Posted on 10/12/2004 3:12:46 PM PDT by johannes89a
Today's Newsweek web commentary picks up on something I wrote about on this site two days ago. Regarding the flap over Kerry's "nuisance" comment:
This kind of phony debate can only take place outside the real debates, on the campaign trail in front of partisan crowds.
I hate to say I told you so, but we really shouldn't have jumped on that out-of-context quoting thing so hard. People are reading the actual NYT article it was clipped from and getting anti-Bush rhetoric -- the story is backfiring on us just like I suggested it would.
We need to up the bar, people. Responsible campaigning is the only route to victory.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
This editorial is just crap. When the leftist crapweasals complain that we are 'distorting' them, this just means that we are getting their own words out there to the public without their ability to spin it beforehand. I don't take advice from Newsweak.
Unless you believe that you are guilty of what you are being accused of, you don't need to worry about it. Their transgressions speak loudly in accusation. (Translation: if they accuse of something, you can be sure that they are doing it themselves and just projecting it on us)
I agree. Bush has the balls required to take on the muslim extremists. I have no doubt that, when push comes to shove, he'll press the nuclear button on Tehran and Pyongyang. That said, he has to be in office to do it. Our campaigning style in these last 2 weeks is going to be critical -- i'm not willing to leave it up to the supreme court again this time.
There is nothing 'nuisance' about being killed by a terrorist. There is no credible way to explain this. Let the media spin and we will speak directly to the voters. The media isn't going to attack Kerry unless they determine that he has already lost and at that point they will all form a circle and start firing at him for ruining their chances of regaining the White House.
RIGHT!
So we have to set it up such that that will happen.
There's nothing the media likes more than a coherent story.
What is emerging now, like it or not, is the following narrative: Bush will do anything to win. He will lie, cheat, and steal. If we let this narrative solidify, Kerry will carry the undecideds and squeak out a victory.
We counter this narrative by talking about SUCCESS. We counter this narrative by explaining our PLAN. We counter this narrative by being transparent and clean.
If the Kerry crew can't call us liars and manipulators any more, what attacks will they have left? If we undermine the liar argument, that undermines their whole campaign against the Iraq invasion (ie, Bush lied and soldiers died), and leaves them with nothing to run on but Kerry's big chin.
Amen. Thanks for the link. I sent it to everyone I know. God Bless
Amen. Thanks for the link. I sent it to everyone I know. God Bless
Your number one problem is listening to what the MSM has to say. While we can debate the "context" issue of what Kerry said...or what he meant to say, this was just one more illustration of what Kerry really believes in regards to terrorism. While Bush was caught making a similar gaffe...which he later tried to clarify, Kerry has a history of really holding these ideals.
Kerry, at one point, said that the threat of terrorism, and the WOT, was an exaggeration. This is the same man who said that Sadr...and his newspaper calling for the deaths of American soldiers, was a legitimate voice in Iraq. From his Iran policy of providng the Mullahs with nuclear-fuel...to his belief that the US needs some special permission from American-hating allies like France and Germany, Kerry has consistantly shown himself to be a person who is not capable of defending the interests and lives of the people of the United States.
Maybe one of the reasons the MSM is so up-in-arms is because they see that this is just one more example of Kerry killing himself. I'm listening to Fox right now...and even the libs on the panel can't figure out what Kerry's saying or doing.
Oh, really?
What is your source for this?
"we really shouldn't have jumped on that out-of-context quoting thing so hard"
Out of context quoting??? Kindly put it in context for me then...
Kinda new to be a screw... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~o
I think you're wrong. It sounds to me like you are relying on the media to tell you what the Bush team is doing....big mistake! I heard Cheney use this yesterday and the initial response was stunned silence followed by huge boos. Not everyone reads the NYT. Cheney made it clear that we cannot go back to pre 9/11. Bush/Cheney are getting the message out...the media just doesn't report it!
I think Pres. Bush is doing it right. I'd like to see him turn it upa notch....to make Kerry define "nuisance" terroism.
Is it The Bombing of the Cole ?
Is it the 1st World Trade Center ?
or is "nuisance" kept off-shore:
Is it the Khobar Towers ?
Is it US Embassy in Beruit ?
Is it The Lockerbie Pan-Am explosion ?
I'm talking about the Bush ad specifically.
Selectively pulling words out of Kerry's quote makes it appear that Bush is parsing when he isn't. That reflect poorly on his campaign when it needn't.
Then there is the emphasis on "we can't ever completely end it" and the comparison to prostitution and gambling. With out the full context this is just confusing, in my opinion, and it dillutes the more important message that Kerry is a September 10th politician. Finally, they missed the sharpest jab which would be to compare it to the pre-9/11 "swatting at flies" approach of Clinton.
"A nuisance? . . . Mosquito bites are a nuisance. Cable outages are a nuisance. Someone shooting up a school in Montana or California or Maine on behalf of the brave martyrs of Fallujah isn't a nuisance. It's war.
"But that's not the key phrase. This matters: We have to get back to the place we were.
"But when we were there we were blind. When we were there we [were] losing. When we were there we died. We have to get back to the place we were. We have to get back to 9/10? We have to get back to the place we were. So we can go through it all again? We have to get back to the place we were. And forget all we've learned and done? We have to get back to the place we were. No. I don't want to go back there. Planes into towers. That changed the terms. I am remarkably disinterested in returning to a place where such things are unimaginable. Where our nightmares are their dreams.
"We have to get back to the place we were.
"No. We have to go the place where they are."
-- James Lileks, as quoted by BEST OF THE WEB TODAY (yesterday)
I think Pres. Bush is doing it right. I'd like to see him turn it upa notch....to make Kerry define "nuisance" terroism. Is it The Bombing of the Cole ? Is it the 1st World Trade Center ? or is "nuisance" kept off-shore: Is it the Khobar Towers ? Is it US Embassy in Beruit ? Is it The Lockerbie Pan-Am explosion ?...I agree, completely, these aren't nuisance issues. But the Kerry quote was taken out of context to suggest that he thinks these are nuisances. The context, if you read it (as the MSM is doing now and disseminating to the public as we speak on their nightly broadcasts), is a discussion of what Kerry wants for the FUTURE... This is why we need to back off immediately, people. I don't want to be on here two days after the election pointing back to this as being the turning point in the campaign, the point when the Dems marketing of Bush as a liar/manipulator really took hold. Think, Freepers! If Kerry gets elected, we'll end up living under sharia law like they do in pot-smoking socialist canunckistan. The stakes are high. Let's be careful with what we trump up as our talking points...
Okay, I see your point.
Counterpunch --
You got it.
I think (hope) Rove will drop this for the debate. I shudder to think what Kerry will spin if W tries to put the "nuisance" comment on the table.
W needs a clear, focussed message that doesn't invite counter-attack.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.