matt07

Why Kerry Would Lose

▼

Why Kerry Would Lose

Kerry needs to get off his high horse

from JoeUser Forums
As someone who badly wants Kerry to become the next president I must say that I think Kerry should be running a better campaign.

So far, Bush's campaign has been extremely negative. He's criticized Kerry more than he's promoted himself, and succeeded in branding Kerry as a flip-flopping, tax-raising, troop hating Massachusetts liberal.

Kerry, on the other hand, has decided to take the high road to Bush's low road. Kerry can't win this way. You can't unseat an incumbent by simply promoting yourself. Kerry has to convince voters that Bush has been a bad leader during his four years and doesn't deserve a second term. Kerry should focus on pointing out the bad things Bush has done, because this is how he will convince voters to vote for him.

The Kerry campaign needs a new direction if he's to win in November.
democrat
18,524 views 34 replies
Reply #26 from PolMach Forums Top
If Senator Kerry is reading this, please sir make your campaign about SOMETHING. There are over 6 billion people who meet the qualification of not being George W Bush.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
If Senator Kerry is reading this, please sir make your campaign about SOMETHING. There are over 6 billion people who meet the qualification of not being George W Bush.


! I love that! You should see about getting that printed on a t-shirt!
Siege of Centauri
Reply #28 from PolMach Forums Top
First off, there seems to be a lot of confusion about the Congressional authorization for the Iraqi war. One of the provisions was that the UN security council approve the motion to war and that the United States had to have exhausted all other alternatives before going in to Iraq.


SicSemperTyranus

Stop reading misleading news from the Kerry website. The US Congress will never give Bush a provision to require UN approval. U.S. Congress never in history hands over authority to enter a war to another organization. In fact, that will probably go against the Consititution. What are required by the Congress to the President is that Bush has to notificed the beginning of attack in 48 hours and update every 60 days. I don't mind people debate with me. I don't like to be right out lie to. I challenge you to find that "provisions" from Congress. I mean. Com'on, that simply doesn't make any sense. The Congress already determined that Iraq is a threat to US and has beached previous UN resolution and therefore give president the power to go to war.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa101102a.htm

I shall quote HJ 114 RH:

"SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001"

My problem is not Kerry sometime vote outside the party line. The problem is one day he is for something, the other day he is not. Kerry has repeatly said he supported the first Gulf War, but his congressional vote is the other way. He didn't admit mistake as you suggested. Instead he tell people different things.

http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml?pid=1261

He has said he will fight against G. W. Bush Prescription Drug and will take 2 days off his primary campaign just so he can go back to the hill, but then he vote absence. He wa physically there, but the prescription bill getting more popular, so he voted absence. The Isarel Wall. He is both for and against it. He was against the partiot act in the beginning, now he somewhat for it. The Patriot Act didn't change, he did. The 527 groups do not represent American. Just because there are more 527 for Kerry doesn't mean there are more American for Kerry. We know for fact that Bush having a small lead over Kerry. I don't understand


The GOP convention arrest reach record high has alot to do with one thing: liberals are breaking the law. Unless, you are telling me that the NY Police are doing wrongful arrest.

People who say War on Terror cannot be won through force and need compansion obviously has never read history. Go look up the history of "Assasin" and "Old Man of the the Mountain". They are the earliest and most powerful terriost group known to man kind. Guess who elimate this faction? Hulagu Khan, grandson of Genghis Khan. I can tell you he didn't do it through international effect or some sensitive method. Are you telling me history is wrong? Since you are into sensitive method. Can you tell me when is the last time a terriost faction elimated through your method... or are you simply making things up.

http://www.free-definition.com/Hashshashin.html

Sorry about some of my harsh language. But I really don't like to be lied to.
Reply #29 from PolMach Forums Top
Sometime I feel really bad to be correct. Have I basically shut "SicSemperTyranus" up? Hey, SicSemperTyranus, no offense. I was probably more emotional than I need to be. I was just merely trying to point out that don't believe everything the Kerry's site tell you (I read those too), do you own research. There is no way the US Congress will tell George W Bush to get approval from UN. That is to implies UN has authority over Congress and UN can judge what the US Congress cannot decide. The final decision to send US troops aboard always lies on the president and Congress. What you said simply is unconsitutional.
Reply #30 from PolMach Forums Top
Heh, I never believe anything the Bush site or the Kerry site says.

I like to research online at various websites and things. Not even the TV News is going to tell you the whole truth. I like the independent group studies...
Reply #31 from PolMach Forums Top
But that is silly. Doesn't everyone claim to be independent? For cry out loud, MoveOn.COM is a independent group and claim to have no affliation to any political partiy or organization. The only way to get real fact is to look at the source. For example, SicSemperTyranus wrongfully claimed that US Congress gave President Bush an authorization for the Iraqi war under a provision that UN security council has to first permit the military action. I know he is wrong not because I looked up some indepdent group studies. It is because I read the source before. I read the Congressional Authorization HJ 114 RH.

For example, if you wonder if John Kerry really flip-flop his position on the first Gulf War. Don't look at any so-called independent website. Go straight to the Congressional voting record archieve.

Don't forget that independent group is maintained by people and people have opinion. When a website claim to be independent, that only mean they don't take money directly from a political party. That is why MoveOn.COM is legally a "independent group". If I have time, I can make a blog and become a independent political website too. Any reason for you to trust me as "independent"?
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
The only thing John Kerry talked about beside Bush is his Vietnam experience. That is his only positive campaign he has. He doesn't talk about his lieutenant goveror experience, his 20 years in senate. Seriously, what are his positive ads beside the Vietnam thing?
Look maybe you are such a [Bush] fan that you cannot see straight.
He has talked about his earlier political experience and defends his senate record--admittedly not as much as he should--the fact that he stressed his wartime experience is that Bush announced early that he was running as a wartime president.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

Kerry has to convince voters that Bush has been a bad leader during his four years and doesn't deserve a second term. Kerry should focus on pointing out the bad things Bush has done, because this is how he will convince voters to vote for him.

I agree and he has been doing precisely that recently.

The Kerry campaign needs a new direction if he's to win in November.

He is known to be tough at the end, so keep the faith.
Reply #34 from PolMach Forums Top
Yes, I am a Bush fan. I give you that. You are also correct that Kerry has mentioned his earlier political experience and talked about his senate record when he was running in the primary. However, I am talking mostly about the DNC convention and his recent campaign -- since you are the one complaining about the recent negative ads.

Just because George W. Bush run as a war time president doesn't mean Kerry has to play along. That is not at all a good reason. In fact, that is very abnormal. David S. Border at Washingpost has nicely pointed this out. For example, In 1992, when George H. W. Bush ran as a person with much more international experience and military experience. What did Clinton do? Clinton gave those to Bush and simply ran as a domestic president. In 1998, when Bob Dole run against Clinton. Clinton ran on peace and recovering economy. Dole ran on Intergity. In 2000, when George W. Bush ran against Al Gore. Al Gore campaigned as the smarter and more intelligent person. What did Bush do? Bush simply ran on "I might not be the smartest guy, but I understand you (voters) and you can understand me." In turn, he ran as a president who voters can understand -- trustworthy.

Historically, presidental candidates do not, and I mean do not, run against the opponent's strength. So your explanation may be real, but weak.