Support NeoGAF

[Ignatz Mouse]

Sorry if this is obvious:

The Swift Boat thing, even with all of the debunking and unintended glorifying of Kerry's war record, is probably the best thing for Bush in this campaign. Why? Because even if Kerry's record is upheld and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are dismissed, PEOPLE DON'T CARE. People voting for Kerry or against Bush aren't doing so becuase of his record. Quayle and Clinton, and then W himself have demonstrated that people don't really care about Viet Nam service. Especially the liberal-to-moderate end of the specrum, where Kerry's votes will be.

The press is all over this because of the inherent drama, but nobody is voting on war record. And here's the the catch-- the issues that might win this eleection for Kerry are being ignored. Bush can't lose when the focus is off of Iraq-- it was dragging down his approval ratings for quite a while.

Kerry ought to ignore the whole thing and drag the fight back to the economy and plans for Iraq, two things I personally am concerned about that Bush has done nothing that satisfies me.

 

[LakeEarth]

I think anyone with intellegence will see through this Swiftboat thing..

"The wounds were self inflicted, and I know this since I was John Kerry's medical doctor for that injury!"

"Sir, we have undisputable evidence that you weren't his doctor, but that you've never even met the man... how do you respond to this?"

"..... BABA BOOIE BABY BOOIE HOWARD STERN'S PENIS BABA BOOIE!!"

 

[clipunderground]

Well my vote is certainly not going to that fucking ape Bush. I'll tell you that. I'd rather be lead by livestock.

 

[Makura]

Actually, focussing on Iraq would be a bad move as well I think, things are improving by the day over there and could get even better during the run up to the election, which would take the wind out the sails of any focus on Iraq by the Kerry camp.

I think America wants to hear:
1. What is Kerry's plan for Iraq and the war on terror? Is it based on a political ideology or a strong conviction regrading the National security of this Nation? Is it defined by how it ISNT like Bush or is it based on an actual sound strategy?
2.What are his accomplishments and what is he most proud of as a result of his years as a Senator? How does his Senate record support his core values?

 

[ge-man]

This is just good old american dirty politics. I wish they would concentrate on the real issues, but after this war record thing gets old the politictians and the pundits will latch on to something else. In that respect, I don't think there's much Kerry could do outside of dishing the dirt out himself.

 

[Link648099]

It seems to me very odd that the Kerry campaign has been utterly paralyzed for around 3 weeks by the Swift Vets. Yes, the Swift Vets have blown a hole in the Kerry campaign’s boat which is likely to swamp it. But why isn’t Kerry out answering questions from the press and pretending that his boat isn’t taking on water? Why isn’t he out talking about the things which he pretends are the issues that need discussion?

It appears to mean he’s unwilling to answer the questions raised by the Swift Vets, such as the one he ducked when John Stewart did ask it point blank. “Were you or were you not in Cambodia?” It’s amazing that Kerry couldn’t even cough up a “yes” with some accompanying “nuance” to the effect that it wasn’t Christmas, it was some other time. Didn’t Kerry expect to discuss this? Wasn’t he welcoming the opportunity to attempt to clear the air over it? The more this goes on, the more you have to wonder, just how out of touch with reality is this guy?

The Left likes to consider the truth irrelevant; for example, the fact that Islamofascists are trying to nuke us, is something the Left likes to gloss over and ignore. Similarly, Kerry seems to consider the facts of his own personal history irrelevant. He made no mention of his Senate career in his acceptance speech, as if his long Liberal voting record was of no bearing on his electability. And when he called his fellow veterans his “band of brothers,” he disregarded his own testimony before Congress, in which he backstabbed those same fellow veterans, as if that testimony had never occurred.

But reality exists. And if you’re trying to accomplish a goal, such as steering your boat through rocky waters, or getting elected, you can ignore it only at your peril. That’s what’s happening to Kerry right now: he’s finding out, evidentally to his surprise, that the truth is real, and if you ignore the rocks your boat is in danger of get wracked up on them.

 

[Dilbert]

Things are improving by the day over there and could get even better during the run up to the election...

Source?

 

[Minotauro]

Source?

 

[human5892]

I agree -- placing so much emphasis on Vietnam in the first place was definitely a fault of Kerry's. The Swift Boat organization is taking things entirely too far, of course (on nearly baseless accusations, to boot), but I doubt it would've been this bad if Kerry wouldn't have drawn so much attention to his record in the first place. That's practically all the DNC was about.

Oddly enough, I also agree with Makura -- let's hear about Kerry's Senate experience. Contrary to how some in the Bush campaign may try and twist it, he has an impressive Senate record that isn't "too liberal", especially if presented in the right way. I think he could do a great deal towards reassuring voters of his stance and values if he emphasized decisions he made while on the Senate.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I'm not discussing the Swift Boat thing itself, but rather the campaign strategy.

I don't know enough about Kerry's Senate record to know if focusing there would be a good idea, but I think the economy and Iraq would be good focus points. Unless (as I fear) Kerry really hasn't got any better answers about either.

:/

But, the thing is that the Swift Boat/Viet Nam thing is so defensible, that all the focus is going there. They could simply contradict it and move on and not really be harmed. I don't think Kerry's poll numbers are suffereing from that-- but the lack of focus on the "oust Bush" platform that a lot of people want.

 

[HAOHMARU]

If the SBVFT's claims are so defensible, how come Kerry has not addressed any of the questions that they have raised? SBVFT is sticking to their story, the Kerry campaign has changed their's multiple times and Kerry has been caught in lies.

I don't know how much clearer it is than that.

But like has been said, enough about Kerry's service in Vietnam. The parties should be focusing on more important issues. Mostly, there are more people without health insurance and more people in poverty than reported 2 years ago...as claimed by a census report. I believe Bush has a great plan for Iraq and the war on terrorism. I don't like Kerry's idea of a more "sensitive" approach to the war on terror.

I also don't like the fact that Kerry's only running point is that "I'm not Bush." Well great...who are you then? You have flip-flopped on multiple issues in the past, and I have no idea where you stand as of this day. Get off the fence for once.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

HAOHMARU, you're falling into tthe same trap. Nobody cares about the charges, it's all media noise, and it's a political mistake to respond to them much at all. What missing is taking control of the discussion and making about something people will vote for.

 

[HAOHMARU]

I see what you are saying.

But, I just would like Kerry to respond to some of the questions that have been raised...thats all. I won't be satisfied until he does.

 

[MrAngryFace]

I dont see why we expect straight answers from kerry, when we let bush sling bullshit at us for four years. Hell, I dont care if Kerry lies as much as Bush, as long as there is SOME change in the system, that will be SOMETHING to go on. 4 more years of Bush would make me give up participating in politics forever.

 

[videogamer]

The Left likes to consider the truth irrelevant; for example, the fact that Islamofascists are trying to nuke us, is something the Left likes to gloss over and ignore.

But reality exists. And if you’re trying to accomplish a goal, such as steering your boat through rocky waters, or getting elected, you can ignore it only at your peril. That’s what’s happening to Kerry right now: he’s finding out, evidentally to his surprise, that the truth is real, and if you ignore the rocks your boat is in danger of get wracked up on them.

Gross overgeneralization. In fact, it should be considered an unfair attack. The left is well-aware of terrorist threats, however, responses to the same threat can be different. Futhermore, what about the WMDs'? The left was over that during the run-up to the war while some were busy calling us "un-American" or "traitors" for questioning the evidence. Talk about painting an entire spectrum of people.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Eggplant, MAF: Indeed. If there is truth to be questioned, it is the reason we went to war in Iraq, the evidence for it, and what plans we have now that we are there.

And plans for how we deal with the massive deficit spending we have going on. Remember the "tax and spend liberal" label? Why is it that now that we have a Republican President we're back to deficit spending? What are the long and short term consequences fo this spendingn, and-- do we want them? If yes, how do we address them?

Y'know, REAL issues.

 

[Dilbert]

I see what you are saying.

But, I just would like Kerry to respond to some of the questions that have been raised...thats all. I won't be satisfied until he does.

If you ACTUALLY "saw what he was saying," then you wouldn't need Kerry to respond in order to be satisfied.

 

[videogamer]

Eggplant, MAF: Indeed. If there is truth to be questioned, it is the reason we went to war in Iraq, the evidence for it, and what plans we have now that we are there.

And plans for how we deal with the massive deficit spending we have going on. Remember the "tax and spend liberal" label? Why is it that now that we have a Republican President we're back to deficit spending? What are the long and short term consequences fo this spendingn, and-- do we want them? If yes, how do we address them?

Y'know, REAL issues.

Well, I remember some other poster saying that both Democrats and Republicans like to spend... just on different things. The term "tax and spend liberal" could easily be turned into "borrow and spend" conservative. The Democrats seem much more focused on a balanced budget these days, and that may mean taxes. I myself am more of a social issues kind of a person so I honestly don't know much on this issue.

Iraq: Why did we go there in the first place? People can spin it and say that things are getting better and better over there, but the truth remains that the primary reason to go to war, the WMDs, have yet to appear. Bush seemed to be downright eager to attack Iraq and ignore the evidence indicating a lack of WMD's in Iraq. A candidate runs on his entire record, and voters care more about certain parts of the record more than others. I prefer to look at things that he had full control over, like the actual decision to attack, not some battles in some far off city.

 

[alejob]

WTH? Wrong thread.