Will Bush's Strategy of Painting Kerry as a Weak Flip-Flopper Lead to Victory?

  • News
  • Thread starter member 5645
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the potential strategies for Bush to beat Kerry in the upcoming election. These include painting Kerry as a liberal, highlighting Bush's strength on defense, and making a smooth transition in Iraq. However, there are concerns about the governing council in Iraq and the state of the economy. Some participants also express doubts about Kerry's ability to capture the public's imagination and criticize Bush for his actions in office. The conversation also brings up the possibility of Kerry winning due to his "bluer" blood and his ability to change his mind based on new information.
  • #1
member 5645
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.

:)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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.
 
  • #3
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.
 
  • #4
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.

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.
 
  • #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.
 
  • #6
Originally posted by FZ+
]He is an honest man
LOl, thanks for the laugh
 
  • #7
Originally posted by kat
LOl, thanks for the laugh
In fairness, its tough to be dishonest if you have no ideas in your head to lie about.
 
  • #8
Originally posted by Zero
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.

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 :)
 
  • #9
Originally posted by phatmonky
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 :)
Ummmm..."tough" isn't the same as "right", and Kerry being "wishy-washy" is debatable.
 
  • #10
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.
 
  • #11
Originally posted by Zero
Ummmm..."tough" isn't the same as "right", and Kerry being "wishy-washy" is debatable.

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.
 
  • #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.
 
  • #13
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking


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.


That's a cute way of saying "I am voting for someone that I don't know what they'll do in office" :)
 
  • #14
Originally posted by phatmonky
That's a cute way of saying "I am voting for someone that I don't know what they'll do in office" :)
Is that what you really think?
 
  • #15
Originally posted by Zero
Is that what you really think?

It is when that's the only rebuttle to a candidate who has a history indicative of just that.
 
  • #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.
 
  • #17
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
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.

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.
 
  • #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
 
  • #19
Originally posted by phatmonky
That's a cute way of saying "I am voting for someone that I don't know what they'll do in office" :)

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:
  • #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...
 
  • #21
Well, obviously rightwingers don't mind when it is the Al Gore "I invented the Internet" misquote...but thanks for pointing that out for us.
 
  • #22
Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
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


Maybe we can go ahead and post other fallacies while you are at? [zz)]
 
  • #23
Originally posted by Zero
Well, obviously rightwingers don't mind when it is the Al Gore "I invented the Internet" misquote...but thanks for pointing that out for us.


Why don't you ever keep it to the posts and posters at hand, rather than spewing out partisan rhetoric? Quit turning it into a them vs us routine, and let's stay on topic.
 
  • #24
Originally posted by phatmonky
Why don't you ever keep it to the posts and posters at hand, rather than spewing out partisan rhetoric? Quit turning it into a them vs us routine, and let's stay on topic.
Deep breaths...what I posted is true, people often don't mind a bit when a lie is spread about their opponent, and I am glad that GENIERE quoting an actual transcript, versus what someone thinks Bush said.

Until we get some honest reporting, people will continue to base their opinions on incorrect data.
 
  • #25
Originally posted by Zero
Well, obviously rightwingers don't mind when it is the Al Gore "I invented the Internet" misquote...but thanks for pointing that out for us.
The thing about that misquote, Zero, is the only people I ever hear it from are Democrats who misquote Gore and attribute the misquote to Republicans. Its a misquoted misquote. A smokescreen. (Pre-emptive strike?)
 
  • #26
Originally posted by russ_watters
The thing about that misquote, Zero, is the only people I ever hear it from are Democrats who misquote Gore and attribute the misquote to Republicans. Its a misquoted misquote. A smokescreen. (Pre-emptive strike?)
Its a sign of a demented media, is what it is.
 
  • #27
Originally posted by Zero
Its a sign of a demented media, is what it is.
Maybe (if by "demented" you mean 'left biased,' certainly), but type "gore invented internet" into a pf search and you'll find the misquote in 3 threads: this one, one started by MRP, misquoting it in the other direction (to make it sound like less of a foot-in-mout), and another one by you.
 
  • #28
Originally posted by russ_watters
Maybe (if by "demented" you mean 'left biased,' certainly), but type "gore invented internet" into a pf search and you'll find the misquote in 3 threads: this one, one started by MRP, misquoting it in the other direction (to make it sound like less of a foot-in-mout), and another one by you.
Bull, Russ...if it was left-leaning then the Internet lie woud never have taken hold.
 
  • #29
Back to the topic.

Here's the popular http://www.dailykos.com/section/bush_admin [Broken] that's going around the net, and has even broken into dead tree media.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Back to the topic.

Here's the popular http://www.dailykos.com/section/bush_admin [Broken] that's going around the net, and has even broken into dead tree media.
Unllike bills that are voted on, this list is mostly taken out of context. Kerry votes on things and then says he's against that specific bill. We're not talking about subjective situations, but instead him announcing that he is flip flopping on that specific bill that he voted for.
Things like "Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care." have already been discussed in this thread, and things like "Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution." are taken fully out of context.
If zero promises not to lock this like he loves doing to my threads, I'll be happy to refute the whole list (or atlest the majority that can be refuted.)

I'm surprised that list doesn't have the president's first state of the union address about not playing the world's police, and then mention that we went into afghanistan after 9/11 - I guess that would be too obvious, even for them.
[zz)]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
I'm surprised that these aren't defined as Bush's lies, instead of flip-flops...however, if you are in politics for more than a year, you are going to vote in seemingly contradictory ways, depending on the specific circumstances. That's a a simple fact, Dem or Repub, and it means very little without showing very specifc context. I wouldn't be in the least surprised to find that of some of Kerry and Bush's "flip-flops" are reactions to a change in the situation, and not a sign of some pseudo-psychological character flaw.
 
  • #32
Originally posted by Zero
I wouldn't be in the least surprised to find that of some of Kerry and Bush's "flip-flops" are reactions to a change in the situation, and not a sign of some pseudo-psychological character flaw.
Well, I consider "politician" to be a character flaw in and of itself.

On both sides, these "flip-flops" are just the natural politician's instinct to talk out of both sides of their mout at the same time, telling everyone what they hope they want to hear. That's why I look more at actions than statements. The best example is war resolutions like the one for Gulf II: many, many, many Democrats stood up and spoke against the resolution right before they voted in favor of it.
 
  • #33
Originally posted by russ_watters
Well, I consider "politician" to be a character flaw in and of itself.

On both sides, these "flip-flops" are just the natural politician's instinct to talk out of both sides of their mout at the same time, telling everyone what they hope they want to hear. That's why I look more at actions than statements. The best example is war resolutions like the one for Gulf II: many, many, many Democrats stood up and spoke against the resolution right before they voted in favor of it.
Right, like saying "tax cut" every time they open their mouth, as though it were an answer to every problem, or approving a tax cut because you don't have the spine to oppose taking from the poor to give to the rich.
 
  • #34
Originally posted by Zero
taking from the poor to give to the rich.

wow. so sad.
 
  • #35
Originally posted by phatmonky
Unllike bills that are voted on, this list is mostly taken out of context. Kerry votes on things and then says he's against that specific bill. We're not talking about subjective situations, but instead him announcing that he is flip flopping on that specific bill that he voted for.
Things like "Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care." have already been discussed in this thread, and things like "Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution." are taken fully out of context.
If zero promises not to lock this like he loves doing to my threads, I'll be happy to refute the whole list (or atlest the majority that can be refuted.)

I'm surprised that list doesn't have the president's first state of the union address about not playing the world's police, and then mention that we went into afghanistan after 9/11 - I guess that would be too obvious, even for them.
[zz)]

Ah, so it's not really lying of flip flopping, it's just all taken out of context.

Like when Bush says he'll restore honor and dignity to the white house and "I believe they've moved that sign, 'The buck stops here,' from the Oval Office desk to 'The buck stops here' on the Lincoln Bedroom. And that's not good for the country," in reference to Clinton's renting out the Lincoln bedroom, and then he goes and rents it out to campaign donors himself, all that stuff about honor and dignity is just taken out of context.

I see.
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top