As someone that considers himself an Independent though with a democratic leaning the time has come to define and separate the Democratic Party and their Republican counterpart at least the way I see them.
Republicans are generally WICKED whereas; Democrats are I am tempted to say DUMB but let me say SILLY. And thus we go, Kerry(D) quickly condemned an ad. by "moveon.org" challenging georgie's Vietnam record whence georgie(R) vehemently refused to denounce a similar ad. by those who distorted Kerry's real war record.
The Democrats were scared in their pants to condemn georgie’s quick and illegal war until the straight speaking fella respectfully known as Dr. Howard Dean started lobbing grenades at georgie’s position. They also run away from a label "LIBERAL" they ought to fully embrace with pride and you tell me this is not silliness?
The American Heritage Dictionary, fourth edition, defines "liberal" this way: "Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behaviors of others; broad minded." And this is a crime to the Republicans?
Here are a few of yesteryear’s liberal ideas that metamorphosed to moderate values. Social Security, Integrated Schools, War on Poverty. Remember social medicine now called universal health care.
How come the ordinary American is as IGNORANT as hell? I mean you ask a guy/gal on the street who’s the VP of the U.S. and what do you hear? Tarzan! John Wayne! Hilary Clinton! And crap like this.
Here ya go folks, you decide who's what with your inputs. Please attack the topic; do not come down on one another, guys. It's not necessary!
___________________ BIAFRA: The land of my ancestors now, yesterday and always. So it will be! Posts: 2483 | From: Ala Igbo | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
quote: Republicans are generally WICKED whereas; Democrats are I am tempted to say DUMB but let me say SILLY. And thus we go, Kerry(D) quickly condemned an ad. by "moveon.org" challenging georgie's Vietnam record whence georgie(R) vehemently refused to denounce a similar ad. by those who distorted Kerry's real war record.
So, if Republicans are so WICKED, why did Senator John McCain criticize the ads by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that attacked Kerry’s record?
quote:...if Republicans are so WICKED, why did Senator John McCain criticize the ads by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that attacked Kerry’s record? - Anaedo
Great question, brother! Simple he's friends with Kerry and as a Naval officer also the need to maintain esprit de corps abound. Mr. McCain's party loyalty kinda forces him to stick around he does not care much about georgie and you know this.
But seriously Anaedo, this topic is not about this one incident (Ad.) it's rather a cumulative of all that has happened in my twenty-four years in this country. This is not to say all members of the Republican Party are wicked and vice versa Democratic Party, silly, it only goes to show how overwhelming numbers in each party behave in my opinion. Although I’ve not met you in person I am without any streak of a doubt sure that you’re a nice, just and kind person someone I can trust. Hell must freeze over tenfold before I could be wrong with this impression of you that’s how confident I am.
___________________ BIAFRA: The land of my ancestors now, yesterday and always. So it will be! Posts: 2483 | From: Ala Igbo | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
quote:...if Republicans are so WICKED, why did Senator John McCain criticize the ads by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that attacked Kerry’s record? - Anaedo
It could also be because the same type of mean spirited adds were ran on him in 2000 during his challange of the King George for Republican nomination.
___________________ Feel me? Ofu onye ana asi unu abia go. - Ednut Igbo-American . www.airamericaradio.com visit her. Posts: 2447 | From: Mother Earth | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
quote: It could also be because the same type of mean spirited adds were ran on him in 2000 during his challange of the King George for Republican nomination.
Dung! Why didn't I think of this, man! Good job!
___________________ BIAFRA: The land of my ancestors now, yesterday and always. So it will be! Posts: 2483 | From: Ala Igbo | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
MeBiafra I completely agree with you, Democrats always run scared until the best President of all time came along and took the fight to them in their domain. president Clinton never allowed them to define them, who could forget the war room in Little Rock Arkansas manned by non other than George Staph.
Anaedo continue to sound like a typical Republican, I think former Five time Gov of Louisiana, said it best in 1986, when he ran for his 4th time, He proud said yes He is Liberal and gave the explanation of Liberal. "He said Liberal means believing in changes and progress while Conservative is believing that thing should remain the way it is because they feel that they are better than the rest of us." This statement send Republican running for cover.
Anaedo know very well that this same tactics was used on John Mccain by baby Bush. who could forget Bush sr and the Willie Horton's Ad.
Actually, earlier, someone suggested to me that my posts were beginning to sound republican and that at first glance, someone may be tempted to think I was defending the republican position. You are not the first to make that observation. Yes, it is intentional.
You see, I haven’t described myself as either liberal or conservative on this board therefore I reserve the right to structure my statements to point out things I do not like in either parties. By the way, if I may kindly suggest, I use the term “liberal” and “conservative” synonymously with “Democrat/Democratic/Democratic party” and “Republican/Republican party” respectively. I don’t intend that any Democrat would feel offended by the term liberal neither do I wish that Republicans be offended by the term conservatives (neo-cons/neo-conservatives). Like you rightly pointed out, they are merely labels which members of these two parties should wear proudly. Calling me a liberal or a neo-con doesn’t make me lose sleep either. I am just not that offended by these words even though they may pack derisive or derogatory connotations when used in certain contexts.
My brother, the reason why it must appear to you (and I bet many people here) that I sound republican is quite simple.
You see I am guessing that in political views, 80-85% of the people that contribute here would describe themselves as liberals. That is, on political issues, the liberal platform approximates their views. Lately however, folks are gradually sliding towards the left wing of the political left. The remaining 15-20% of people here are either Right-leaning, leaning right or left depending on the issue (this is where I find myself), or leaning nowhere at all—this last category of people do not care about US politics and cannot be bothered by it or might as a matter of fact thoroughly hate both parties as it is.
So when I log in and see that 95% of responses on any issue are all about insults, personal attacks on the Republican party, outlandish claims, fanatical demagoguery or propaganda then alarms start going off in my head. A white friend of mine once charged that when it comes to politics, Black people swallow every line from the liberal party hook, line and sinker—as you can possibly imagine, I started out trying to defend my own and to debunk that charge as highly unfair. First of all, blacks constitute about 12% of the population, so the comparison was invalid. Go to a country that has about 70% black majority and 12% white minority and see if you will get 95% consensus on any political issue amongst the majority population, I suggested. I mean, is there any kind of unanimity here when we discuss Nigerian issues? Aren’t we often split along ethnic lines, class lines, religious lines, or economic lines? So, Blacks are not automatons and they do not sheepishly follow some political script. That was and still remains my argument.
So, when I come in here and see that a lot of folks are reciting the liberal agenda, then I become a little more observant. I can go ahead and help NwaBiafra make some of his points, but as it is, he is doing a fantastic job of it already. And of course, there is MeBiafran, Ednut, our eloquent Nwa Aro, Bababoyz and Amadi amongst so many others. Hey folks, please feel free to correct me if I have represented you unfairly.
So what I generally do then is to try and present the other side of the debate. If there are statements that might need to be corrected, I may try to point them out. In other words, I am consciously trying to make sure readers do not think there is some sort of groupthink going on here. Believe me Oga Biafra, if the reverse was the case here, you would see that I would try to present the liberal stance on issues. I have absolutely no qualms doing that.
If someone then decides that he/she won’t listen to the points I might be making and begins to categorize, label or vilify my person rather than the points I might be making, then that is his or her own cup of moi-moi! Calling me a “bloody, war-loving, degenerate, WICKED, Christian fundamentalist, Bush-loving, hypocritical neo-conservative scum” will definitely make me laugh. You know why? It won’t stop me from eating my Akpu and Ofe Egusi and washing it down with Florida Orange Juice. Yes, it definitely won’t stop me from sleeping like a baby when I turn in for the night!
quote:So what I generally do then is to try and present the other side of the debate.
Could this be one of those “devil’s advocate” I so often hear? LOL. Quite frankly, I do understand, I feel you and I’ve also in the past taken issues with the Democrats.
quote:Calling me a “bloody, war-loving, degenerate, WICKED, Christian fundamentalist, Bush-loving, hypocritical neo-conservative scum” will definitely make me laugh. You know why? It won’t stop me from eating my Akpu and Ofe Egusi and washing it down with Florida Orange Juice. Yes, it definitely won’t stop me from sleeping like a baby when I turn in for the night!
Go ye in peace my able brother, even those that castigate you somehow appreciate your eloquence. I’ve observed you over the period and you hardly resort to foul use unless pushed to the wall and who wouldn’t? We’ve engaged in exchange of ideas most of the afternoon with points and counterpoints made without taking it so deep and this is what I converse. Chat with ya tomorrow Commander Anaedo.
___________________ BIAFRA: The land of my ancestors now, yesterday and always. So it will be! Posts: 2483 | From: Ala Igbo | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
I'm a Democrat and I do completely agree with all that you wrote above in opening this thread. I have stated as such to all that want to hear in the democratic party.
Don't know why they are so timid and afraid of Republican. I know that Reuplicans are masters at this game but Democrats should not be so timid to speak out and attack when necessary.
posted
Read this article and it will explain it I hope. Democrats need to match the Repulicans and spend the money necessary to compete in the media war.
How the Democrats Were Betamaxed Laurie Spivak, AlterNet April 12, 2004
According to Robert McNamara in the "Fog of War," the first lesson of life is, "empathize with your enemy." In order to understand the conservative movement's ascendancy in American politics, progressives should take McNamara's advice and try to view the world through the business lens of conservatives.
Think of a "marketplace of ideas" where the products are policies, positions, and issues all competing for dominance. On the surface, this may seem like the stuff of dreams for "free market" conservatives, but it turns out it's a nightmare. You see, what we find is that in this marketplace, Democrats actually have the better product and Americans prefer the policies of Democrats by a wide margin to those of the GOP. In the realm of ideas, just as in any marketplace, the superior or preferred product usually wins out, but not always. An inferior product can dominate in the market when it has superior marketing, and this is precisely what we have seen come to pass in U.S. politics over the past two decades.
In 1982, 45% of Americans identified themselves as Democrats; by 2003, that number was down to 31%. During the same period, the Republican Party made gains in party allegiance from about 26% up to 30%. What is more, nearly twice as many Americans now identify themselves as conservatives than as liberals. At first blush, these statistics would seem to point to an electorate that is moving ideologically to the right. However, public opinion polls consistently show that the majority of Americans are more closely aligned with the Democratic Party on the issues than they are with the Republican Party.
Returning to the notion of a marketplace, let's consider these public opinion polls as indicators of consumer preferences. What we find is that a whopping 86% of Americans believe that there need to be stricter laws and regulations to protect the environment; 77% think it is more important to maintain government services such as Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid than to cut taxes; 72% of Americans favor stricter laws related to the control of handguns; 63% of Americans favor affirmative action programs designed to help blacks, women and other minorities get better jobs and education; 62% don't think Roe v. Wade should be overturned by the Supreme Court; and 62% would prefer a universal health insurance program run by the government and financed by taxpayers.
On virtually every issue, public opinion polls show that consumer preferences are for the policies of the Democrats, and not for those of the GOP. Republicans offer inferior, less desirable policy solutions, while Democrats offer superior policies that are preferred by the majority of Americans.
When an inferior product wins out in the marketplace with superior marketing it is called getting "betamaxed." Remember Betamax? In the 1970s, before there was VHS, there was the Sony Betamax, but, as the story goes, VHS beat Betamax through its superior marketing even though Betamax was the superior video recording technology. If we consider policies as the products in the marketplace of ideas and public opinion polls as indicators of consumer preference, then we can only come to one conclusion: the Democrats have been betamaxed by the Republicans. Conservatives offer inferior policies, but dominate through superior marketing.
You really have to give it to them -- the Republicans are truly marketing geniuses. Let's consider some of the core components of marketing that the GOP has managed to dominate over the years. There's branding and negative branding. We have strategic communications, which in the policy world includes what's called "naming and framing," or how you sell your policies, as well as public relations and promotion. And finally, there is placement, or the distribution channels used to reach the consumer.
When it comes to branding, conservatives have succeeded in tarnishing the "liberal" brand to the point where liberals themselves, like Michael Moore, deride liberals as wimps. The GOP's negative branding campaign against liberals is why so many people are loath to use the "L word."
At the same time, Republicans have successfully built the conservative brand around powerful connotations of patriotism, strength, down-home values and righteousness. They have been so successful at building their brand that people still think of Republicans as "fiscally conservative," even though the last three "conservative" Republican administrations have all run record deficits.
The same goes for the branding of the GOP as the party of "small government." This despite the fact that the current Republican-controlled Congress, the first since 1954, has increased Congressional pork by more than 40%; the Patriot Act gives massive new powers to the federal government; and even non-defense domestic spending is up 11% according to an analysis by the conservative Heritage Foundation.
Now that's a brand with staying power.
Republicans also understand the value of strategic communications and the importance of "naming and framing" legislation and policies. Naming and framing can turn the "estate tax" ("estate" sounds like it only applies to rich folks) into a "death tax" -- we all die and it just doesn't seem right taxing the dead. When the GOP renamed the estate tax the death tax, they were able to frame it as a mainstream concern with 75% of Americans supporting its repeal, even though the estate tax does only apply to the rich, and it's paid by less than 2% of Americans.
They name legislation "No Child Left Behind," "Healthy Forests," "Clear Skies" and "Patriot Act," essentially forcing legislators to support their bills, lest they be accused of leaving children behind, favoring polluted forests and skies, or being branded as unpatriotic. It's sheer genius. It makes Microsoft's tactics for marketplace dominance look like child's play.
Another vital aspect of marketing is placement, or controlling the distribution channels. Republicans took this a step further by largely replicating Ted Turner's strategy of vertical integration of content and distribution. Cable maverick Turner recognized that he could become a formidable media force by owing both the channels of distribution -- his TBS cable network -- and content. So, he bought sports teams, acquired the MGM classic movie library and invented the 24-hour news network CNN to fill his cable channels.
Using this same vertical integration model, conservative think tanks and foundations, like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, have been laboring intensively on the research and development of conservative policies, as well as their packaging in media-friendly ways. These policies provide the "content" to feed to three primary distribution channels: legislative distribution channels including elected officials, candidates, senior staff, and political appointees; judicial distribution channels; and various mainstream and dedicated media distribution channels, such as Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the Washington Times, et al.
In the first quarter of 2002 alone, Heritage Foundation policy experts briefed three Cabinet secretaries, 33 senators, 48 members of Congress and 164 senior administration officials. Increasingly these policy experts are being groomed to push their ideas in the media directly. In 2002, according to the Heritage Foundation's annual report, as many of their policy experts were seen on television in a single year as during the entire 1990s. They appeared on more than 600 television broadcasts, more than 1,000 radio broadcasts, and in approximately 8,000 articles and editorials.
With dedicated channels, sound-bite content and expert spokespeople in the mainstream media, conservatives are retailing their ideas directly to the public or in marketing terms, the "end user." At the same time, in terms of direct marketing through the media, Republicans have managed to intimidate Democrats from competing with them by creating the "liberal media" myth, effectively forcing Democrats into a defensive position.
When we fail to view the world through the conservative business lens, we can easily see all of this as a vast rightwing conspiracy. However if we recall the frame of the marketplace of ideas, then we see it for it is: a well-run operation that recognized its weakness -- a less desirable product -- and figured out a way to dominate in the marketplace through an incredibly successful, integrated marketing strategy. Branded by the right and blind-sided by the conservative marketing machine, for more than a decade Democrats have been running to the right and abandoning core progressive issues and values in an attempt to keep pace with conservatives. This has been completely the wrong response.
Conservatives, after all, are dominating through superior marketing, not with better ideas or policies. However, because Democrats have failed to grasp the root of the problem, they have reacted to the growing conservative dominance by trying to fit into a more conservative mold. This wrong-headed response has played into the hands of conservatives. Democrats have lost ground in the marketplace of ideas, and have helped to tarnish their brand, as the right and left alike branded them as "wafflers," "Republican-lite" and "spineless liberals."
What Democrats should have done was stick to their principles and progressive policies and develop an equally formidable marketing strategy. It's not too late.
For many progressives, thinking about marketing when it comes to policy is an anathema. Progressives like to believe that "the truth alone will set you free," and that facts and figures on the issues and persuasive arguments win elections. They confuse framing issues with spin. There's endless talk about "elevating the policy dialogue," when what they really need to do is to use plainspeak and frame issues in ways that resonate with Americans. Progressives hear branding and they outright cringe. It all seems so disingenuous. But do Americans wear Nikes? Eat at McDonalds? Drink Coke?
Conservatives don't make a move without considering marketing. Remember when White House chief of staff Andrew Card told the New York Times that the reason the administration waited until September to make its case for the war in Iraq was because, "from a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August"? Know how the founder of the Heritage Foundation explains how the conservative movement was built? He attributes its ascendancy to what he calls, "The four M's: mission, money, management and marketing."
It is time for the Democratic Party to recognize that they cannot stem the conservative tide by moving further to the right, by going about business as usual, or by denying the importance of marketing. Progressives have been betamaxed by conservatives, and the first step to recovery is recognizing the problem. If we want progressive ideas and policies to dominate in the marketplace of ideas then we have to start fighting fire with fire and thinking strategically like conservatives in terms of marketing.
Progressives have an enormous uphill battle before them. Conservatives have what is known in business as a "first-mover advantage;" they've been at this for more than 20 years. What it will take to counter the conservative movement is an aggressive, hard-hitting counterstrategy with a quick ramp-up, long-term resolve and sufficient resources.
The good news is that conservatives have kindly provided us with the roadmap to build a successful counter-movement. A progressive movement should be built upon the four M's: mission, money, management and marketing; plus one more, mobilization. Progressives need to compete on the same grounds as conservatives but draw upon the Democrat's unique advantages.
With a solid foundation already in place, as well as numerous competitive advantages and untapped resources, progressives can build a movement that genuinely reflects the preferences of the majority of Americans, while drawing upon the traditions of the great progressive reformers of the past. By seeing the conservative movement for what it is, a well-executed, successful strategy dominating through superior marketing, a clear path to build a progressive counter-movement emerges.
Laurie Spivak manages a UCLA research center devoted to the study of civil society, philanthropy, and nonprofit and grassroots organizations and movements. This article is adapted from her forthcoming book, "Counter-movement."
quote: Actually, earlier, someone suggested to me that my posts were beginning to sound republican and that at first glance, someone may be tempted to think I was defending the republican position. You are not the first to make that observation. Yes, it is intentional.
You see, I haven’t described myself as either liberal or conservative on this board therefore I reserve the right to structure my statements to point out things I do not like in either parties. ~~~ Anaedo
That is a bunch of crap. Anaedo is a conservative Reuplican of the NEO-CON kind he should be a man and admit it.
If there is a person people hate is one like Bush who lies about his identity. I dislike people like that too. So another come clean and tell us your political affiliation?
I'm a Democrat, MeBiafran is an Independent, what are you???
___________________ BIAFRA MUST RISE AGAIN. LONG LIVE BIAFRA!! Posts: 1080 | From: California, USA. | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
quote: That is a bunch of crap. Anaedo is a conservative Reuplican of the NEO-CON kind he should be a man and admit it.
If there is a person people hate is one like Bush who lies about his identity. I dislike people like that too. So another come clean and tell us your political affiliation?
Sob, sob, sob.. cry cry cry. “Anaedo is this, Anaedo is that. Waaa waaa waa… Anaedo pissed in my breakfast wheaties, Anaedo is that little horned devil that torments me in my dreams every night.”
Bia, grow up already—agadi na-agwo ofe!
quote: I'm a Democrat, MeBiafran is an Independent, what are you???
Dullard, I am an independent too. If only this liberal reptile will open his eyes and read how I have explained myself!
You know the Republican would have ran with a news such as the denial by georgie that the terror war is not winnable. Check bush out, "I don't think you can win." This was his reply when asked by NBCs Matt Lauer what he thinks about the so-called war on terrorists.
As of today I'm yet to see a TV commercial using georgie's actual image during this interview to nail him. This and other mitigating circumstance reinforced my belief that the Dems are kinda slow, like in not street smart. This is not the time to pinch pennies, guys. A TV ad is most certainly in order!
___________________ BIAFRA: The land of my ancestors now, yesterday and always. So it will be! Posts: 2483 | From: Ala Igbo | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
Is there any out there who still harbors doubt over my strong description of Dems as annoyingly cowardly and slow and the Reps as overly wicked and manipulative? Before Zell Miller’s stupid tirade towards his own party, he endlessly warned about their dangerous drift from core Democratic values and no one listened to him such that he took his case to the Republican Convention. What an irony! How did Kerry go from being a war hero to defending his actions to those who dodged and lied their asses through Vietnam if not for the foolish disease that held the Dems hostage? If the Dems are not dumb as asserted how is it that none of the upper echelon members of Kerry group has raised any alarm towards the media bias? Whereas in 2000 georgie, his father and their gang screamed holy Jesus when the media belatedly exposed the real georgie bush as a DICTATOR and I agree.
With all the shortcomings of Kerry and the Dems, I believe georgie should be sent back to his ADOPTED state of Texas. Before and right after 9/11 the world warmed up to the U.S. but today due to georgie's tyranny and blind vision, America is scorned and despised. Didn’t georgie tell us that the removal of Saddam would translate to Americans being secured in a nutshell America would be safer? Believe me I didn’t forget bin Laden should I? The economy? I'll let you decide how well you and your loved ones, friends and neighbors are doing under this joker.
___________________ BIAFRA: The land of my ancestors now, yesterday and always. So it will be! Posts: 2483 | From: Ala Igbo | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
Could anyone with information on why the sudden news blackout on this political dispensation please share. It is always a very dangerous maneuver to count one's chickens before they hatch. Due to the Democrat's silliness something that looked liked a slam-dunk is slowly slipping away. I’ve stated as an Independent (one man political machine) and will continue to say that Kerry’s campaign style is a replica of that loser’s, Gore. The cockiness gotta go guys.
___________________ BIAFRA: The land of my ancestors now, yesterday and always. So it will be! Posts: 2483 | From: Ala Igbo | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
It is important to point out that the Kerry camp has not really taken heed to the numerous counsel proffered by casual but interested spectators (Independents amongst other democratic well-wishers) to define himself on the issues, and sell himself to the American people. Kerry needs to aggressively stress his differences with Bush.
A survey that I saw recently showed that amongst republicans, about 78% say they are voting for Bush for who Bush is ( his ideas, his political stance etc) while about 18% say they are voting for bush because they oppose Kerry. On the other hand, amongst Democrats, 34% say they are voting for Kerry for who Kerry is (his ideas, his stance on the issues) while a rip-roaring 61% say they are voting for Kerry just because they oppose Bush.
What this means is that if the events in the media keep conspiring to negatively impact the Kerry camp, whilst simultaneously failing to draw attention to Bush’s Achilles heel on important issues like the economy (i.e jobs) or healthcare, I see a situation where poor long-faced Kerry will have an uphill climb to persuade Americans that a vote for him would be a vote to salvage America out of her current economic doldrums or her current impasse with once friendly allies in the world. By all means, Kerry should attack Bush’s record but he also needs to clearly show us WHERE HE INTENDS TO TAKE AMERICA, and HOW HE INTENDS TO DO IT.
All is not lost for the Kerry campaign just yet. Borrowing a leaf out of Karl Rove’s playbook of political scurrility (as the Democrats seem to be doing) may work for a while; but just as how entrenched hateful criticisms of Bush on Iraq or perhaps, derisive taunting and innuendo about Bush’s actions in the National Guard have bounced off this administration’s back and have fetched almost nothing for Kerry in the battleground states, a preoccupation with the politics of bitterness and spite may do little to improve Kerry’s overall standing in places that matter. Bush is purposely ignoring the noise over his National Guard record and is aggressively staying on the message. Kerry needs to outshine Bush in this regard. This is because as long as such peripheral issues as Dan Rather’s clumsiness over Bush’s records continues to dominate the media and draw away attention from matters such as the rising death toll in Iraq, the Bush team continues to set the direction of the campaign issues.
What’s more? Karl Rove and other members of the Bush re-election machine are not yet resting on their oars. Like I said somewhere, expect more slime to hit the airwaves regarding what Kerry did in the Vietnam war. The next series of ads by pro-Bush 527s to hit the battleground states would be very devastating. If the Democrats intend to counter these ads by ads of their own, they should put something out that seriously puts a question mark on Bush’s CURRENT record—not on whether he was a non-ratiocinating lucky spawn of affluence or good fortune.
This is because, irrespective of the fact that Kerry is to all intents and purposes also a tremendously wealthy man, the American people may not be overly stunned by any revelations that Bush's family connections paved the way for him to get into the guard, or helped to document Bush as having been honorably discharged. One sort of expects that this might indeed have been the case. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that many members of the National Guard at that time periodically missed Guard duty before rejoining the Guard. Who's to say that this could not have been the case here?
At any rate, since people have already heard about his drinking excesses in his younger days and seen a pdf of a DUI charge, it many ironically prompt a view of Bush as more down-to-earth, more casual, and more likely to be the person to sit down with for a bottle of beer and a game of checkers. Sadly, Kerry projects the image of the aristocratic elite of Washington DC. There is no gainsaying the fact that for a lot of Americans, the choice of whom to vote for president may not be fashioned out of a meticulous analysis of current national trends, but rather out of likeability and personal appeal.
Conclusively, during the debates, I expect Kerry not to try and impress Americans with the fact that he is a strong off-the-cuff speaker, or that he possesses patrician bearings, or that he has a stentorian voice. He should project a sense of immediacy, and a passionate yearning to right the wrongs of this administration. Even more importantly, he should draw serious contrasts between himself and Bush whilst highlighting why Bush’s recent propositions still remain less of a better choice than his. Enough of the shuffling and re-organization of his campaign apparatus, enough of imitating the Republican modus operandi, enough of impotent implosive ad spots, enough of overburdening himself with what Nader may or may not do. This is time to hone in on the battleground states for the undecided. This is time to focus on the message of the hour. This is time to show that Bush’s plan are not working for these undecided and America at large; this is time to show how his vision will help elevate everybody. Every other matter in this most vicious election season is pure commentary and embellishment—and time, like bats out of hell, is fast running out!
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll 2]](graemlins/roll2.gif)
