Log in

No account? Create an account

in a web of glass, pinned to the edges of vision

Republican is not another word for moron, right?

I'd forgotten how often we saw Magritte

mucha mosaic

Republican is not another word for moron, right?

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
mucha mosaic
I present this link, in which cnn details the ways in which the Bush campaign is doing their level best to kneecap Kerry, in response to Kerry essentially saying 'there's a bunch of Republicans who do their nastiest and level best to kneecap Democratic candidates'. I'm especially impressed by them stating that a vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorism.
And it's only March.

...fucking duh.

Also, Kerry's going to spend more money than he'll raise by raising taxes, the Republican leadership tells us. And this differs from what GWB did when he turned a surplus into a deficit how, exactly?
I'm reminded of McGovern vs. Reagan.
Specifically, McGovern saying "Both of us will raise your taxes. He will not tell you. I just did."
  • On the other hand, Kerry saying "Bill Clinton was often referred to as the first Black president. I'd like the honor of being the second" in front of the NAACP might qualify as different, but equally galling stupidity. :)
    • ...Eeeh- I think that's more contextual. Clinton did get referred to as the first president who was pretty obviously pro-black people, is how I read 'the first black president'.

      Though yeah, that's pretty startlingly bad too. Perhaps we should kill the lot and require MENSA certification of any presidential candidate.
    • Actually, it was largely in reference to his background as a poor kid from Arkansas-- the poverty, etc, made him in touch with certain experiences in a way most politicians couldn't be. It was then picked up later by comedians in reference to the persecution surrounding the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

      Ooo. MENSA-tastic presidents...Possibly, but that doesn't really solve the common sense issues(see above). :)
    • It doesn't WORK when you do EXACTLY WHAT THEY CRITICIZE

      Actually, the scary part is - it does. Polls show that Bush still has a pretty solid following.

      Perhaps we should kill the lot and require MENSA certification of any presidential candidate.

      My initial response is "Absolutely!" - since obviously Ivy League educations don't cut it anymore. But being a former card-carrying member of said club and having seen first-hand some of the neanderthals that have the test results to prove their 'intellectual superiority' - I don't think that's going to work either.

      Personally, I'll continue to do my best to stay educated and open-minded on all the hot topics, vote for the least evil candidate, and leave my options for Canada and the Netherlands open.
      • It's true: Bush does have a ridiculously solid following. I'm wondering when that changes. I'm not saying 'if', I'm saying 'when', because SOMETHING has obviously got his campaign folks TERRIFIED, based on the level of knee-jerk reaction they're up to.
  • McGovern vs Reagan? Dude, that was 1984, and it was Mondale vs. Reagan. Mondale had that line as part of his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention that year. McGovern was the other big Democratic loser of recent times, to Nixon in 1972.

    Mondale went on to lose 49 states to Reagan, IIRC.

    And considering the shit Kerry has been slinging against Bush since well into last year, he's got the chutzpah of the kid who killed his parents asking for leniency because he's an orphan.
    • Okay, I'll sit corrected on Mondale vs. Reagan, and thanks for that. Someone else quoted it to me as McGovern, so I just parrotted.

      I'm still wondering why the Bush campaign thinks they should run around doing exactly what they're getting criticized for doing. Can you explain the logic there? 'Cause I'm missing it.
      • Because this is just the first volley in a long war. Kerry's trying to pre-empt criticism of him, and it might work for the first round, but if he keeps on doing it, then eventually people will just decide he's just whining and will turn against him. Or, he backs off, and takes the chance that the Republican criticism will start to stick.

        I get the impression that Kerry is making up his whole strategy as he goes along-- which means decisions that look good in the short-term may well backfire later on. November is a long ways off at this point.

        Heck, in February/March 1984, Gary Hart was leading Reagan in the polls, and look what happened to him.
        • The above's all well and good, but here's what it boils down to, taken in context with what I said:

          1 (which I comment on): Kerry says 'there's this typical pattern of attacking folks as viciously as possible, which predates my declaration of intent to run for president, and which crops up in various elections'
          2 (which I comment on): Kerry gets attacked pretty viciously on issues that the White House seems to have pretty unstable ground on (The they've got WMD/They don't have WMD and we never said we did/The WMD don't matter administration really hasn't got any ground to criticize anybody else on flipflops of policy based on flipflops of information provided by said adminstration, in my view).
          3 (which is your comment): This happened because this is round 1 of X

          Given the above, I'm still not understanding how what seems to be deliberately setting yourself up to lose round 1 is good sense. Taking Round 1 as a loss and moving forward to round 2 makes sense, sure- but they're still talking about the same things as round 1, which to me, doesn't make for a new point of contention.
          And bringing the whole 'HE flipflops like crazy' to the table is just begging someone to say 'dude. Flip-flops? Let's talk about yours for a bit', isn't it?

          Both campaign strategies seem like eggsucking.
          • I don't see Round 1 as a loss: the Bush campaign got a lot of mileage out of Kerry complaining about Republican attacks by pointing out that Kerry has been attacking Bush viciously for months. In fact, Kerry's campaign to date has been pretty much nothing BUT attacking Bush, for that matter. Kerry complaining about stuff that happened years ago that he himself has been doing and is still doing will wear thin quickly, hence my 'round 1 even, future advantage to Bush' analysis.

            And Bush has the fallback on the WMD issue that his predecessor, Clinton, thought Iraq had WMDs as well, not to mention pretty much the entire world-- the last UN resolution to pass the Security Council concerning Iraq (1441?) said 'Iraq, we know you have WMDs, give them up, or else', which was approved unanimously, even by France and Syria. Heck, Clinton signed into US law that the US's policy on Iraq was 'regime change' in 1998; if Bush can link to that then he's significantly undercut any Kerry criticism, while emphasizing Kerry's inability or unwillingness to take a clear stand for or against. I don't think we'll see that ace in the hole pulled out until the October debates, though.

            Bush's most powerful weapon may be just simply poking fun at Kerry, like the retort to Kerry wanting monthly debates (which is interesting in and of itself-- usually the frontrunner wants fewer debates; does that mean that Kerry still sees Bush as the frontrunner?) along the lines of "we'll wait for you to finish debating yourself".
Powered by LiveJournal.com