That Reagan bounce didn't put Bush up by double-digits. Bush was behind 7
points in the Time poll on August 5th. In less than a month, there's been
an 18 point swing. That's far from "meaningless".


We'll see.

Even though they have been generally discredited, I think the Swift Boat
jerkoffs did a lot of damage. While most people now realize it was a
combination political dirty trick and device to sell a newly released book, the
emotional impression on the stupid and mentally vulnerable remains long after
the accusations have been disproven. You guys are out of steam with that one,
but no doubt you have another pack of lies and distortions coming
down the pike right behind it.

The Swift Boat attack, and similar tactics, are effective. The side making the
attack takes several months to craft the lie and the game plan, and blind sides
the opposition with it. The opposition is initially somewhat disorganized in
response, requiring time to dig up the documentation that disproves the lies,
etc. During these critical first few hours or days, the sheeple
begin to conclude, "Golleruskis, looks like that must be true since the accused
doesn't seem to be able to put up a very well organized defense."

I will give your side this: you understand
the politics of fear and character destruction, and operate far more ruthlessly
than your opponents. You are so focused on "winning" the election that some of
you don't give a Schlitz about losing you soul in the process.

The Democrats may not be big enough *******s to out-******* the right wing if
the contest can be framed as "who's the biggest ******* around"?

There's always the contingent who will say, "Right now we actually need the
biggest, most ruthless *******s we can find. We need to be so feared by the
rest of the world that we can pursue our plan to "pre-emptively" kill everybody
on the planet who hates America, and overthrow the governments of any country
these people happen to live in, without creating additional danger of terrorist
reprisals here at home." If you believe that the way to stamp out hatred of
America is to kill the
people all around the world who hate us, such a position actually makes some
sense. People who believe that we can "pre emptively" kill enough people that
hate America without that very action creating even *more* people who hate
America should most definitely vote for the incumbent this fall. Great minds
think alike.

Those who lie, or allow others to lie for them during the campaign will lie, or
allow others to lie for them, as they govern.
The D's tell their share of whoppers, too.
Even so, it's time for a change.

In article , gould0738
@aol.com says...

Great response Chuck, thanks.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message

...... The side making the
attack takes several months to craft the lie and the game plan, and blind
sides
the opposition with it. The opposition is initially somewhat disorganized
in
response, requiring time to dig up the documentation that disproves the
lies,
etc. During these critical first few hours or days, the sheeple
begin to conclude, "Golleruskis, looks like that must be true since the
accused
doesn't seem to be able to put up a very well organized defense."

I will give your side this: you understand
the politics of fear and character destruction, and operate far more
ruthlessly
than your opponents. You are so focused on "winning" the election that
some of you don't give a Schlitz about losing you soul in the process.

The Democrats may not be big enough *******s to out-******* the right wing
if the contest can be framed as "who's the biggest ******* around"?


In a perfect world, none of this vituperation would be necessary or
acceptable. But as long as one side is willing to go negative, you really
can't fault the other for maintaining an even field. It is pointless and
impossible to get into the who-started-what business. It is enough that
both sides do it, and both, in their turn, do it well.

If - a big if - what you say is accurate, that the right is far better right
now at this negative stuff than the left, it may well be, imo, only because
they have learned from the best. I recall a host of advertising during
campaigns of the nineties wherein the Dems used a variety of different
unions around the country to tout their message - officially separate from
the DNC. The teachers unions would run ads baldly stating that the Reps
would cut out school lunches. Various med care unions would run similar ads
claiming that Reps would eliminate Medicare and leave Grandma stranded on
the street. These were barefaced lies that were impossible to answer
effectively without getting bogged down in arcana. Bush in 2000 showed his
willingness to wade in the mud, and anyone from MA can tell you that Kerry's
mud-wrestling record is long and distinguished.