If YOU were in charge, what would you do?

[Mike Teezie]

Hey everybody. I don't post much here, but I haunt this area of the forums several times a day, everyday. I think this is the first thread I've started.

Anyway - My dad and I were talking about Kerry's upcoming campaign strategy, and what we feel needs to be done in the next 8 weeks.

I was curious, what would you guys do if YOU were head of the campaign?

Please, please, please..... ****NO**** Kerry bashing in this thread. If you don't like the man, that's fine, just change the channel.

[mactastic]

Hit him over the medicare fiasco, hit him over the job losses in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Hit him over the lack of WMD in Iraq. Hit him on the deficit and the cost of the war in Iraq. Remind people that this administration cannot be trusted with the secrecy of covert agents. Hit him on his family ties to the Saudis who are terrorist supporters. Then remind people what Bush said he would do to 'anyone who feeds a terrorist'. Remind them that Bush has flip-flopped on all kinds of major issues. Remind people that Bush has had control of all 3 branches of government and yet on a platform of fiscal responsibility has presided over the largest deficit in history.

Above all, take the fight to the president. Get off your heels and come out swinging every chance you get.

[blackfox]

Tell Bush to go ****** himself on National television (debates), followed by a verbal assault of what an a**hole he has been to both him personally and to the American people...be the definition of frank. A Peter Finch moment (to those of you familiar with Network).

Then move to Canada and ask who's coming with him.

I would seriously love that...but on a practical level, I agree with mactastic..

[Neserk]

Tell Bush to go ****** himself on National television (debates), followed by a verbal assault of what an a**hole he has been to both him personally and to the American people...be the definition of frank. A Peter Finch moment (to those of you familiar with Network).




Wow, someone as angry as me ;)

[zimv20]

i think he needs to harp on the message that it's not healthy to paint everything in black and white. e.g. "if you don't like your job, then quit and get a better one," while sounding like a great idea, ignores the reality that it's not always possible.

maybe not the best idea, but make it accessible to people.

i think he should spend more time talking about the failures in afghantistan, too. it seems to be off everyone's radar as a "solved problem".

[Mike Teezie]

i think he should spend more time talking about the failures in afghantistan, too. it seems to be off everyone's radar as a "solved problem".

Indeed.

On a similar note - I wish that during the debates, he would ask Bush, point blank: "Why did you shift your focus away from catching Osama Bin Laden?"

Then sit back, and watch Dubya squirm.

[IJ Reilly]

Politicians rarely squirm when they're asked questions that they prefer not to answer. They usually launch straight into an answer to a question they weren't asked, and when they're done, many people won't even notice the difference.

[blackfox]

IJ, is GW Bush an average politician? I could see him making a mistake, if flustered. A nice ad-lib or two could prove very interesting.

Although my earlier post was somewhat extreme, I do advocate Kerry frankly attacking Bush with legitimate issues and controlling the nature and pace of the debate. It is not like there is a shortage of damaging legitimate issues out there to choose from.

Kerry has got to wonder how he is losing to this guy.

[pseudobrit]

I do advocate Kerry frankly attacking Bush

With his fists. 5 rounds of bare-knuckle boxing to wrap up the debates. Bush played rugby at Yale. Kerry played hockey at Yale. My money's on Kerry.

[Desertrat]

Kerry's handlers need to get it through to him that he can't pull off trying to be "just one of the guys". Bush has credibility at a gun club or in a photo-op with a shotgun. Kerry doesn't; he's about like Dukakis in a tank.

'Rat

[Rebel]

He needs to stand-up in front of the American people, and loudly state:


Today I am placing the future of my candidacy entirely in the hands of the American people. I will not accept government funds for my campaign. This campaign will live or die based upon individual citizen support.

No one man or woman can change the politics of money in Washington by themselves, but what I can do is give you the opportunity to change it together for ourselves and our nation. If you join my cause you will not only change our nation, you will change a broken political system that is failing us. Moreover, you will restore the spirit of those who threw tea in the Boston Harbor over 200 years ago and launched our great nation founded on the simple notion of “government of the people, by the people and for the people.


But he won't say this becasue he wants the $75 million taxpayer dollars he gets to run his campaign.

[mactastic]

Kerry's handlers need to get it through to him that he can't pull off trying to be "just one of the guys". Bush has credibility at a gun club or in a photo-op with a shotgun. Kerry doesn't; he's about like Dukakis in a tank.

'Rat

Geez 'Rat, you're coming off as a single-issue voter lately. Guns guns guns ammo shotgun tank 30.30.... You'd think nothing else mattered to you.

[IJ Reilly]

IJ, is GW Bush an average politician? I could see him making a mistake, if flustered. A nice ad-lib or two could prove very interesting.

Bush makes more mistakes than most, when he's off-script, but I don't expect him to be off-script very often in the debates. It will be very difficult for Kerry to ask him a question (assuming the format even allows it) that Bush won't be prepared to answer -- or non-answer, as the case may be.

I've also noticed that hardly anyone seems to notice when Bush does squirm. Some seem to think it's actually kind of cute when he draws a big blank.

[toaster_oven]

i'd tell kerry he needs to stop answering questions like a politician... simple answers to simple questions...

challenge bush to a debate at every opportunity... call him a chicken if he doesn't answer the challenge early-on. if Bush tries to get out of any of the three debates, say he's scared to face you and it's because he doesn't actually know what he is doing. the more times Bush is in unscripted Q&A sessions, the dumber he looks.

challenge the press... criticize the press for not doing enough questioning of the Bush admin... say they are doing a poor job in general... it worked for the right (years of labeling the press as liberal has caused it to lean to the right), so... it should work for the moderates.

singling out Bush is very effective, spend less time on others in the admin...

after all this- stay positive... start talking about how things need to change - anything where he states that the system is corrupt or something will definitely grab people's attention... stay on message and offer new ideas - things like sustainable local and regional economies as the foundation for a healthy global economy (might be a bit too radical for the dems, but would get him a wider range of votes, and capture people's imagination), talk about america as a *nation* (not a homeland or "fatherland") that is part of a global community... talk about global democracy and winning over the hearts and minds of the people of the world, not just the governments... equate energy consumption to foreign policy... etc...

-TO

[katchow]

I've also noticed that hardly anyone seems to notice when Bush does squirm. Some seem to think it's actually kind of cute when he draws a big blank.

i know what you mean...it seems we've so lowered our expectations for him that as long as he doesn't forget his own name its a success.

[zimv20]

challenge bush to a debate at every opportunity... call him a chicken if he doesn't answer the challenge early-on.
i think you're onto something here.

bush _is_ afraid, and not just of debates. kerry could call him out on every single thing:

- why are you so afraid to debate me?
- why are you so afraid to talk about valerie plame?
- why are you so afraid of releasing the notes of the secret energy meetings?
- why were you so afraid of forming the 9/11 commission?
- why were you so afraid of sending an official to the closing ceremony of the olmpyics?
- why were you so afraid to announce your visit to iraq?
- why were you so afraid of waiting for a UN vote about iraq?

the list goes on and on and on....

[Desertrat]

mac, if an NRA guy came out and started hollering for more gun control, wouldn't folks think there was something phony going on? Kerry's flip-flop against previously voted positions is phony. Simple as that. It has little to do with the gun issue as such.

Phoniness on one issue spills over into folks' wonderment about other issues.

August of last year, Kerry supported more billions for the war in Iraq. Okay, he's changed his mind, I guess. But is he gonna bring the troops home in four years? Or six months? What? I can see changing one's mind in a year, but in a week?

Think out a position on an issue. State the position, and how whatever associated policies could be made to work. Then, stick with the position!

The man's gotta quit trying to emulate Governor Windshield Wiper. He's gotta quit pretending to be someone he ain't...

'Rat

[mactastic]

mac, if an NRA guy came out and started hollering for more gun control, wouldn't folks think there was something phony going on? Kerry's flip-flop against previously voted positions is phony. Simple as that. It has little to do with the gun issue as such.

Phoniness on one issue spills over into folks' wonderment about other issues.

August of last year, Kerry supported more billions for the war in Iraq. Okay, he's changed his mind, I guess. But is he gonna bring the troops home in four years? Or six months? What? I can see changing one's mind in a year, but in a week?

Think out a position on an issue. State the position, and how whatever associated policies could be made to work. Then, stick with the position!

The man's gotta quit trying to emulate Governor Windshield Wiper. He's gotta quit pretending to be someone he ain't...

'Rat

The reason I ask is because Bush is guilty of hypocrisy just as much as Kerry is, yet you seem to not care about Bush's changes of heart. Do you not consider 'no nation building' to 'must build nations' hypocrisy of the highest order? Or how about 'medicare will only cost X' to 'medicare will cost X+ $100,000,000'?

The man needs to quit trying to emulate Gov. W. Wiper, don't you think? He's gotta quit pretending to be someone he ain't... (Like a Texan, for example ;) )

[Desertrat]

I'm merely staying with the subject of the thread, which has to do with "what would you guys do if YOU were head of the (Kerry) campaign?" I touched on two facets; the "just us guys" and the changes in views.

If there's a similar Bush thread next week, I'll chime in when I get back on line. I-10 time, westbound.

:), 'Rat

[IIvan]

kerry needs to be as hard on him as humanly possible at the debates.. many people see kerry as soft and weak- a wimp compared to the strong protective bush, as the GOP paints him. Also, even though i believe the debate questions have to be scripted, kerry must ask him hard qustions. anyone remember that bush press conference on iraq last spring?? bush looked really awful avoiding all those tough questions- most of his answers were just plain subject changes.. i would never vote for him after seeing that.

[katchow]

August of last year, Kerry supported more billions for the war in Iraq. Okay, he's changed his mind, I guess.

i thought originally Kerry was trying to propose a way to actually pay for the billions...not that he ever actually objected to giving our troops the body-armor that Bush sent them to Iraq without.

i know i just said body-armor...that seems to be the republican summary of a bill that said a lot more than that.

http://www.southernstudies.org/reports/87$%20B-2.htm

you can read the actual document somewhere online but i can't remember the link.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Politicians rarely squirm when they're asked questions that they prefer not to answer. They usually launch straight into an answer to a question they weren't asked, and when they're done, many people won't even notice the difference.

And like in Bush's last official press conference, wear a tie that moires like hell on TV. This way people are hypnotized by the tie, and miss the message.

That being said, I would want Kerry to stay on message at all costs and demand why Bush hadn't during the debates.

[SiliconAddict]

If YOU were in charge, what would you do?

Sell the US to Canada and use the money to buy a small nation and start The United States of America v2.0

:cool: ;)

[Chip NoVaMac]

<snip> hit him over the job losses in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania. <snip>

Hit with the facts behind the recent Labor Department figures. That last months drop in unemployment was due to people just giving up looking for a job. Or the news today that unemployment claims are down, partially due to people not being able to get to the unemployment offices in the storm hit areas.

[Roger1]

With his fists. 5 rounds of bare-knuckle boxing to wrap up the debates. Bush played rugby at Yale. Kerry played hockey at Yale. My money's on Kerry.

No kidding! Can you imagine Bush trying to break Kerry's jaw? :p


Kerry needs to get tougher with Bush. Hit hard with the facts, in tv ads, in debates.

[kuyu]

It seems the general concensus so far is "attack". While not a bad strategy, it's not going to get the whole message across.

Check your local bookstore's political section, check your movie theater, check the editorial page of your local paper, check the bumper sticker on the car in front of you... People are fully aware of Bush's faults and follies. Someone has gotten the message to them.

Kerry, instead of focusing on what Bush is doing wrong, should focus more on himself. Ask the average Kerry supporter what their favorite thing about John Kerry is. Most will look confused and eventually arrive at "He's not Bush". Sorry, but that's not going to cut it. Bush has too many fans for "hate" to be the unifying concept that unseats him.

Kerry's got to appeal to the positive side of voters. Someone who always has bad news makes you feel unhappy. If you are unhappy under Bush, then Kerry's current strategy will definately rope you in. But, he's not Bush so he doesn't need to convince you of anything.

The critical "swing voter", who's life isn't considerably better or worse than it was under Clinton, doesn't want to hear all the doom and gloom stuff. They wan't a candidate they like, one that makes them feel good. :)

[mactastic]

Kuyu, I don't want to sound overly cynical here but EVERY voter whether undecided or not will tell you that they despise negative attack campaigning. Then why does it work so well? Because while people will tell you one thing, they respond to another. They may say that they don't want to hear negative ads, but they will almost all watch the bloodsport that ensues when someone 'goes negative'.

You don't dispute that Bush has been on the attack, do you? Now stipulating that, why would you think that voters want to hear Bush attack Kerry, but want to hear Kerry making nice about Bush?

When was the last time you remember someone getting hammered by negative attacks simply saying 'I will not go negative, I will only talk about the positive.'. And win. Certainly not in a national race.

So the question becomes, what do we do about it? When the population responds to 'sex sells' what do the advertisers do? Can we tell them not to? So when the polititians tell us that smear campaigns win, what do we do?

If you are Bush, do you tell Rove to call off the dogs and risk riding your re-election bid on your record? If you are Kerry, do you decide to stop telling people what a bad guy Bush is and run an honorable campaign? If either did that, the loser would be accused of 'not wanting it enough'.

We all know where nice guys finish, right?

[Leo Hubbard]

You don't dispute that Bush has been on the attack, do you? Now stipulating that, why would you think that voters want to hear Bush attack Kerry, but want to hear Kerry making nice about Bush?


Bush hasn't been on the attack. Bush has replied to some of the attacks Kerry hit him with, but Bush hasn't initiated any attack ads or speeches against Kerry.

You cannot blame Bush for what third party 527's or pac's do. Especially when the Democrats 572's and pacs has outspent them by over 300 million bucks.

[yellow]

I'd stop Leo Hubbard from posting.

[yellow]

[QUOTE=Leo Hubbard]Bush hasn't been on the attack. Bush has replied to some of the attacks Kerry hit him with, but Bush hasn't initiated any attack ads or speeches against Kerry./QUOTE]

You know this how? Because you listen to all his phone conversations? You spend all your waking time with him? Or because he said he didn't?

[IJ Reilly]

Kuyu, I don't want to sound overly cynical here but EVERY voter whether undecided or not will tell you that they despise negative attack campaigning. Then why does it work so well? Because while people will tell you one thing, they respond to another. They may say that they don't want to hear negative ads, but they will almost all watch the bloodsport that ensues when someone 'goes negative'.

Along these lines:
How Will Voters Handle the 'Truth' About Kerry and Bush?

Ronald Brownstein

September 13, 2004

Is it strategy or therapy for Democrats to escalate their attacks on President Bush's record in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam era?

Certainly the new television ads from a liberal Texas group accusing Bush of ducking his service are cathartic for Democrats. Democrats have been seething as a Republican-leaning veterans group has accused Sen. John F. Kerry of misrepresenting his experience in Vietnam at a time when Bush was safely stateside, about 9,300 miles away. Once Swift Boat Veterans for Truth launched their offensive against Kerry, the counterattack against Bush became inevitable.

But it's another question whether the charges will help Kerry overcome Bush's lead in the race. The dominant opinion in both parties is that Americans care far more about the choices the candidates are offering today than their personal choices 35 years ago, and that's probably right.

But Kerry's deterioration in the polls during August, while he faced the most withering assault from the Swift boat group, suggests these questions may be more relevant to voters than they acknowledge when asked directly. Based on Kerry's experience, it would be foolish to assume that voters will simply dismiss the accusations about Bush as old news.

If nothing else, voters are sure to hear more about the Guard controversy by election day. Leading Democrats are now amplifying their attacks on Bush's tenure in the Guard. Newspapers are reopening investigations into Bush's record after reports in the Boston Globe and on CBS' "60 Minutes" (though the latter has been tangled in controversy over whether documents alleging that Bush received favorable treatment are authentic).

At the same time, Texans for Truth, the new liberal group targeting Bush's Guard record, is determined to continue spotlighting the issue. The group, a spinoff from a Texas affiliate of the liberal online advocacy group MoveOn.org, seems to have struck the same chord with liberal donors that the Swift boat effort did with conservatives.

Glenn Smith, the veteran Texas Democratic political operative who launched Texans for Truth, says the group raised $400,000 within 72 hours after unveiling its television ad last week in which a retired lieutenant colonel from the Alabama Air National Guard said he never saw Bush at a time the future president was supposed to be serving in the same unit. With that money, Smith says, the group may both expand the buy for that initial ad and air others questioning different aspects of Bush's Guard record.

All of this virtually ensures that the Guard issue will remain a headache and distraction for Bush, just like the Swift boat attacks were for Kerry. But the assaults on Bush probably won't materially affect the race unless voters buy the critics' assumption that his behavior 30 years ago illuminates his values and character today. And that link may be tougher to establish.

Bush critics believe the controversy could threaten the president on four distinct fronts. Some believe suggestions that Bush tried to evade combat as a young man will undermine his moral authority to order soldiers into battle today. If voters reached that conclusion it might be devastating for Bush. But it seems unlikely many would: Other than hard-core opponents, few Americans believed President Clinton's efforts to avoid Vietnam made him morally unfit to commit American forces in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Critics also think the questions about whether Bush fulfilled his obligations may encourage voters to see him as someone who consistently evades responsibility — the same way critics say he has refused to accept accountability for the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal or intelligence failures in Iraq. That may be an intriguing psychological theory, but it's probably too abstract for most Americans.

A greater threat for Bush is that more revelations could erode his credibility. The new ad from Texans for Truth challenges Bush's insistence that he fulfilled all of his duties in Alabama. The claims from Democratic former Texas House Speaker Ben Barnes, repeated on CBS, that he helped Bush win his spot in the Guard at the request of a mutual friend don't directly contradict specific statements from the president. But they do dispute Bush's overall version of how he entered the Guard by assigning favoritism a much larger role.

Still, the consensus in both parties so far is that the evidence isn't conclusive enough to cause most voters to decide that Bush lied in describing his record.

Instead, the greatest threat to Bush may come if the cumulative picture of his Guard experience — from Barnes' claim of intervention to the questions about whether superiors winked at irregular attendance — portrays him as a son of privilege who has enjoyed advantages unavailable to most Americans. That's potentially dangerous because polls show many voters already question whether Bush understands the problems of average families.

As Kerry learned in August, new charges often hurt most when they reinforce old suspicions: The attack on his antiwar activities hurt him so much partly because many culturally conservative voters were already inclined to wonder if a Massachusetts Democrat shared their values.

Privilege pokes at a comparable stereotype about Republicans.

The unexpectedly large wounds Kerry suffered in the Swift boat strafing argues for caution in predicting the course of this controversy. Republicans may become energized by charges that the documents in the CBS report were forged. Democrats may be stirred by the ads expressing their belief Bush ducked his service. Voters less attached to either side may wish the campaign debate over Iraq were as thorough as the arguments about Vietnam.

The only point all might accept is that this election seems determined to prove William Faulkner was right when he ruefully declared, "The past is never dead; it's not even past."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-outlook13sep13,1,2099619.column?

[kuyu]

I never said "Kerry shouldn't attack whatsoever". I said that Kerry should focus more on himself.

Is Bush using attack ads? Of course he is!!! But, he's also talking about himself. He's talking about HSA's, priviate social security accounts, fighting jihadists, etc.

Should Kerry never attack? No, that would be suicide. But, most voters don't know anything about Kerry except that he was a war hero that opposes war who doesn't want anyone to talk about his service except his 'band of brothers'. And, he isn't George Bush. Now I know that www.johnkerry.com lays out his agenda. However this agenda is not visable in his stump's. It's all "America is an unemployed, sick, poor, dirty, uneducated, bully hell bent on making corporate America rich at our expense".

What about the swing voters who aren't unemployed, sick, poor, polluting, uneducated, bullies? Especially the ones that own stock??? His current strategy won't connect with them. :)

[IJ Reilly]

Kuyu, it may not be apparent to you (what is your main source of news?), but Kerry's basic stump speeches are almost entirely about the things you think they ought to be about. But the limited media bandwidth picks up mainly the charges and countercharges, because despite what people say they want to hear, they are motivated by negativity -- and the media knows it all too well.

[kuyu]

Kuyu, it may not be apparent to you (what is your main source of news?), but Kerry's basic stump speeches are almost entirely about the things you think they ought to be about. But the limited media bandwidth picks up mainly the charges and countercharges, because despite what people say they want to hear, they are motivated by negativity -- and the media knows it all too well.


My main sources of news are www.cnn.com, on the half hour radio news bulletins, the Wall Street Journal, macrumors poltical forum, and some editorial shows including Boortz, H & C, Meet the Press, and the Daily Show.

I assume you're referring to the old adage "If it bleeds, it leads". I watched Kerry at the DNC (I've got his and Obama's speeches in my iPod), and saw his stump after the RNC.

Again, my original post said that I, subjectively, feel that Kerry's constant anit-Bush rail won't do the trick. I posted in response the overwhelming message present in nearly every post preceding mine; more attacks. This is important, mind you, but I stand by my subjective assertion that a totally negative campaign (or even one more blood-thirsty than Kerry's current strategy) will not unseat Bush in November.

People seem to be arguing that my opinion of a winning strategy for Kerry is wrong. However, it's my opinion. Not a fact. I get the feeling that I'm being opposed in principle because most people here know I'm a conservative. In that spirit, if Kerry's camp starts doing what I've prescribed here, I know that Bush is in real trouble. :)

[IJ Reilly]

The point I'm making here is that out on the campaign trail, Kerry is doing precisely what you think he ought to be doing. He's attacking Bush's positions more than he had been, but then, Bush has been at this game for a long time himself. I also have to say I find Bush's tone in these criticisms to be almost sneering and I haven't heard any of that from Kerry. I made the observation a week or so ago that the GOP thrives on negative campaigning because they historically show better when voter turnout is low, and there's no more certain way to disaffect an electorate than to make them listen to nonstop vitriol.

[Chip NoVaMac]

The point I'm making here is that out on the campaign trail, Kerry is doing precisely what you think he ought to be doing. He's attacking Bush's positions more than he had been, but then, Bush has been at this game for a long time himself. I also have to say I find Bush's tone in these criticisms to be almost sneering and I haven't heard any of that from Kerry. I made the observation a week or so ago that the GOP thrives on negative campaigning because they historically show better when voter turnout is low, and there's no more certain way to disaffect an electorate than to make them listen to nonstop vitriol.

Not to mention wrapping yourself in the Flag works. Even if you don't know where to place your hand during the National Anthem.

[mactastic]

But do you think that a constant barrage of negative stuff from Bush is a good strategy for him? 'Cause it seems to be working. The Republican hate-fest of a convention coupled with the lies of the SVBT group seem to have been the major factor in the recent swing in poll numbers.

And you can't argue with success, right?

[yellow]

And you can't argue with success, right?

Cough, CoughMicrosoft, Cough!

[Mike Teezie]

Looks like we need to do SOMETHING:

link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/shifting_playing_field&cid=694&ncid=716)

I am truly afraid of another 4 years under Bush.

[kuyu]

I am truly afraid of another 4 years under Bush.

Why are you in such fear over four years?

I can understand disagreement with policy, but that doesn't equal fear in my mind. I'm not a huge fan of Kerry's policies, but I don't fear the guy's potential presidency. Checks and balances, remember.
:confused:

[zimv20]

Why are you in such fear over four years?
most generally, w/ no re-election to worry about, we'll see his and the neocons true colors of (yikes) "compassionate conservatism" and the wolfowitz doctrine.

specifically, i've been saying for 3 years that, should bush get a second term, he'll nuke something.

[mischief]

Kerry could haul out a pistol at the next debate, cap Dubyaw and call it a "pre-emptive strike". Follow it up with a long laundry list of suppostion and lies about how there's evidence that GW had bought a newly-legal AW and intended to bring it to the debate to shoot all the Democrats.

He'd then be elected in a landslide for being so "Brave and decisive." :rolleyes: ;) :eek: :D

Just a joke folks. I'm really very disgusted with the last twelve to fourteen years of campaign ****-slinging. I think it bled into this post a tad.....

[Chip NoVaMac]

Kerry could haul out a pistol at the next debate, cap Dubyaw and call it a "pre-emptive strike". Follow it up with a long laundry list of suppostion and lies about how there's evidence that GW had bought a newly-legal AW and intended to bring it to the debate to shoot all the Democrats.

He'd then be elected in a landslide for being so "Brave and decisive." :rolleyes: ;) :eek: :D

Just a joke folks. I'm really very disgusted with the last twelve to fourteen years of campaign ****-slinging. I think it bled into this post a tad.....

Be careful about talking about the killing of ANY President, even jokingly. The was a recent report about a police officer (I think) that joked in a bar about if given the chance he would take down President Bush. The Secret Service did act on that "joking" threat.

I too am disgusted by the way politics have gone in the campaigns, I would say in the last 20 years. Just don't know how we can get Kerry and Bush both to focus on the real issues.

[mischief]

Be careful about talking about the killing of ANY President, even jokingly. The was a recent report about a police officer (I think) that joked in a bar about if given the chance he would take down President Bush. The Secret Service did act on that "joking" threat.

I too am disgusted by the way politics have gone in the campaigns, I would say in the last 20 years. Just don't know how we can get Kerry and Bush both to focus on the real issues.

Part of the reason I joked about it actually.

DEATH TO THE EMPEROR!!!!

We're taking all of this WAY TOO SERIOUSLY.

I can see acting on a Cop's threats though... joking or not. A Police Officer has more access and more weapons at their disposal.

[stubeeef]

So then kerry would make cheney president. progressive!

[mischief]

So then kerry would make cheney president. progressive!


Hmm.... I should relate the whole tableau....

How many rounds are there in a typical Sig-sauer .40 Cal?

15 counting the Chamber?

Load that puppy up with Black Talons and we could have President Powell if they were all in the same room and within a few feet of each other.

[IJ Reilly]

Why are you in such fear over four years?

I can understand disagreement with policy, but that doesn't equal fear in my mind. I'm not a huge fan of Kerry's policies, but I don't fear the guy's potential presidency. Checks and balances, remember.
:confused:

My main fear beyond the obvious is Bush appointing a couple of judges to the Supreme Court in a second term. If you have a majority on the court, and control of Congress, you can pretty much write off the "checks and balances" thing.

[mischief]

My main fear beyond the obvious is Bush appointing a couple of judges to the Supreme Court in a second term. If you have a majority on the court, and control of Congress, you can pretty much write off the "checks and balances" thing.

I'll second that one....

I still have my Canadian Citizenship if anyone needs help going Noth BTW... ;)

[stubeeef]

Hmm.... I should relate the whole tableau....

How many rounds are there in a typical Sig-sauer .40 Cal?

15 counting the Chamber?

Load that puppy up with Black Talons and we could have President Powell if they were all in the same room and within a few feet of each other.

:p :p :p :p :p :p :p

[Mike Teezie]

Why are you in such fear over four years?

I can understand disagreement with policy, but that doesn't equal fear in my mind. I'm not a huge fan of Kerry's policies, but I don't fear the guy's potential presidency. Checks and balances, remember.
:confused:

I'm afraid of what Bush will do if he doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected.

Will he nuke North Korea? Invade Iran? Syria?

Will there be a draft, and my brother and I have to go to one of the countries above to fight for our "freedom"?

A Great Depression II?

I have an entire list, and they are all vaild I think - conmsidering what we have seen from this administration thus far.

[pseudobrit]

I'm concerned about a number of things that Bush has already shown at least an interest in. In no particular order:

A draft.
More unilateral international aggression.
More alienation of France, Germany, Russia and the EU or even starting a new cold war with the EU.
Civil liberty erosion.
Dollar erosion.
Appointing hard core neocon judges.
More devastating, extreme laissez-faire (aka turn the other cheek for millionaire white collar crooks) economic policies.
More federal deficit & debt.
Iraq escalating into Vietnam, or perhaps worse, being semi-ignored and allowed to rot in a state of constant chaos (like Afghanistan) whilst we direct Bush's bellicosity elsewhere in the world.
Another terrorist attack that gives Bush carte blanche to commit any number of unconstitutional acts.

[stubeeef]

OK, I gots to know!

I am scared to ask, but here goes...what is..MoLMtDiOCBAWWTtBWWS of the PPP :confused:

[pseudobrit]

OK, I gots to know!

I am scared to ask, but here goes...what is.. :confused:

If you don't know, I can't explain.

[mischief]

OK, I gots to know!

I am scared to ask, but here goes...what is.. :confused:

Do a search of the forums going back about two years. Use the phrases " Pants Pisser's Party" and " Data Heads with Computers Party". Some really geeky political hijinx. ;) :p :D :cool: :rolleyes: