Bush Campaign Tactics

[Jhhnn]

As Lunar Ray alluded to, Bush won in 2000 by campaigning to the center, representing himself as a moderate, and through a quirk of the electoral college system- he didn't receive a plurality, let alone a majority of the votes cast.

He's also squandered the greatest political windfall since Pearl Harbor with a hard right turn and slap the pedal to the metal pamper the rich/ pander to the fundies/ break the treasury/ rule the world policy agenda...

Running on his record is a suicide mission, so He and Rove will try to pick at the other side, keep everybody distracted. Not that it'll work, but it's their only shot...

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

There is a distinct difference between the two in terms of how they have run their campaign. For someone promoting optimism and hope, Bush is certainly being hypocritical.

 

[smashp]

Has Bush Even Laid out a plan for the Next Four Years? Or is it just the old "Trust us" motto.

 

[thuper]

Originally posted by: smashp
Has Bush Even Laid out a plan for the Next Four Years? Or is it just the old "Trust us" motto.

He's managed to push almost anything that needs done into waiting until after the election.

 

[Ogg]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot
From the secret meetings Haliburton Dick held and the energy fiasco of 2000 that hit California, along with a preimptive plan by this administration to invade Iraq BEFORE 9/11, and the miniscule remnants of a tax giveaway that Bush hangs his economic policy on, does any clear thinking individual really think they deserve another 4 years when this Kerry/Edwards ticket has the right plan for America as the alternative? I sure hope common sense prevails this year in the voting booth. People need to look at the whole picture, not the sound bites and spoon fed pablum of Rush or Michael.

Kerry/Edwards brings hope back to America. Kerry/Edwards will fight for America, not corporations who sell your jobs to India and Mexico. Kerry/Edwards vision is a United America and have the stuff to make it work. Bush spouted uniter not devider in 2000. He's had plenty of time to make that reality. You can see how he faired just reading these forums.

My feelings are this race is over. Kerry/Edwards will win by a majority of the popular vote AND the electoral collage this time, and Jeb can't do a damn thing about it.

hahahahahahahaha
Right........

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
true, but the amount of slandering from the Bush campaign is ridiculous. Go to John Kerry's website and look at the frontpage. It's all about him, his policies, and what he plans on doing if he becomes president. Look at Bush's and what do you see? Not the same.....

Theres a HUGE difference between the Bush and Kerry campaigns. Bush's campaign does the negative attacks mainly through ads, while Kerry mainly goes negative during stump speeches, and his various surrogates.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: smashp
Has Bush Even Laid out a plan for the Next Four Years? Or is it just the old "Trust us" motto.

Last I checked, the democrats really havent laid out a plan either. Its called, they do that at the conventions.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
true, but the amount of slandering from the Bush campaign is ridiculous. Go to John Kerry's website and look at the frontpage. It's all about him, his policies, and what he plans on doing if he becomes president. Look at Bush's and what do you see? Not the same.....

Theres a HUGE difference between the Bush and Kerry campaigns. Bush's campaign does the negative attacks mainly through ads, while Kerry mainly goes negative during stump speeches, and his various surrogates.

I agree that Bush doesn't go very negative on the stump, but if you've ever seen Cheney on the stump, you'd think the world was ending tomorrow and John Kerry was to blame for it...

 

[Moonbeam]

Negative campaigning is not done to knock the other guy down. It changes nobody's position. It is done to keep independent and new voters from going to the polls. Bush's base will vote for him, the amalgam of the rich, the religiously confused, and the hypnotized. The idea is to drive all others away by making politics disgusting. It works and it works well. There is no way to keep it from happening unless the disgusted vote anyway. But they won't. They don't know they are being played.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: smashp
Has Bush Even Laid out a plan for the Next Four Years? Or is it just the old "Trust us" motto.

Last I checked, the democrats really havent laid out a plan either. Its called, they do that at the conventions.

From what I can tell:

Democrats:
- Win the war on terror by strengthening our alliances and gaining back international respect
- Provide healthcare for all the nation's children
- Return the economy to 1990's conditions
- Start a decade's long plan to achieve energy independence from foreign oil

Republicans:
- Win the war on terror by making sure Iraq is a peaceful and free nation
- Make the tax cuts permanent

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
true, but the amount of slandering from the Bush campaign is ridiculous. Go to John Kerry's website and look at the frontpage. It's all about him, his policies, and what he plans on doing if he becomes president. Look at Bush's and what do you see? Not the same.....

Thats because to Kerry, it's all about Kerry.

Pray tell, who's biography, policies, and plans should ideally be featured on Kerry's website?

Zephyr

Marx, of course!




:roll:

here we go.

The report quotes a source as saying Kerry told an audience at a Philadelphia YMCA that Ho Chi Minh, the North Vietnamese communist leader, was ''the George Washington of Vietnam

Maybe Kerry should run as the new Ho Chi Minh.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

There's a good (imho) section about campaign tricks/methods/tactics in Franken's "Lying liars". It's made me take a closer look at accusations from all parties.

For example, when they (whoever) claims a senator voted for or against "X" and that they are "bad" for doing so. Saying as such fails to take in all sorts of things, including the context of the entire bill/policy/etc voted on as well as who else voted for it and why.

Sad to say, but these sort of tactics "work".

 

[irwincur]

Where are these Kerry ads where he runs on his own record? His real record, not the fictional alter ego he sometimes tries to employ. The only attempts they make are to push Kerry as a war hero (which he was not) and to bash the economy, which is in not and has not been in trouble for the last three years. I don't know why there are morons out there that do not get the most basic tenants of economics and actually make claims that run contrary to 250 years of economic science. THE ECONOMY IS BOOMING, AND CONSIDERING WHERE THE WORLD ECONOMY IS RIGHT NOW WE ARE EXPERIENCING IMMENSE GROWTH. Employment is up (we are now at 'perfect employment'), new businesses are up, productivity is at a 20 year high, confidence is at an all time high, interest rates are still low, markets are doing fine, foreign investment is again increasing, economic growth has been at a 20 year high for three straight quarters, etc... Every indicator out there is positive.

And Kerry is still trying to convince fewer and fewer Americans that the economy sucks. If he keeps it up, the only votes he will get are from the unemployed living in trailers - the only ones that truely think the economy sucks.

Get a new topic you moron, your ship is sinking, and every topic you choose (or the media chooses for you) blows up in your face. Seriously, tell me exactly what Kerry is running on, and exactly what his plans are to improve upon our current situation... Here are a few hints.

1. Raising taxes will not help anyone except the government, it will destroy the states.
2. He has painted himself into a corner with Iraq, he is towing the Bush line.
3. He technically cannot improve the employment numbers, they are at perfect employment right now.
4. Arresting and issuing warrents for terrorists will not work better than killing them.
5. Even after Bill Clinton takes over leadership of the UN, it will still be a corrupt mess - why would Kerry want to give them more control. He does. Because he is stupid.

Whatever the case, liberals never win because they are too radical. Everyone knows that Kerry is extremely liberal, Edwards does not help much. People hate trial lawyers too.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: irwincur
Where are these Kerry ads where he runs on his own record? His real record, not the fictional alter ego he sometimes tries to employ. The only attempts they make are to push Kerry as a war hero (which he was not) and to bash the economy, which is in not and has not been in trouble for the last three years. I don't know why there are morons out there that do not get the most basic tenants of economics and actually make claims that run contrary to 250 years of economic science. THE ECONOMY IS BOOMING, AND CONSIDERING WHERE THE WORLD ECONOMY IS RIGHT NOW WE ARE EXPERIENCING IMMENSE GROWTH. Employment is up (we are now at 'perfect employment'), new businesses are up, productivity is at a 20 year high, confidence is at an all time high, interest rates are still low, markets are doing fine, foreign investment is again increasing, economic growth has been at a 20 year high for three straight quarters, etc... Every indicator out there is positive.

And Kerry is still trying to convince fewer and fewer Americans that the economy sucks. If he keeps it up, the only votes he will get are from the unemployed living in trailers - the only ones that truely think the economy sucks.

Get a new topic you moron, your ship is sinking, and every topic you choose (or the media chooses for you) blows up in your face. Seriously, tell me exactly what Kerry is running on, and exactly what his plans are to improve upon our current situation... Here are a few hints.

1. Raising taxes will not help anyone except the government, it will destroy the states.
2. He has painted himself into a corner with Iraq, he is towing the Bush line.
3. He technically cannot improve the employment numbers, they are at perfect employment right now.
4. Arresting and issuing warrents for terrorists will not work better than killing them.
5. Even after Bill Clinton takes over leadership of the UN, it will still be a corrupt mess - why would Kerry want to give them more control. He does. Because he is stupid.

Whatever the case, liberals never win because they are too radical. Everyone knows that Kerry is extremely liberal, Edwards does not help much. People hate trial lawyers too.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have Ann Coulter in our forum! We've hit the big time in hilarious partisanship!

 

[kage69]

Don't underestimate the dirty-tricks capabilities of Dick and Karl. They won't go down without a fight ... a nasty, ugly fight.

Also don't underestimate the motivation of millions of brainwashed evangelicals, herded onto buses like the sheep that they are.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
true, but the amount of slandering from the Bush campaign is ridiculous. Go to John Kerry's website and look at the frontpage. It's all about him, his policies, and what he plans on doing if he becomes president. Look at Bush's and what do you see? Not the same.....

Thats because to Kerry, it's all about Kerry.

Pray tell, who's biography, policies, and plans should ideally be featured on Kerry's website?

Zephyr

Marx, of course!




:roll:

here we go.

The report quotes a source as saying Kerry told an audience at a Philadelphia YMCA that Ho Chi Minh, the North Vietnamese communist leader, was ''the George Washington of Vietnam

Maybe Kerry should run as the new Ho Chi Minh.

A little side note.

Ho Chi Minh actually approached the US and sought help to found a free and independent Vietnam after WWII. The US chose to support French recolonization instead and we know what happened then. And no, Communism itself did not play a part in that decision but Truman was already looking at stopping a "barbarian invasion of Europe" (W. Averell Harriman) i.e. Stalin's Red Army, so he needed to keep the French happy. Ironically (in hindsight) the Vietnamese, Cambodians and the Lao were no big sacrifice for Truman on the altar of political righteousness.

Read Niel Sheehan's excellent 'A Bright Shining Lie' for more about Vietnam.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Negative campaigning is not done to knock the other guy down. It changes nobody's position. It is done to keep independent and new voters from going to the polls. Bush's base will vote for him, the amalgam of the rich, the religiously confused, and the hypnotized. The idea is to drive all others away by making politics disgusting. It works and it works well. There is no way to keep it from happening unless the disgusted vote anyway. But they won't. They don't know they are being played.

Exactly. Divide and conquer. The Republicans know that they are in the minority overall so for them it is paramount to keep as few as possible outside of their base from voting. Heaven forbid that there was actual grown up debate that the entire electorate could take part in.

 

[crazycarl]

Originally posted by: irwincur


Get a new topic you moron

 

[Todd33]

Bush could never get elected for any office without a machine like Rove has set in motion. They have the meanist, dirtest compaign ever. If the American puiblic wasn't such sheep, there might be a backlash for the negativity.

What blows my mind is McCain saying anything nice about GeeDubya after the dirty tricks in the 2000 primaries. I guess he offered him something good, like he did to Powell.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: irwincur
Where are these Kerry ads where he runs on his own record? His real record, not the fictional alter ego he sometimes tries to employ. The only attempts they make are to push Kerry as a war hero (which he was not) and to bash the economy, which is in not and has not been in trouble for the last three years. I don't know why there are morons out there that do not get the most basic tenants of economics and actually make claims that run contrary to 250 years of economic science. THE ECONOMY IS BOOMING, AND CONSIDERING WHERE THE WORLD ECONOMY IS RIGHT NOW WE ARE EXPERIENCING IMMENSE GROWTH. Employment is up (we are now at 'perfect employment'), new businesses are up, productivity is at a 20 year high, confidence is at an all time high, interest rates are still low, markets are doing fine, foreign investment is again increasing, economic growth has been at a 20 year high for three straight quarters, etc... Every indicator out there is positive.

And Kerry is still trying to convince fewer and fewer Americans that the economy sucks. If he keeps it up, the only votes he will get are from the unemployed living in trailers - the only ones that truely think the economy sucks.

Get a new topic you moron, your ship is sinking, and every topic you choose (or the media chooses for you) blows up in your face. Seriously, tell me exactly what Kerry is running on, and exactly what his plans are to improve upon our current situation... Here are a few hints.

1. Raising taxes will not help anyone except the government, it will destroy the states.
2. He has painted himself into a corner with Iraq, he is towing the Bush line.
3. He technically cannot improve the employment numbers, they are at perfect employment right now.
4. Arresting and issuing warrents for terrorists will not work better than killing them.
5. Even after Bill Clinton takes over leadership of the UN, it will still be a corrupt mess - why would Kerry want to give them more control. He does. Because he is stupid.

Whatever the case, liberals never win because they are too radical. Everyone knows that Kerry is extremely liberal, Edwards does not help much. People hate trial lawyers too.

irwincur, just curious, what do you do for a living?