around, the white house was interfering with them, withholding documents, editing them to their approval, that kind of stuff. the day the attacks happened, bush was reading to schoolchildren. one of his aides told him what happened, and he just kept on reading. not to mention, bush was planning from day one on invading iraq. these attacks just gave him the opportunity to do that, and give his buddies some nice contracts.

    bush is ignoring science. no, not ignoring. trying to erase. he replaced reputable scientists on his commitees with unreputable ones who fit his agendas. so much for being bipartisan.

    you know there's more to be talked about. but those of you that would listen already know, and those of you that don't agree will just call it spin.
  12. Mar 8, 2004 #11

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Most of the biggest jerks I have known were "tough"...a middle aged fast-food store manager for example.

    As for Kerry and his ability to change his mind based on new information, yes, if we want to elect the most inflexible then we want Bush.
  13. Mar 8, 2004 #12
    I recently stumbled across this article which predicts that Kerry will win because he has "bluer" blood than GW. Apparently, th presidency has been won by the candidate with more royal connections than the other for a couple of decades now.

    I can just pray...

    I'll try and find a link.
  14. Mar 8, 2004 #13

    That's a cute way of saying "I am voting for someone that I don't know what they'll do in office" :)
  15. Mar 8, 2004 #14
    Is that what you really think?
  16. Mar 8, 2004 #15
    It is when that's the only rebuttle to a candidate who has a history indicative of just that.
  17. Mar 8, 2004 #16
    The Re-elect Bush ads feature a softer voice president talking more vision thing. It is a modified version of the 1984 Re-elect Reagan campaign.
  18. Mar 8, 2004 #17
    You had a few spelling mistakes, let me correct.

    As for Kerry and his ability to change his mind based on what will get him elected, yes, if we want to elect the lesser of two evils then we want Bush.

    Remember that people are not just voting for which candidate they like best, they are voting for a way of life. I think a Democrat in office will only hurt this contry more so I will be voting Bush but not because he is the best choice, I see him as the only choice.
  19. Mar 8, 2004 #18
    I'm sorry? You're trying to paint Kerry as somebody who waffles?!

    "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our Number one priority and we will not rest until we find him!"
    --- George W. Bush, September 13, 2001

    "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
    --- George W. Bush, March 13, 2002
  20. Mar 8, 2004 #19

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    So by your logic we should elect based on survey cards and not based on the candidate's character, intelligence, and his [her?] ability to adapt to new situations?

    This waffle claim falls flat as a pancake.

    PS. Thanks for the new signature Chemicalsuperfreak.
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2004
  21. Mar 9, 2004 #20
    Is a quote considered to be correct simply because it is cited hundreds of times on liberal political forums? Of course it is OK to do this as long as it serves the purpose of the poster because we all know what our president meant to say even if he didn’t say it.

    According to the CNN reporter present, the president replied to the question as follows:

    CNN- March 13, 2002 Posted: 7:35 PM EST (0035 GMT)

    QUESTION: Mr. President, in your speeches now, you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that?

    Also, can you can tell the American people if you have any more information -- if you know if he is dead or alive. Deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really want to make...

    BUSH: Well, deep in my heart, I know the man's on the run if he's alive at all. And I -- you know, who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not? We hadn't heard from him in a long time.

    And the idea of focusing on one person is really -- indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission. Terror's bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who has now been marginalized. His network is -- his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match.
    He is -- you know, as I mention in my speeches -- I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death. And he, himself, tries to hide, if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

    So I don't know where he is. Nor -- you know, I just don't spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well supplied, that the strategy is clear, that the coalition is strong, that when we find enemy bunched up, like we did in Shah-e-Kot mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did...
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook