I guess he changed his mind or story in regard to the people in his campaign.It is incredible that this rock like decision maker could change courses.Makes one happy you don't have to deal with him and Teresa.

Look for some familiar faces from the Clinton years brought in to his campaign.

He's watching his presidential hopes get flushed right before his eyes on TV, he needs an act of desperation.

This RNC Convention is one of the most upbeat events I have ever seen. Could have left out the twins though, .....they looked and sounded as if they were about to open an envelope and say, "And the award for best picture goes to..."

Laura did very well. Arnold did phenomenal.

If they lose, it will be because they never took the swift boat attacks seriously from the start, because they believed them to be just beyond the pale of acceptability and irrelevant, and they believed it was so OBVIOUS that everyone else would see them the same way.

When they finally did realize that, "hey, some people out there actually think this stuff is relevant" and they realized they were getting killed, they overreacted.

In hindsight, the first thing they should have done at the outset was contact the group through a backchannel (direct contact is illegal) to find out what is motivating these guys. They thought this thing was a politically motivated attack, and treated it as such. But it isn't, its personal, and goes back to PERSONAL feelings of resentment these guys have towards Kerry from 1971. Once Kerry discovered that, he should have issued an apology for the insensitive parts of his testimony in 1971. After doing that, he should have said, "now, if anyone who has a problem with any my SERVICE to the military, who was THERE AT THE TIME has anything to say about me, he can meet me on Larry King tomorrow night and we'll set the record straight, once and for all."

I'm convinced that if he did that on day one, he would be fine. His campaign team are morons for not seeing that, and they deserve to be fired. These guys got complacent, and felt that they could run out the clock and waltz right into the white house. Just poor planning...no excuse for not anticipating that the guys who have resented and attacked Kerry for 30 years would let this election go by without having their say, and having it in a big way. This was all SO forseeable.

Kerry should fire every last one of his strategists. Bring in the big guns from the Clinton team. If he does it by the end of next week, he still has a chance.

Let's be honest- Kerry and his campaign advisors are idiots.

They pinned his entire Presidential hopes on his Vietnam service. The democrats are idiots from picking this guy in the first place.

I guess they figured they could just shove his Senate record under the rug for the ENTIRE campaign.

OUGwave Wrote:If they lose, it will be because they never took the swift boat attacks seriously from the start, because they believed them to be just beyond the pale of acceptability and irrelevant, and they believed it was so OBVIOUS that everyone else would see them the same way.

When they finally did realize that, "hey, some people out there actually think this stuff is relevant" and they realized they were getting killed, they overreacted.

In hindsight, the first thing they should have done at the outset was contact the group through a backchannel (direct contact is illegal) to find out what is motivating these guys. They thought this thing was a politically motivated attack, and treated it as such. But it isn't, its personal, and goes back to PERSONAL feelings of resentment these guys have towards Kerry from 1971. Once Kerry discovered that, he should have issued an apology for the insensitive parts of his testimony in 1971. After doing that, he should have said, "now, if anyone who has a problem with any my SERVICE to the military, who was THERE AT THE TIME has anything to say about me, he can meet me on Larry King tomorrow night and we'll set the record straight, once and for all."

I'm convinced that if he did that on day one, he would be fine. His campaign team are morons for not seeing that, and they deserve to be fired. These guys got complacent, and felt that they could run out the clock and waltz right into the white house. Just poor planning...no excuse for not anticipating that the guys who have resented and attacked Kerry for 30 years would let this election go by without having their say, and having it in a big way. This was all SO forseeable.

Kerry should fire every last one of his strategists. Bring in the big guns from the Clinton team. If he does it by the end of next week, he still has a chance.

The Swift Boat thing has been fodder for the cable networks, nothing more.

People are starting to focus more on the election, and taking a hard look at Kerry's record in the Senate, which in their own admission has been damn near irrelevant based on the amount of time his campaign has spent touting it.

Plus, the Republicans have done a nice job steering the debate back to terrorism, with help from the Dems. If Kerry had spent more time moving the debate towards issues in which he was getting strong numbers (i.e. the economy and health care, although only God knows why) it would've been more beneficial. Instead, he stood up there with his selected Band of Brothers, snapped off a salute...and took the debate right where President Bush wanted it to go.

If the subject is terror and keeping the U.S. safe...President Bush wins in a walk.

All along, people have been underestimating the President, when the truth is he's a genius campaigner. By taking the high road while MoveOn.org, Fatboy Moore, and the Dem Primaries were skewring him, he's seemed classy and Presidential. By calling for the removal of ALL 527s he's again taken the high road, boxing the Dems in a situation he knows they won't handle correctly because they're not morally capable of doing so.

And with carefully chosen speeches and subtly challenging Kerry's manhood, he's manipulated Kerry into saying things that in effect STRENGTHEN THE PRESIDENT - i.e. "I'd have made the same decision about Iraq regardless of WMDs", etc.

But he's an idiot, a stupid cowboy....blah, blah, blah. Based on how he's cornered Kerry, if he's an idiot...then what is the Dem nominee?

Now I'm not saying this thing is won by a long shot. Kerry has shown remarkable resiliency during previous campaigns, and Karen Hughes and company damn near blew the last election by sitting on a lead and not continuing to fight right up until the bell.

Hopefully, the Republicans won't make the same mistakes twice and we can bury Kerry by mid october.

BearcatCarl Wrote:And with carefully chosen speeches and subtly challenging Kerry's manhood, he's manipulated Kerry into saying things that in effect STRENGTHEN THE PRESIDENT - i.e. "I'd have made the same decision about Iraq regardless of WMDs", etc.

I think this is very, very true.

That's what almost the entire RNC has been designed around. Zel and Cheney were just taunting him tonight. They are calling him out, basically assuming that he will chalk it up to politics and think the American people are above that kind of negativity.

Well, we aren't. The most negative ads are the most effective ads. Often because candidates don't hit back, which makes them look weak. People say that the Arab world and Eastern Europe like strong leaders...in fact we all like strong leaders. Strength is an essential part of leadership. You don't elect the puny quiet guy captain of the football team.

If Kerry doesn't come out TODAY and hit back at Zel, and hit back at him hard, that is the nail in his coffin. The fact that Bush has other people make these challenges is what makes them so effective, Bush stays likeable while making Kerry look weak.

Today is the perfect day to do it too. If he hits back really hard, with very tough language, and genuine indignation at Zel, it will steal media thunder away from Bush's speech tonight. It's 6am now, let's see if he has the sand.

He has to. Here's the salient point: If he just stays in Nantucket windsurfing while Zell Miller basically calls him a liberal p***y on prime time national tv, people are going to say, "If he doesn't even have the courage to stand up and fight to defend himself, how the hell can I trust him to fight Islamic Jihadis to defend me?" Its such a devastating assault on Kerry because it is totally implied, and won't even be hinted at by the GOP, though its the logical conclusion people will draw sub-consciously.

BTW, though it wasn't Bush's idea, the swift boat stuff ALL plays into this same dynamic. Very interesting. Man, the GOP runs very, very good campaigns.

OUGwave Wrote:

BearcatCarl Wrote:And with carefully chosen speeches and subtly challenging Kerry's manhood, he's manipulated Kerry into saying things that in effect STRENGTHEN THE PRESIDENT - i.e. "I'd have made the same decision about Iraq regardless of WMDs", etc.

I think this is very, very true.

That's what almost the entire RNC has been designed around. Zel and Cheney were just taunting him tonight. They are calling him out, basically assuming that he will chalk it up to politics and think the American people are above that kind of negativity.

Well, we aren't. The most negative ads are the most effective ads. Often because candidates don't hit back, which makes them look weak. People say that the Arab world and Eastern Europe like strong leaders...in fact we all like strong leaders. Strength is an essential part of leadership.

I agree, people don't seem to remember what cemented George HW Bush's campaign: when he laid the smack down on Dan Rather. Personally, I think the media present candidates w/ this opportunity often, and candidates don't take it.

But, I will add there is a difference between strength and stupidity. The 527 ads that ran against Bush were stupid. They were extreme ads that were obviously inflamatory and flawed for many reasons. A strong leader doesn't go after every piece of stink-bait.

That's why the Swift boad ads are so humorous. They spent a fraction of the money, but chose a precise target with a serious question. They challenged Kerry's strength...and he buckled.

These ads were effective, and even if the accusations are not true, they exposed Kerry's ineffectiveness as a leader.

DrTorch Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:

BearcatCarl Wrote:And with carefully chosen speeches and subtly challenging Kerry's manhood, he's manipulated Kerry into saying things that in effect STRENGTHEN THE PRESIDENT - i.e. "I'd have made the same decision about Iraq regardless of WMDs", etc.

I think this is very, very true.

That's what almost the entire RNC has been designed around. Zel and Cheney were just taunting him tonight. They are calling him out, basically assuming that he will chalk it up to politics and think the American people are above that kind of negativity.

Well, we aren't. The most negative ads are the most effective ads. Often because candidates don't hit back, which makes them look weak. People say that the Arab world and Eastern Europe like strong leaders...in fact we all like strong leaders. Strength is an essential part of leadership.

I agree, people don't seem to remember what cemented George HW Bush's campaign: when he laid the smack down on Dan Rather. Personally, I think the media present candidates w/ this opportunity often, and candidates don't take it.

But, I will add there is a difference between strength and stupidity. The 527 ads that ran against Bush were stupid. They were extreme ads that were obviously inflamatory and flawed for many reasons. A strong leader doesn't go after every piece of stink-bait.

That's why the Swift boad ads are so humorous. They spent a fraction of the money, but chose a precise target with a serious question. They challenged Kerry's strength...and he buckled.

These ads were effective, and even if the accusations are not true, they exposed Kerry's ineffectiveness as a leader.

The new swift boat ads, the ones that are based on his 1971 testimony are far more effective. Than the original ones. As far as the oringial ads, people can argue back and forth over the details of what happened to Kerry in Vietnam, so it comes off as a bit unfair to some people, and the Kerry camp can at least act sel-righteous. With the new ads, there's no doubt that Kerry's testimony is completely fair play, and that Veterans who feel slighted by his words have every right to speak out.

The most damning part: "We were getting tortured by the North Vietnamese army into saying the things that John Kerry gave them for free"

:chair: Damn, that's tough!

OUGwave Wrote:If Kerry doesn't come out TODAY and hit back at Zel, and hit back at him hard, that is the nail in his coffin. The fact that Bush has other people make these challenges is what makes them so effective, Bush stays likeable while making Kerry look weak.

Today is the perfect day to do it too. If he hits back really hard, with very tough language, and genuine indignation at Zel, it will steal media thunder away from Bush's speech tonight. It's 6am now, let's see if he has the sand.

I don't see how Kerry can do this as the ammunition Zell used last night hit the very issue you don't hear from the Kerry campaign.....his senatorial record. Crossfire tried that last night with Zell and Zell whipped out papers saying, "I could have gone on longer with other things he opposed, but felt that got to the point".

Kerry can't argue with the truth about what he did in the Senate.

RebelKev Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:If Kerry doesn't come out TODAY and hit back at Zel, and hit back at him hard, that is the nail in his coffin. The fact that Bush has other people make these challenges is what makes them so effective, Bush stays likeable while making Kerry look weak.

Today is the perfect day to do it too. If he hits back really hard, with very tough language, and genuine indignation at Zel, it will steal media thunder away from Bush's speech tonight. It's 6am now, let's see if he has the sand.

I don't see how Kerry can do this as the ammunition Zell used last night hit the very issue you don't hear from the Kerry campaign.....his senatorial record. Crossfire tried that last night with Zell and Zell whipped out papers saying, "I could have gone on longer with other things he opposed, but felt that got to the point".

Kerry can't argue with the truth about what he did in the Senate.

Oh, he could argue it.

1) Zell said as recently as 2001 that Kerry had done great work on national security issues. Why the change of heart? All of the appropriations votes come from the 1980's, so something must have happened to change Zell's mind about Kerry.

2) Procedural votes happen in the Senate all the time, it doesn't mean Kerry wants to defend America with spitballs.

3) "Zell can name all the appropriations committee votes he wants, I'll tell you what I am willing to defend America with...my life. In Vietnam. When has Zell served?"

Look, I'm just throwing stuff out there. I even think that Zell's speech raises a valid point about Kerry. One thing that concerns me about Kerry is this "Vietnam Syndrom" he suffers from where he first looks to see what all of the potential negatives of using force are and never looks at the negatives of inaction--his vote against the Gulf war is the perfect example. His first instincts are very, very lefty...always concerned more about the consequences of American power than the consequences of American weakness. I think there are legitimate grounds to question him on this...

But see, the arguments Kerry uses to fight back aren't nearly as important as the outrage he needs to express in doing so. Dude, he has to show that he has the balls to stick up for himself, that when someone challenges his manhood and calls him out, he won't back down. Or else people will think, "If he won't stand up for himself now and fight back, how can I trust him to do what it takes if the terrorists challenge us again?"

You understand my point right? The arguements aren't important, they'll be forgotten. This is one of those moments in a campaign when you get a lasting image of a person. If he fights back, it will be shades of Clinton '92...if not, it'll be Dukakis '88. I think it'll be the latter, but I'd like to see him fight back.

As for 3, Zell was a US Marine during the Korean conflict. As far as 2001, I think he just said he was a genuine war hero. Why would he have stated otherwise back then? He didn't even know the guy. He had just taken over Paul Coverdell's senate term.

RebelKev Wrote:As for 3, Zell was a US Marine during the Korean conflict. As far as 2001, I think he just said he was a genuine war hero. Why would he have stated otherwise back then? He didn't even know the guy. He had just taken over Paul Coverdell's senate term.

You obviously missed the point.

I wasn't trying to argue over Zell's comments with you. Find a liberal to do that with.

Forget about it.