Blue Collar Democrats

RS,

Why is it negative advertising to point out Kerry's voting record on security issues? And why isn't Kerry's incredible wealth, acquired through marriage, a valid point? Or did I just imagine all you lib's guffawing when Ann Richards cracked that Bush senior was born with a silver spoon in his mouth?

He wants to tax the snot out of working people but won't reveal how much he and his wife paid or the loopholes they used. He wants us taking mass transit and driving hybrid cars while he and Teresa tool around in their fleet of SUV's, yachts and private jets. That's not fair game? Let some conservative preacher get a parking ticket and the libs can't wait to excoriate him as a hypocrite. I guess different standards apply to guys who served four months in the Nam.

And the Dem's have some nerve to be complaining about negative ads, considering the garbage Terry McAuliffe and his colleagues at such groups as moveon.org have dumped.
 
Quote from Maverick74:

... .

Expect this upcoming campaign to be the nastiest in history. I will say one thing, all the money that both parties are running on ads is wasted money. The debates are going to decide this election. Not the commercials. And I can't wait for the debates to start.
More...

Gotta disagree with you there. I think the Bush ads have hurt Kerry bigtime, coupled with the message put out by Cheney and surrogates. The public has been convinced that Kerry is a flip-flopper who will say anything, plus he's soft on security. It's hard for him to make any headway with that burden because people simply don't believe him.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Gotta disagree with you there. I think the Bush ads have hurt Kerry bigtime, coupled with the message put out by Cheney and surrogates. The public has been convinced that Kerry is a flip-flopper who will say anything, plus he's soft on security. It's hard for him to make any headway with that burden because people simply don't believe him.
More...

Yeah but when the debates start, the commercials will be a thing of the past. Don't get me wrong, the Bush commercials showing Kerry as a flip flopper are pretty accurate. But if he kicks Bush's ass in the debates, I'm not sure those commercials will matter and vice versa.
 
Quote from Maverick74:

Yeah but when the debates start, the commercials will be a thing of the past. Don't get me wrong, the Bush commercials showing Kerry as a flip flopper are pretty accurate. But if he kicks Bush's ass in the debates, I'm not sure those commercials will matter and vice versa.
More...

I agree with you completely. It seems from the little I know (I intentionally try and pay as little attention as possible, and I hardly ever watch TV anyway) that Kerry indeed is a "flip flopper". But he will certainly have his chance to defend himself on that (and any issues) when it comes to the debates.

As I have said (despite what AAA implies), I don't know who I will vote for. I will decide when I have enough questions answered.

These negative TV ads just don't seem to answer anything.

AAA calls me a "liberal", and so do you, Maverick. I guess compared to you guys, I am. But this doesn't mean I can't vote for a Republican if I feel he's (or she) is the better candidate.

What I do NOT like about the Bush administration has a lot less to do with GWB, and more to do with his team. I dislike and distrust Ashcroft. Karl Rove makes me cringe. Cheney scares me just like he scares most of the world.

The alliance with the religious right scares me. This is not what America is supposed to be about.

I think the debates will answer a lot of questions. The only real problem I see with the debates is that they may be unfair to GWB. The man has shown his weaknesses, and Kerry's team will be sure to make sure all of Dubya's buttons get pushed. If he loses his composure, he can easily lose the election. At this moment, I don't see that as a particularly bad thing (or good thing), but it would be a shame if Bush turns out to be the better candidate and loses because of his inability to deal with direct one on one conflict. Or his self admitted inability to "think fast on (his) feet". These traits can be deadly in a debate. I am sure his weaknesses will be exploited by Kerry.

Bush will of course have a say in the format of the debates. Assuming there will be the traditional three debates, he should be well protected in two of them. The inevitable one in three in which the format will not be totally protective for him can be his demise. He needs to stand firm and not get rattled when Kerry tries to impose on his "space" as he surely will.....(everyone will study the debates with Gore, and see what worked to rattle Bush then).

Should be interesting.

:)Peace,
RS
 
Quote from Maverick74:

RS, my post wasn't that great. You didn't need to copy it twice. LOL.
More...

Must have hit a button (or two) inadvertently...sorry Mav.

They weren't that great? You are too modest! LOL

Peace,
:)RS
 
...however, I seem to remember Bush performing well in the debates of 2000. In fact, in the 'Town Hall' style debate he cleaned Gore's clock. Sure. low expectations may have had something to do with that, but still...

Kerry is a taller incarnation of Gore...stiff as a tree and a s l o w talker as if educating Pre-K kids.

Personally, I hear Kerry bitch a lot, but aside from the 'defer to the UN and the international community' specifics on defense, I have heard precious little in the way of specific plans.

Hell, I can sit here and bitch about the president. Doesn't mean you should vote for me though.

Remember, it's April.

Forget the monkey dance. Let's talk about the Bekaa Valley or al-Sadr the 30 year old cleric hated by the rest of the Iraqi elder clerics. Now THAT would be useful discussion in April.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top