"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Edwards managed to get through his entire speech without mentioning George
Bush
by name.

Raises the bar pretty high.

When the bar is already on the floor it is not difficult to raise it.

Let's see if Kerry can also rise above attack politics here on out.

A political campaign for political office is by nature a fourm for attack
politics. How else are you going to point out the other guys failings.

If he does, the nation will notice the contrast when the R's use their
convention to badmouth and smear Kerry and Edwards. The technique is
likely to
backfire on the side using it- if the other side doesn't reciprocate.

It politics, stupid!

If we're finally to the point where the electorate will respond to a
positive
message rather than to "my opponent sucks, my opponent sucks, my opponent
sucks" hope may indeed be on the way. :-)

And this is where Bush wins. Kerry has spent so many years in the US Senate
and has done a damn thing but run his mouth.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Edwards managed to get through his entire speech without mentioning
George
Bush
by name.

Raises the bar pretty high.

When the bar is already on the floor it is not difficult to raise it.

Let's see if Kerry can also rise above attack politics here on out.

A political campaign for political office is by nature a fourm for attack
politics. How else are you going to point out the other guys failings.

If he does, the nation will notice the contrast when the R's use their
convention to badmouth and smear Kerry and Edwards. The technique is
likely to
backfire on the side using it- if the other side doesn't reciprocate.

It politics, stupid!

If we're finally to the point where the electorate will respond to a
positive
message rather than to "my opponent sucks, my opponent sucks, my
opponent
sucks" hope may indeed be on the way. :-)

And this is where Bush wins. Kerry has spent so many years in the US
Senate
and has done a damn thing but run his mouth.


3 months of heroic service in Viet Nam....over 240 months of worthless flip
flop service in the Senate.

And now he says he will *define* himself tonight. I guess those 240 months
in the Senate are not the way he wants to define himself.

Bert Robbins wrote:



If we're finally to the point where the electorate will respond to a
positive
message rather than to "my opponent sucks, my opponent sucks, my opponent
sucks" hope may indeed be on the way. :-)

And this is where Bush wins. Kerry has spent so many years in the US Senate
and has done a damn thing but run his mouth.


Bush has had nearly four years in office, and has come damned close to
destroying the United States.
We are far worse off as a nation now, compared to four years ago, in
dozens of ways.

We are NO SAFER now after spending hundreds of billions of dollars on
Bush's war in Iraq or on his unPatriotic Act or on Homeland inSecurity.
Under normal circumstances, the proof of the pudding is in the eating,
but the fact that we haven't had another massive attack on US soil since
9-11 doesn't mean we can enjoy the pudding. Anyone with a brain knows
there are thousands and thousands and thousands of terrorists out there
who are NOT and never have been in Iraq.

Did you follow the news on that incident with the Syrian musicians on
the airliner? That was bad enough, but whar was really horrific is this:
the various governmental agencies involved DID NOT KNOW the procedures
for resolving and following up the visa issues involving possible
terrorists, THREE YEARS AFTER 9-11. Shove THAT up your butt, Tom Ridge
and George W. Bush.


We pretty much shot our military wad in Iraq. We'll be there for a long
time, and we don't have the resources available to chase al Qaeda or
other organizations that want to destroy us.

Additionally, we have taken no serious diplomatic steps to patch things
up with our traditional allies.

And, most important, the dumb****s currently controlling our government
have made NO SERIOUS EFFORT to settle the dispute between the Israelis
and the so-called Palestinians, and they haven't since they presumed
office.

Bush and his misAdministration are absolute, total, complete failures.
They have done virutally nothing right in four years. But they sure are
terrific at dividing Americans and forcing wedge issues, eh?

George W. Bush is the dumbest foch to ever occupy the Oval Office, and
possiblly the most dangerous. But not to terrorists. To Americans.

If we don't get Bush out of there and replace him with someone with a
working brain, we're doomed.





--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Edwards managed to get through his entire speech without mentioning
George
Bush
by name.

Raises the bar pretty high.

When the bar is already on the floor it is not difficult to raise it.

Let's see if Kerry can also rise above attack politics here on out.

A political campaign for political office is by nature a fourm for attack
politics. How else are you going to point out the other guys failings.

If he does, the nation will notice the contrast when the R's use their
convention to badmouth and smear Kerry and Edwards. The technique is
likely to
backfire on the side using it- if the other side doesn't reciprocate.

It politics, stupid!

If we're finally to the point where the electorate will respond to a
positive
message rather than to "my opponent sucks, my opponent sucks, my
opponent
sucks" hope may indeed be on the way. :-)

And this is where Bush wins. Kerry has spent so many years in the US
Senate
and has done a damn thing but run his mouth.



Really? Please provide complete details on his voting record, as well as his
commentary on why he voted certain ways. You can probably just google for
something like "kahngrechinal voating rekids".

A political campaign for political office is by nature a fourm for attack
politics. How else are you going to point out the other guys failings.

Good question. Here's the answer.
In clean politics, your opponent isn't evil.
He's merely misguided. His policies aren't dedicated on destroying the United
States, making us a vassal of France, or handing the keys to the White House to
Osama bin Ladin.....they're just not a effective as the policies you are going
to implement in their stead.

Members of the opposing political party aren't "traitors and socialists" or
"war mongers and fascists", they're fellow Americans with a different, but
legitimate point of view.

It's OK to point out the deficiencies in the
opponent's record. It's wrong when you assassinate character in the process.

Good example (of dirty politics) is a radio ad running here recently. It's an
anti-Bush ad. In this ad,
they point out how George Bush campaigned for governor in Texas by stating he
was in favor of a Patients Bill of Rights. When he took office, one of the
first pieces of legislation he was asked to approve was a newly passed
Patients' Bill of Rights, and he promptly vetoed it. When the legislature got
together enough votes to override his veto, he then went around taking personal
credit for the passage of the bill! While publicly crowing about how he had
fulfilled his promise to create a Patient's Bill of Rights, he ordered the AG
to go to the Supreme Court to see if it could be overturned. Assuming the facts
they outline are true, the dirty little jab in this radio ad is an
out-of-context quote by Bush at the very end, "That's the kind of leadership
style I bring to Washington."

I think the ad is sponsored by Americans for Family Values, or some such group,
but we all know it's really the Democrats in disguise- just like Viet Nam Vets
against Kerry is a Republican group.

And this is where Bush wins. Kerry has spent so many years in the US Senate
and has done a damn thing but run his mouth.


Senators are generally unelectable.
After long careers in the Senate, they have too long a voting record and even
though times and conditions change from decade to decade, it's so elementary to
pick out different positions a Senator adopts during his service and say, "See!
He has a character flaw! In 1984, he voted against abortion rights, and in 1999
he voted for a woman's right to choose! He changes his mind (over 15 years)! We
can't trust this guy to run anything except his mouth!"

This Senator might have a chance. I think a lot of conservatives would be
surprised to discover that outside of the Limbaugh and Hannity radio shows,
somewhere around half the country thinks militant conservatives are FOS. It's
been funny (sort of) watching this current group of clowns who lost the popular
vote govern as if they had a landslide mandate.

Gould you need to do some reading up on the campaigns in the early to middle
of the 19th century. The nastiness of today doesn't compare to then.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
A political campaign for political office is by nature a fourm for attack
politics. How else are you going to point out the other guys failings.

Good question. Here's the answer.
In clean politics, your opponent isn't evil.
He's merely misguided. His policies aren't dedicated on destroying the
United
States, making us a vassal of France, or handing the keys to the White
House to
Osama bin Ladin.....they're just not a effective as the policies you are
going
to implement in their stead.

Members of the opposing political party aren't "traitors and socialists"
or
"war mongers and fascists", they're fellow Americans with a different, but
legitimate point of view.

It's OK to point out the deficiencies in the
opponent's record. It's wrong when you assassinate character in the
process.

Good example (of dirty politics) is a radio ad running here recently. It's
an
anti-Bush ad. In this ad,
they point out how George Bush campaigned for governor in Texas by stating
he
was in favor of a Patients Bill of Rights. When he took office, one of the
first pieces of legislation he was asked to approve was a newly passed
Patients' Bill of Rights, and he promptly vetoed it. When the legislature
got
together enough votes to override his veto, he then went around taking
personal
credit for the passage of the bill! While publicly crowing about how he
had
fulfilled his promise to create a Patient's Bill of Rights, he ordered the
AG
to go to the Supreme Court to see if it could be overturned. Assuming the
facts
they outline are true, the dirty little jab in this radio ad is an
out-of-context quote by Bush at the very end, "That's the kind of
leadership
style I bring to Washington."

I think the ad is sponsored by Americans for Family Values, or some such
group,
but we all know it's really the Democrats in disguise- just like Viet Nam
Vets
against Kerry is a Republican group.

And this is where Bush wins. Kerry has spent so many years in the US
Senate
and has done a damn thing but run his mouth.


Senators are generally unelectable.
After long careers in the Senate, they have too long a voting record and
even
though times and conditions change from decade to decade, it's so
elementary to
pick out different positions a Senator adopts during his service and say,
"See!
He has a character flaw! In 1984, he voted against abortion rights, and in
1999
he voted for a woman's right to choose! He changes his mind (over 15
years)! We
can't trust this guy to run anything except his mouth!"

This Senator might have a chance. I think a lot of conservatives would be
surprised to discover that outside of the Limbaugh and Hannity radio
shows,
somewhere around half the country thinks militant conservatives are FOS.
It's
been funny (sort of) watching this current group of clowns who lost the
popular
vote govern as if they had a landslide mandate.

Gould you need to do some reading up on the campaigns in the early to middle
of the 19th century. The nastiness of today doesn't compare to then.

Why are conservatives always justifying something that is crooked or screwed up
by pointing out something that is or was worse?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Gould you need to do some reading up on the campaigns in the early to
middle
of the 19th century. The nastiness of today doesn't compare to then.

Why are conservatives always justifying something that is crooked or
screwed up
by pointing out something that is or was worse?

Conservatives? It's clear he was talking about the nastiness of the
Democratic Party, and the Libs in this NG.

Jack

Conservatives? It's clear he was talking about the nastiness of the
Democratic Party, and the Libs in this NG.

Jack

There are some so blinded and consumed by negativity they cannot see what is
right before their eyes.

It was absolutely obvious he was talking about:

the campaigns in the early to
middle
of the 19th century.

Why do conservatives so often look for any excuse to lash out with an insult
like:

It's clear he was talking about the nastiness of the
Democratic Party, and the Libs in this NG.

Were the "libs in this NG" involved in the campaigns in the early to mid 19th
Century? If not, you just took a lame excuse for launching an insult and rode
it all the way to Mars.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Conservatives? It's clear he was talking about the nastiness of the
Democratic Party, and the Libs in this NG.

Jack

There are some so blinded and consumed by negativity they cannot see what
is
right before their eyes.

It was absolutely obvious he was talking about:

the campaigns in the early to
middle
of the 19th century.

Why do conservatives so often look for any excuse to lash out with an
insult
like:

It's clear he was talking about the nastiness of the
Democratic Party, and the Libs in this NG.



Because it is true. Just read the replies from Krause, jps, Kanter and
Basskisser....they are filled with hatred and personal insults.