# News Republicans are geniuses

1. Sep 14, 2004

### wasteofo2

In the public eye:

Before the Democratic Convention, John Kerry had marginal leads in national polls, and was leading most states that really could go either way. He was a war hero, he got shot up in Vietnam, came back, protested the war because it was being fought horribly, and fought for tons of stuff for the veterans in front of the Senate. Now, thanks to some republicans handi-work, John Kerry lied and cheated to get his medals, was never even shot at, much less actually hit by a bullet, came home, fought against the troops and veterans.

Before a week ago, George Bush got into the national guard on favors from his dad and his friends, was a chicken hawk who supported the war but didn't want to fight, skipped out on even going to the guard, got a sketchy OK to leave. There's even a $50,000 reward for anyone who can personally account for George Bush serving in the guard, and no one had taken it up. Now, George Bush served honorably, got into the guard totally legitimately, did everything he needed to do and passed with flying colors. All of this, and on top of it, they've managed not to talk about the past 4 years in any more depth than nationalistic rhetoric. Despite recent cencus data showing between 2002 and 2003 1.4 million Americans fell into poverty, 1.3 million lost health-care, despite Bush being the first president since the Great depression to loose jobs in a term in office, the Republicans have convinced an astounding number of people that the economy is the best we've ever had in our lives. God, they're so good at... Last edited: Sep 14, 2004 2. Sep 14, 2004 ### russ_watters ### Staff: Mentor Getting a bounce from your convention is to be expected, so I wouldn't say there was anything special about Dubya's performance at the RNC. The corollary to that though, is that the lack of a bounce for Kerry from the DNC points to some major incompetence on his/his campaign's part. 3. Sep 14, 2004 ### JohnDubYa I don't think it's the intelligence of Bush, but rather the stupidity of Kerry. He simply has ran a lousy campaign. But it ain't over until the fat lady sings. 4. Sep 15, 2004 ### phatmonky I would agree on this. Dubya's campaign has been run well, but by no means top notch. Kerrys has been a complete failure. I can't figure out WHY they continue hiring the people they do?! Shrum has a 0-7 losing streaking for campaigns. Why would you hire such a guy to run your's?! :rofl: 5. Sep 15, 2004 ### wasteofo2 I wasn't talking about their conventions, but their ad campaigns, stump speeches, general lies/deceptions. They're double plus good duck-speakers, that's for sure. 6. Sep 16, 2004 ### Gza Damn fine policticians they are! 7. Sep 16, 2004 ### JohnDubYa That's okay. Someday Kerry will discover his true talents too. 8. Sep 16, 2004 ### Gokul43201 Staff Emeritus The Democrats play to your intellect, while the Republicans play to your emotion. It was over before it even started. 9. Sep 16, 2004 ### phatmonky You've got to be kidding me. You should be a campaign or whitehouse spokesperson, for it seems those guys get off on telling you something that you KNOW is false. The thing is, they know it's false too, but they will sit there and just say it. I remember Ari Fleisher(sp?) once responded to questions about aid to nations that helped with Iraq with "Are you hearing yourself? What you are saying is that other nations can simply be bought off, and we know that just isn't the case!" This was met with a subtle laughter from the press corp. ahhaha. Anyways, you want to talk emotions? Democrats: Class warfare Class warfare Class warfare Europe doesn't like us Muslims don't like us AD NAUSEUM 10. Sep 16, 2004 ### phatmonky Kerry's latest campaign strategy? The assault weapons ban! 3 days now of chastising Bush on it. Pssssttt, Kerry! Iraq, Security, and all at once now deficitjobseconomy. I can't believe he chose a campaign manager that has a record of 0-7 But noooo, focus on how terrorists are going to suddenly buy the legal post 1994 AK-47, when they wouldn't be willing to get the pre-1994 ak-47 before! Wooh! Not to mention the losing strategy of blaming Bush for it, since he says he supports it and will resign it if congress will bring it up. 11. Sep 16, 2004 ### kat Honestly the Republicans didn't need any great campaign strategy other then to let Kerry and terry stab themselves in the foot repeatedly. It was obvious from very early on that as long as Kerry didn't have to speak and Terry was behind the curtain (so to speak) his polls remained high. Every time Kerry came out and started speaking and allowing the press to question him his numbers dropped. The only reason he showed any convention bounce at all (minimal that it was) is that the the polsters re-weighted their polls, which showed a false bounce. When using the same poll weighting he actually had a negative bounce. I'm afraid the Repubs can't really take too much credit, other then knowing when to keep their mouths shut. 12. Sep 16, 2004 ### Tigers2B1 OK - if the democrats are the 'undercover' smart ones – i.e. if their craniums are bigger – they simply change the play to intellect blueprint and, instead, use the proven 'play to your emotions' cource of action. Why on earth do these smart guys continue to employ a strategy they know doesn't work? Maybe I'm too emotional to figure this one out, but truly, if your statement is true this has me stumped. I mean, they could use their big heads to figure the proper mix- you know split it up, 25% intellect, 75% emotion – or a more powerful 15% / 85% mix – just whatever works best. Put Gore on it – he's Kerry’s dirty little s^$+ dog, he’ll get it done -

13. Sep 16, 2004

### kat

In the meantime, Kerry's getting no press time. Is he still running for President?

14. Sep 16, 2004

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
This is really Kerry's weakness - facts and logic are boring. Lies and double-talk win the day. It is difficult to compete with those willing to take the lowest road.

I think Kerry should focus on the real cost of the war and Bush's idiotic refusal to build a true coalition. We are going to pay, and pay, and pay and pay... I doubt if the real cost of the Iraq war will be known for a couple of decades but an extrapolation seems possible. Also, this war undermines national security. I think Kerry should focus on this as well. We see our forces spread too thin and soldiers overtaxed and hyper-extended. Iraq is breaking down and now civil war seems imminent; and we are stuck. This should have been everyones problem but Bush just had to play cowboy. So now it all hangs around our necks like a lead weight and empties our pockets like a thief. In short, GW gave away the farm - a real genius.

15. Sep 16, 2004

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Oh yes, then we still have the real problem of terrorism. Almost forgot...

16. Sep 16, 2004

### kat

Actually Kerry's problem is his double talk.

Kerry can't afford to focus too much on the war. His supporters do not agree on how he should approach it and no matter which way he flies on the subject he risks allienating a large percentage of his supporters.

17. Sep 16, 2004

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
This is an example of what I mean. Republicans choose to ignore the specific details of each vote. Kerry's so called waffling is really a matter of making different decisions about different proposals. To lump them all together is a typical lowest road tactic. But, people fall for it. It makes things easy.

Well obviously I should be his campaign manager.

18. Sep 16, 2004

### wasteofo2

It's not just liberal class warfare to those on the loosing side. You do realize there are an immense amount of people who are very poor, right? From 2002 to 2003, 1.4 Americans fell into poverty. And yet, when any democrat points it out, you republicans just dismiss it as "Class Warfare", and thus invalidate it, as if people being poor isn't a problem at all.

You've got a point about Democrats playing on the emotions of people by pointing out that Europe and Muslims don't like us though. I mean, afterall, it's not that Muslims not liking us has ever been detrimental to us in the past, right? And nearly all of our traditional, powerful allies hating us and not alligning with us in our causes anymore, leaving us to go fight wars nearly alone and pay for it all, is no problem either, we can do it alone just fine. Fighting in Iraq alone is great, it's not like paying for it has hurt us economically, and hardly anyone's even died there, it seems to all be going real well on our own.

19. Sep 16, 2004

### BobG

The Republicans are campaigning geniuses. I don't think the presidency has ever changed parties with as strong an economy as we had in 2000. Four years later, the economy and Iraq are going badly enough to ensure defeat for anyone occupying the White House. Sure defeat in both elections and Bush narrowly squeaked out a win in 2000 and is still leading in 2004.

Additional comment: Are Bush supporters voting for Bush or for Rove?

Do most people's favorite beer coincide with their favorite beer?

Last edited: Sep 16, 2004
20. Sep 16, 2004

### phatmonky

Rich people didn't MAKE poor people poor. Kerry was on TV last night talking about how Executives keep making more and more money The guy, via his wife, is worth a LOT more than most executives.

Look, let me put in terms that are easier to understand.
Imagine the US, with the largest percentage of the world's wealth for any single country, going to African nations and saying "Those rich guys, they are making all the money while you suffer. I'm here to help you fight them." How do you think that would go over? I have a feeling some smart Africans would realize "hey, the person telling me this IS the person they are demonizing".
John Kerry is not working class. He likes to act as if he is thought. If he just said "I've been very fortunate, and I want to use my power for the good of those who haven't been as fortunate", then I'd have no complaints. Even Bill CLinton had the balls to say "Bush wants to give the tax cuts to people like ME. I'm the one who will be benefiting from this, I don't need it". Kerry still refers to the rich as if he weren't part of them.

21. Sep 16, 2004

### phatmonky

As has been stated - if the dems had a single good contender, or even played Kerry's campaign right, they would win. Bush is mediocre, and while the Republican machine is well tuned, Bush is a liability that could be taken advantage of.
Too bad Kerry's campaign, or what's left of it, is just floundering now

22. Sep 16, 2004

### Staff: Mentor

Ehh, except when he publicly fights against a bill, then votes for it. I've heard some great rationales for that, but they all just boil down to 'I have no spine.'
That's absurd. I see so many bumper stickers that say "War is not the answer" (we have a thread on this subject), I need to get one that says "Well then what is the answer!?!" I started a thread asking for real engineering solutions to our energy problems and got an emotional 'people are the problem' response (since deleted). How is that helpful?

No, recently (well, as long as I can remember), the democratic party has been mostly about emotional responses to problems without ever giving real solutions.

There is an old saying that if you're not a democrat at 18, you have no heart and if you're not a republican by 28, you have no brain. Its not far off. I see the democrats as the party of pessimistic idealism and the republicans the party of optomistic realism. That's the reason democrats protest more than republicans - its easier to complain about problems than it is to propose solutions.
Facts and logic? How is "Reporting for duty!" at all about facts and logic? He was trying to play up an emotional angle to help the perception that he's weak on defense and he miscalculated on it.

Regarding campaign strategy, Clinton was right: "its the economy, stupid!" Kerry's best chance was to focus on the economy and convince people its not as good as it should be (it isn't). His second point should be specific solutions to security issues, which he can do without mentioning Vietnam (since dodging the draft didn't hurt Clinton, it should be clear to Kerry 'Nam isn't important enough to bring up in a campaign, much less make your centerpiece). Propose a plan for restructuring the FBI and CIA. Propose a plan to modernize the military. Propose a plan to refocus the war on terrorism.
The problem with 1 year statistics, wasteofo2, is that there is an economic cycle that typically last 5-10 years and thus 1 year stats don't mean a whole lot. But as I indicated above, Kerry should be playing that up and he isn't. Its flawed economics, but its emotional content can sway a lot of voters.

edit: that last part may seem a contradiction. Let me explain. While I want real plans, real goals, and real solutions, I'm not blind to the fact that emotion is what sways a large percentage of the voters. So what I want as an individual voter is not the same as what I'd do if I were Kerry's campaign manager.

Last edited: Sep 16, 2004
23. Sep 16, 2004

### GENIERE

russ_watters

Great Post!

24. Sep 16, 2004

### ray b

the neo-cons are better and bigger LIERS
their use of the BIG LIE [swiftboat flip flop ect] is the big story
when it should be all about BuSh2's poor record on jobs and lies about the war

25. Sep 16, 2004

### Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Okay, my previous post was clearly an over-generalization (and I meant it not too seroiously), but I do believe there's a kernel of truth to it, especially concerning Al Gore's approach in 2000. He was repeatedly shooting himself in the feet by trying to rationalize this and that. Now, of course, he seems to have lost that habit.