Bush's Tactical Error

Discussion in 'Politics' started by britinusa, Aug 23, 2004.

  1. britinusa
    Offline

    britinusa Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2004
    Messages:
    76
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Lewistown, PA
    Ratings:
    +5
    The Kerry campaign, along with a compliant media, are trying to turn this whole SwiftVet thing on Bush. They are demanding he condemn the ads and to call on the SwiftVets to pull them. Today, Bush did just that, but not in a manner that satisfies the libs.
    Why doesn't he simply do what they ask?
    Here's what should happen. Bush publicly calls on the SwiftVets to pull the ads. John O'Neill says something like "With all due respect to the president, this isn't his fight. This is personal. This is between us and Kerry."
    Bush shrugs and says "Hey, I tried."
    What can the Kerry campaign say after that?
     
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Where is Kerry doing the same to the groups that are spending millions and have been for two years? D'oh! Bush was foolish today.
     
  3. bugman29102
    Offline

    bugman29102 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes, John Kerry has a place of HONOR in the NORTH VIETNAM MUSEUM!! His picture hangs there to honor him for HELPING the NORTH VIETNAM Soldiers WIN THE WAR . A WAR that killed 51,000 Americans!!! ARE YOU PROUD to have a man of this LOW character even run for President let alone siit in OUR WHITE HOUSE??? You NEED TO LEARN more about John Kerry!! He is NOT RIGHT for AMERICA!! President BUSH does NOT NEED to ask the SWIFT BOAT ANTI - Kerry VETS to PULL their ADS!! They have a RIGHT to SPEAK!! WHAT BUSH MUST do is DEMAND KERRY RELEASE his VIETNAM WAR documents!! THEY will spell the TRUTH!! SO far KERRY has REFUSED!! WHY, do you suppose!!
     
  4. Merlin1047
    Offline

    Merlin1047 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,500
    Thanks Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AL
    Ratings:
    +450
    Then again, why should GW let the DNC call the tune? The DNC has shot its bolt with the Michael Moore garbage festival, they had months of unfettered demagoguery to call the President everything under the sun.

    I think George Bush should point that out. That, and the fact that the SBVFT is an organization of independent American citizens who are free to post these ads and they don't need the DNC's permission to do it.

    Either that or turn Dick Cheney loose and let him tell the whole pack of rats to F*** off - again.
     
  5. britinusa
    Offline

    britinusa Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2004
    Messages:
    76
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Lewistown, PA
    Ratings:
    +5
    Speaking of Michael Moore, I just fired off this email to the Bush-Cheney website:

    Mr. President & Mr. Vice-President

    For me, the abiding memory of this election year is the vision of Michael Moore sitting next to Jimmy Carter at the Boston convention.
    I really think you should use this in your next TV ad, with a voice-over saying something like this:

    "Film director Michael Moore has repeatedly accused President Bush of being an accomplice in the 9/11 attacks. There has been not one word of condemnation of Moore from John Kerry or any other Democrat. In fact, Michael Moore was treated like a hero at the Democrat convention."

    As you know, the Democrats and their media lackeys are demanding that the President condemn the SwiftVets. The ad that I suggest would hopefully shut them up!

    Good luck
     
  6. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    Take it easy with the caps, your hurting my ears.
     
  7. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167

    I'm sure this was mentioned before, but any attempt by Bush to influence this group is illegal, and a violation of the McCain-Feingold act. That includes Bush attempting to stop the independent group from attacking his opponent.

    It doesn't matter now though, the damage is already done. And in any case, all ads from all 527 groups must cease by Sept. 3rd anyway
     
  8. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,548
    Thanks Received:
    8,163
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,165
    All 527 ads have to end Sept 3rd huh? Does that include Book advertisements? Say for books such as Unfit for Command?
     
  9. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    Good question, I have no idea if Kerry will freak out on this one. But it might be fun if he does!
     
  10. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    Of course media attacks can continue as well as politicians already in office can continue to use their office to call for press conferences. In other words those with power get to keep it, those without are screwed.

    One of the reasons the act is often called the incombent protection act.


    Things that you bring up about book advertisements are a good point. They bring to the forefront the gray areas between commercial speech and political speech. That greay area is not a problem when you do not prohibit speech to begin with, then there is no need for a distinction. What is odd is often people say that it is the commercial speech that should be curtailed while the political speech is the important one to protect. in fact I remember seeing a story on the news about a bagel shop in Redmond Wa that was prohibited from having a man hold a sign saying to come buy bagels at his store by the city. the man then added something like buy my bagels, and end the war. Or maybe it was buy my bagels and support the troops or something like that. The point was not whether he was pro war or anti war, but that he was adding a political message so that he could then be allowed to advertise as he desired.

    here you are suggesting the same thing only in reverse.

    The thing that scares me is that I feel that as these inconsistancies and 'flaws' in the laws are brought to the forefront that it will be 'solved' by adding more restrictions instead of realizing past mistakes and removing restrictions. Bush has made it clear that he is of the opinion that we are better off with more restrictions rather than less. Kerry has not said it yet, but judging from his voting record, I am guessing he is in favor of more restrictions as well. I do not think either will be happy until people are not allowed to talk about them at all.

    Travis
     

Share This Page