[quote]Jay Sherman wrote:
I think you guys are just scared because the dems finally got someone with some balls. [/quote]
Yeah - that’s what it is. Fear. I’m shakin’ in my boots. Hahahahaha!!!
Jay
He may have balls but it is not tempered. That is what the Republicans are so grateful about. He is arrogant and passionate about his views. Arrogant to the point that he will not rest until you see it his way.
Unfortunately his way is the far radical left. That will polarize his party. It will also drive the middle to the Republicans. The middle and the right will support the Republicans in 08. That’s why we are so happy.
BB:
Interesting, the odd part about the “Clinton new democrats” is that his very own wife is not a new democrat! She’s an extreme liberal.
As to Dean, I feel he will unite all of the liberals in the party and of course alienate the rest who will either stay home or vote for the republican candidate.
Deans ego is just big enough to think that he can change the entire party into his own image.
That’s the fun part…he he
Well he’ll be better than his predecessor first and foremost. I think he’ll be a lot more aggressive as a spokesperson speaking out against the repub. slander machine. That’s really the only challenge democrats have is simply correcting all the lies and slander the repub media machine throws all day everyday. The problem is there is so many that some dem. spokespeople don’t even bother or are so ineffective that it’s like what’s the point. (of course it doesn’t help that the media especially faux news make a point of picking ineffective dem. spokespeople as a rule.)
Anyway, yeah dean is a good pick, I mean damn ken mehlman runs the RNC, he didn’t know his head from his asshole in the campaingn.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Well he’ll be better than his predecessor first and foremost. I think he’ll be a lot more aggressive as a spokesperson speaking out against the repub. slander machine. That’s really the only challenge democrats have is simply correcting all the lies and slander the repub media machine throws all day everyday. The problem is there is so many that some dem. spokespeople don’t even bother or are so ineffective that it’s like what’s the point. (of course it doesn’t help that the media especially faux news make a point of picking ineffective dem. spokespeople as a rule.)
Anyway, yeah dean is a good pick, I mean damn ken mehlman runs the RNC, he didn’t know his head from his asshole in the campaingn.[/quote]
It would really help if the Democrats actually had a message. At the very least it would make Dean’s job more than an exeercise in futility.
I like the way the the left is incapable of framing their arguments in any context other than ABB, or Republicans are evil.
Daschle didn’t get beat because of a slander machine - he was beat because of his constant ABB stance. Dems are losing power quicker than the last Space Shuttle flight, and instead of looking at themselves, they blame Fox News.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Well he’ll be better than his predecessor first and foremost. I think he’ll be a lot more aggressive as a spokesperson speaking out against the repub. slander machine. That’s really the only challenge democrats have is simply correcting all the lies and slander the repub media machine throws all day everyday. The problem is there is so many that some dem. spokespeople don’t even bother or are so ineffective that it’s like what’s the point. (of course it doesn’t help that the media especially faux news make a point of picking ineffective dem. spokespeople as a rule.)
Anyway, yeah dean is a good pick, I mean damn ken mehlman runs the RNC, he didn’t know his head from his asshole in the campaingn.[/quote]
100meters, you might want to spend your next four posts in the training end of the forum. I bet you would make more sense there 
Both parties “slander,” if you don’t know that you don’t know politics. It’s a nasty, dirty, ugly business. Now run along…
Framing is great, but it’s reaallly hard to beat slander. Or an inept media.
What the hell is framing going to do when your opponent will run ads against you saying your going to ban the bible. We aren’t talking about logical minds here. the majority of people who support bush beleive things that are not factually true. And they also think bush supports things that he clearly doesn’t. So the main issue is slander/lies/misinformation and second may be framing.
just think of the last campaign
swift boat veterans for “truth”
flip flopper
weak on defense
weak on intelligence
voted for it before he voted against it
these things were laughable, knee slappers, but still 51 percent bought it this time around.
uhmm…you did watch last years campaign, and all the ones before that right? And you do watch TV right, ever watch o’reilly, hannity, hume, they lie. They knowingly tell americans things that are not true. Repubs only win by lying. That was my point. Dean will be better than terry at dealing with this.
[quote]100meters wrote:
just think of the last campaign
swift boat veterans for “truth”
flip flopper
weak on defense
weak on intelligence
voted for it before he voted against it
these things were laughable, knee slappers, but still 51 percent bought it this time around.[/quote]
If you would like to prove these issues as lies, I’d love to see your attempt.
Try reading some of the old threads in this forum before you waste too much of your time trying to write that you think is new.
oh dear,
your serious?
you believe some of these or all of these?
[quote]100meters wrote:
oh dear,
your serious?
you believe some of these or all of these?
[/quote]
I believe the SBV’s account of what happened over Kerry’s account.
I know that Kerry did everything you have listed.
Elitists like you really crack me up. You lose. You blame the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’. You lose again. You blame Fox News.
You have lost seats in federal and state elections since 1994. Yet you blame the evil republicans for lying. The only lying that is going on around here is those that the left-wing is telling themselves. Campaign rhetoric is now lying? And you think the republicans is the only guilty party?
The election has been over for almost 4 months. It’s time for you to finds something else to whine about.
100meters:
Remember the democrats claiming that Bush was going to take away senior citizens social security checks? As a matter of fact they dig that one up every four years to scare the old people.
Then they tried to throw a little fear into the younger crowd by lying about Bush regarding his stance on the draft. “Vote for Bush and your son will be drafted they cried.”
Um…those are lies. If I thought about It I could probably come up with more, but I have already spent to much time on this. It’s sort of an old topic.
Nothing personal.
Have a nice night
Zeb
i just want to hear the dean scream one more time!
[quote]100meters wrote:
voted for it before he voted against it
these things were laughable, knee slappers, but still 51 percent bought it this time around.[/quote]
Those were Kerry’s own words.
Elitist? you are for the party of elitists, i’m for the party of the other 99 percent of the country.
The post was about Dean as dnc chair, and my reponse has nothing to do with anger.
when you lose because your opponent lied/misled/misinformed and the media (its not just fox) doesn’t do its job to inform american voters, then yes I blame the liars and those who didn’t bother to correct the lies. I hate the idea that dems have to learn to lie to be able to beat the neo cons, so im not going to angry that dems didn’t mislead voters as well? Campaign rhetoric, your comparing dems saying 2+2=5 to bush saying 2+2=1000.
I mean think for a second, this admin has one of the worst records you could ever run on even for repub, but they still won.
If it were you what would you do. Mislead/distract voters, by lying about your opponent.
If he fought in a war that you ducked, attack that record.
If 9/11 happened under your watch while you slumbered and held no meetings about terrorism after 52 reports say we’re in danger and a pdb says osama gonna attack, then a. blame clinton, b.don’t support 9/11 commission c.classify documents till after election d.say opponent doesn’t understand the war on terror.
If he voted for 16 of 19 defense appropriation bills (strong on defense) then a. talk about 3 he voted against and itemize each section of the bill as if opponent voted against specific weapon systems. b. for the love of god don’t talk about Cheney scolding dems when he was s.o.d. for not letting him cut more from defense c. and don’t talk about cuts in veterans benefits that opponent is against.
If you were a drunk driver and your v.p. was a drunk driver and you have 3 or 4 arrests between you, and you have no christian values, talk about how you have family values, how you were born again, say catholic opponent wants to ban bible, doesn’t have mainstream values etc.
see the trend here.
Its not so much that they do this, because when your party’s philosophy is using the government to line the pockets of the incredibly rich at the expense of everybody else, you have to do this.
the annoying part is that 51 percent bought it this time.
so yeah dean will be better than terry at informing american voters of this.
about the s.s issue.
remember at the end of the campaign, suskind had an article that said bush was gonna push hard, and push early for privatizing s.s. if he won. oh the uproar, dems are scaring about the s.s.
Kerry said he wouldn’t do anything to s.s just leave it be. Of course bush has been saying this since 2000 and since 2000 economists have known that his most likely plan would cut benefits for future retirees by at least 40 percent (thats bad) so yes bush is for cutting social security. The plan by its very nature cuts your benefits.
It makes the dems look like svengalis but really its just common sense. And again i think dean will do a better job of saying hey the president is lying when he says social security will be bankrupt by the time people in their 30’s and 40’s retire. By his own definition of bankrupt, he has bankrupted the U.S. government.
[quote]100meters wrote:
It makes the dems look like svengalis but really its just common sense. And again i think dean will do a better job of saying hey the president is lying when he says social security will be bankrupt by the time people in their 30’s and 40’s retire. By his own definition of bankrupt, he has bankrupted the U.S. government.
[/quote]
Why is the President lying when he says that SS wil go broke? Are you then accusing Bill Clinton of lying as well? He said the exact same thing.
Have an original thought man. These things have all been discussed before. You must not have taken my advice to read.
If you look back in the old threads, there’s plenty of stuff - good stuff - for you to plagiarize.
If its not bankrupt, not going to be bankrupt, and you know it, but say it anyway, then doesn’t that make it a lie?
clinton said “save social security first” in his state of the union. and he did.
what does originality have to do with it. the previous post mentioned s.s. so i did. that’s logical enough.
obviously if you still think s.s is going bankrupt, you a. don’t read or watch the news. and b. the previous posts did not mention this.
Lumpy, is that you?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
BB:
Interesting, the odd part about the “Clinton new democrats” is that his very own wife is not a new democrat! She’s an extreme liberal.
As to Dean, I feel he will unite all of the liberals in the party and of course alienate the rest who will either stay home or vote for the republican candidate.
Deans ego is just big enough to think that he can change the entire party into his own image.
That’s the fun part…he he[/quote]
Zeb,
I tend to think her instincts are liberal, but she’s definitely trying to sell herself as a centrist – particularly on foreign policy. Just look at the stuff she has been saying on Iraq lately – it sounds good (of course, if you don’t trust the source, that’s another matter entirely).