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

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter member 5645
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the political strategies employed by President Bush in his campaign against John Kerry, particularly focusing on the portrayal of Kerry as indecisive and weak. Participants explore various aspects of campaign rhetoric, public perception, and the implications of military and economic policies during an election year.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Political analysis

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that Bush's strategy involves painting Kerry as a flip-flopper, citing his voting record and alignment with liberal figures as evidence.
  • Others contend that Bush's portrayal of strength on defense is undermined by ongoing challenges in Iraq and economic issues, suggesting that public panic over terrorism may be waning.
  • A few participants express skepticism about the feasibility of a smooth transition in Iraq, questioning the viability of the governing council's constitution.
  • Some contributors highlight the perceived lack of charisma in Kerry, suggesting it may hinder his campaign despite his honesty and potential capabilities as a leader.
  • There are claims that Bush's past actions and statements regarding terrorism and Iraq raise questions about his integrity and effectiveness as a leader.
  • Participants discuss the implications of voting for a candidate based on perceived flexibility versus inflexibility, with contrasting views on the importance of adaptability in leadership.
  • Some participants reference historical patterns in presidential elections, suggesting that familial connections may influence voter decisions.
  • There is a debate over the interpretation of quotes attributed to Bush, with some arguing that context is often ignored in political discourse.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion reveals multiple competing views regarding the effectiveness of Bush's campaign strategy and the character of both candidates. There is no consensus on the implications of their respective policies or the likelihood of success in the election.

Contextual Notes

Participants express a range of opinions influenced by personal biases and interpretations of political events. The discussion reflects a complex interplay of perceptions regarding leadership qualities, campaign strategies, and public sentiment, with no clear resolution on the merits of the arguments presented.

  • #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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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.
 
  • #36
Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
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.

Ah yeah...maybe you can tell us who it is that's recently rented the Linclon room? Maybe YOU have insider info...cause it seems that the only thing I've found is hints...innuendo...and no real facts about anyone sleeping...much less renting Lincolns room at the Whitehouse under the Bush administration. Of course..I care less about people sleeping in the Lincolns room, or guest at the whitehouse then WHO those guest are...which I think was the issue in regards to Clinton but then..my memory might not be all it used to be~!~
 
  • #37
Originally posted by phatmonky
wow. so sad.
Yeah, it is sad that the greedy richest 1% had to steal from the poorest 50%, but they went and did it. What's even sadder is taht ignorant people will keep voting for millionaires who don't care at all about them, especially if they say "God" and "Jesus" a lot.
 
  • #38
Originally posted by Zero
Yeah, it is sad that the greedy richest 1% had to steal from the poorest 50%, but they went and did it. What's even sadder is taht ignorant people will keep voting for millionaires who don't care at all about them, especially if they say "God" and "Jesus" a lot.

When you say the greedy richest 1%, I guess you mean Democrats. The wealthest 1 percent of Americans give disproportionately more money to Democrats than Republicans.
 
  • #39
Originally posted by Robert Zaleski
When you say the greedy richest 1%, I guess you mean Democrats. The wealthest 1 percent of Americans give disproportionately more money to Democrats than Republicans.
I didn't say either party, did I? I'd like to see your data, just out of curiosity. And, let's not forget where the big corporate money goes...
 
  • #40
Originally posted by Zero
let's not forget where the big corporate money goes...
To MoveOn.org?
 
  • #41
The one percent club
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,75653,00.html[/URL] - 34
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
That link is complete garbage.
In most states today, most blue-collar jobs are "closed-shop." That means if you want to be an electrician or a carpenter or a welder, you've no choice but to join the union
what the hell is that? thanks to the "conservative" economics, the blue-collar jobs are going to china or wallmart.
Jobs increase but unemployment goes up- how? employed people got more than one job.
To MoveOn.org?
What's a moveon.org?
 

Similar threads

News Bush Administration: My Indictment
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
News How long until the left labels Zell Miller a traitor?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
News Downing Street - New memos released
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K