A good point. They both have political machines that know how to run a good negative campaign as well.
Obama is still vulnerable on the economy. If things don't pick up by October, this would still be problematic for him. There are plenty of Obama soundbites that can be used against him. Not saying that the same doesn't hold true for Romney, it's just that Obama made a lot of claims that he couldn't deliver on.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
I actually didn't mention that part because I can't quite quantify it, but I do figure that Mr. Romney's religion will count against him to some degree, just like it probably did for Mr. Kerry being a Catholic.
cybrsage
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2011
- 13,021
- 0
- 0
Not only does he have a lot he could not deliver on, he has a lot he refused to deliver on. The Sunset Rule is the easiest to show.
President Kerry would like to have a word with you about how meaningful polls are 7 months away from the election.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
It's always amusing to see those on the left denigrate Bush as "cocaine using". Bush staunchly denies ever using cocaine and is contradicted by a long-imprisoned drug user. Obama by contrast has been very open about using cocaine. Kinda like the 2000 Democrat convention when all the speakers denigrated Bush by calling him "Junior" - ignoring the fact that Al Gore really IS Al Gore Junior whereas George Bush IS NOT George Bush Junior. Reality always gives you guys such problems.
Obama also won a Nobel Peace Prize. So did terrorist leader Yasser Arafat. It's become the hardcore lefty man of the year award, so don't expect the rest of us to be impressed. In Gore's case, you certainly didn't see his native state giving him any support.
Al Gore ran a pretty terrible campaign... Bill Clinton was near the height of his popularity and Gore ran away from the Clinton record.
and yet, he still came within a handful of votes of beating GWB.
and yet, he still came within a handful of votes of beating GWB.
blankslate
Diamond Member
- Jun 16, 2008
- 8,735
- 526
- 126
we'll have to see... Unfortunately I think some people will be surprised what Karl Rove in charge of a Super PAC can do this election...
I doubt the dems will make much of the Mormon business. The corporate raider thing will come up. The main attack line is going to be that we can't trust him because we have no idea what he stands for. His contradictions over time and criticizing Obama for stuff he himself did in Mass, and not just on healthcare. It'll be the devil you know versus the one you don't, but with the twist that we really don't know this devil because he won't be defined.
Both candidates and parties will have their spins on the economy. That will be where it's really at.
I think you're better at seeing the dishonest narratives that come from the left than those that come from the right. There's plenty. You talk about October surprise, which hardly had any impact and is hardly remembered, but no discussion of swift boating? LOL
- wolf
Last edited:
This is undeniably true. The question is, will it even matter? Romney flatly denies his contradictions when he's confronted with them, and I'm sure he'll continue to do so in future debates, interviews, etc.. He knows that if you say something with confidence and repeat it enough times, people will believe it. George W Bush knew the same thing.
On the other side, Obama has a bit of an uphill climb. He can't deny any of the unpopular parts of his record for the last 4 years, because when you're in the spotlight as president people know what you've been doing. He certainly lost the PR battle on health care reform, and may take an even heavier blow if the SC strikes down parts (or all) of it. If people expect the economy to improve, however, none of that may matter.
werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
Undoubtedly, but the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth aren't a good example of that. They forced Kerry to admit that he had NOT been the only boat that didn't flee when they came under fire, he had been the ONLY boat to flee when they came under fire - and that the man who was in the water was not from the mine-struck boat, but had fallen off Kerry's own boat when Kerry slammed the throttles forward to escape what might have been an ambush zone. I don't fault Kerry for fleeing what might easily have been a kill zone; I very much do fault him for outright stating that his fellow sailors displayed cowardice when in fact THEY are the ones who stayed with the stricken boat in a potential ambush, not Kerry who fled. The SBVT forced Kerry to admit that he had not in fact been in Cambodia in Christmas 1968 on a secret mission for Richard Nixon' they even forced Kerry to admit that Richard Nixon was not President in 1968. And they were certainly no October surprise, being formed on May 4 2004 after individual denouncements and running adverts from August 5.
The left has done a banner job of rewriting history to make the Swift Boaters look bad. That's the benefit of owning the media, you get to simply assert that someone is lying, over and over, until people begin to believe it. It was not however the SBVT that had to continually "revise and extend" its assertions; that would be Senator John Kerry.
blankslate
Diamond Member
- Jun 16, 2008
- 8,735
- 526
- 126
what really counts isn't the national polls but the polls in swing states like Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan etc.
No rewriting of history necessary. You can go back and parse through the facts related to SBVT in an objective manner, and it's readily clear how many lies they told, not to mention the numerous ties they had to the GOP. Many of the people who were making statements about Kerry in Nam didn't even serve with him, and didn't inform the public of this when the statements were made. There were some grains of truth here and there in what they said. They should have led with just the truth and stuck with it the entire way. But that wouldn't have accomplished their political objective - the reinstatement of George Bush as POTUS, which they accomplished quite successfully.
You can use media bias as a stock excuse for everything if you like. Why not? Those who "control the information" are against you so we don't really know what we think we know. Frankly, it's not only lazy but presents an essentially unfalsifiable position to the person you are debating. If you want to argue the facts, then present a source that you think isn't biased and we'll see. When you claim the media is biased, it naturally prompts the other person to wonder what sources you are relying on.
- wolf
werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
Again, it was Kerry who had to change his story, NOT his former fellow sailors. Are you implying that Kerry is so weak-minded that their "lies" fooled him into changing his story multiple times or simply ignoring that part?
Kerry claimed to have been sent in Cambodia Christmas 1968 on a secret mission from President Richard Nixon. Kerry had to admit that in fact he had never been in Cambodia and that Richard Nixon was sworn in as President in January 1969. He later changed his story about this event (which he declared "seared" into his memory) to some unspecified later date. He even has a secret CIA hat, which he keeps in a secret compartment and only brings out for a few favored tame reporters. (We can each judge for ourselves the relative value of a secret CIA hat kept in a secret compartment compared with magic underwear.)
Kerry claimed to have not been at the infamous 1971 Kansas City national meeting of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, where they voted on a resolution to assassinate six US Senators supporting the war. Kerry had to admit that in fact he had attended that meeting; he had flat out lied to his biographer (who took everything Kerry said at face value) and had pressured several witnesses to change their stories.
Kerry claimed that when a swift boat struck a mine and foundered, all the other boats (which were larger and better armed than his Boston Whaler) fled, whereas he stopped and fished a survivor out of the river. Kerry had to admit that in fact he fled the area while the other boats stopped in what might have been an ambush zone to guard the stricken boat and assist its crew. Kerry also had to admit that the man he picked up had not been riding on the stricken boat, but had been in Kerry's own boat and had fallen backward overboard when Kerry suddenly slammed the throttles forward to escape the possible ambush. Kerry's excuse for his behavior was that he wanted to give the bigger boats room to maneuver, and I'm perfectly willing to accept that on face value. However, that in no way excuses his blatantly accusing his fellow sailors of cowardice when they intentionally stayed in what might well have been a kill zone while Kerry fled. Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with speeding your smaller, less well armed boat out of a potential kill zone to let the two larger, better armed boats handle the fight, but there is everything wrong with turning that situation into a story about how the sailors in the larger, better armed boats fled whilst you valiantly stayed behind to fight it out and rescue the stranded crew of the stricken crew.
You are free to make vague allegations that the Swift Boat Veterans lied but in basic honesty you should acknowledge that Kerry is the one who had to change his story, multiple times. Heroic John Kerry became at best only prudent John Kerry - which might not have been a big deal except that he had made his valorous service his main qualification over Bush. Kerry's service SHOULD have stood head and shoulders above Bush's, but it was the proof that Kerry had lied about at least some of it that took away that weapon. Equally ironic, all he had to do to secure these men's support was to NOT call them baby killers and criminals in the anti-war venues and NOT call them cowards in his authorized biography. John Kerry is the one who should have led with the truth and not embellished it. Hell, his service record was honorable and reasonably valorous; even if one suspects his Silver Star and three Purple Owies were embellished it is still a perfectly good record, and had he not lied about parts of it no one would question his medals anyway.
As far as their ties to the GOP and the Bush administration, that was fully investigated by the FEC because the Kerry campaign lodged a formal complaint. The Swift Boaters were completely exonerated (although they did get a hefty fine for raising money without properly registering as a lobbyist organization.)
And as far as biased reportage, I give you Thomas Lipscomb's piece about Kerry and the New York Times, which ignored its own published stories to attack O'Neill and carry water for Kerry.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/the_truth_john_kerry_and_the_n.html
Last edited:
Yeah, it's too early to tell. The economy is probably the single biggest factor in this election, as usual.
RedString
Senior member
- Feb 24, 2011
- 299
- 0
- 0
Romneys religion should count against him.
1) He is crazy enough to actually believe the bs Joseph Smith came up with
or
2) He doesn't actually believe it, but uses it as a vessel for manipulation and personal gain through tax savings, contacts made, etc... (kind of like Scientology)
Either way, I wouldn't want him as President any more than I would want a Scientologist.
Go ahead and say, oh his religion doesn't matter. You're a hypocrite because if it was a die-hard high ranking Scientologist up there, many of you would suddenly believe Religious belief matters.
1) He is crazy enough to actually believe the bs Joseph Smith came up with
or
2) He doesn't actually believe it, but uses it as a vessel for manipulation and personal gain through tax savings, contacts made, etc... (kind of like Scientology)
Either way, I wouldn't want him as President any more than I would want a Scientologist.
Go ahead and say, oh his religion doesn't matter. You're a hypocrite because if it was a die-hard high ranking Scientologist up there, many of you would suddenly believe Religious belief matters.
Last edited:
I know people are giving Anarchist some shit, but it's funny that they surveyed like 2000 people. That's less than what have shown up to the last few Ron Paul events(each event has cleared something like 2500-3000 people). Someone show me the pictures of Romney putting asses in seats. Oh wait he doesn't, instead 1500 people show up to his huge shindig he rented a STADIUM for.
Sadly to many give a fuck what is said on TV and not what is actually going on.
Sadly to many give a fuck what is said on TV and not what is actually going on.
So you're saying:
1. The members of Kerry's own crew did NOT back Kerry's version of events;
2. That these same members did NOT say that O'Neil failed to interview them for his book;
3. That people quoted by O'Neil in that book did NOT say that their statements had been hacked up to remove positive things they said about Kerry;
4. That statements Kerry made on television in the early 1970's were NOT misrepresented by SBVT as proven by the tapes of said programs?
5. That O'Neil did NOT lie about who co-authored his book;
6. That SBVT's members who did NOT witness actual events did NOT sign affidavits attesting to those events, and later admitted that this was the case;
7. That more than one member of SBVT did NOT change his OWN story later after being contradicted by other vets?
8. That members of SBVT did NOT falsely claim that Kerry was revered as a hero of communism by the Vietnamese?
9. That SBVT did NOT receive most of its funding from prominent GOP donors, and did NOT have direct ties to the Bush Campaign?
I'm going to be honest with you here: if Kerry put a spin on some aspects of what happened in Vietnam, that is to his discredit. However, since Kerry was not elected, I have trouble getting so hot and bothered about that when in fact this was clearly a politically motivated smear campaign that was rife with dishonesty from beginning to end. You act as if it's OK to "throw everything up against the wall to see what sticks" just because a little of it sticks after the dust settles, even if much of what "stuck" with voters actually wasn't true. Let's try out that tactic with Romney or some other politician you support next time and see how you react to it. Let's accuse him of 40 terrible things and who knows, maybe a few of them will turn out to be true. Sound good to you?
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Intel processors crashing Unreal engine games (and others)- Started by BFG10K
- Replies: 2K
Facebook
Twitter