The Free Republic Grassroots Campaign Thread

Vanity | 2/18/04 | Jonboy

[jonboy]

I'll be honest. I think Free Republic has some of the finest political minds available. We Know that Rush lurks here as well as Hannity, Mark Levin and others of their ilk. I thought it might be good if we formed a thread that plotted actual strategery, and actually listed different ideas for radio and TV ad spots for both President Bush and the GOP. After the thread is deemed complete we can send it in to the powers that be and see if we can bring the Democrat nominee down a few notches. Will leave the lying to them, we'll just tell the truth.

[jonboy]

POSSIBLE campaign commercial for President Bush:

Several prominent Democratic critics, President and Senator Clinton, as well as Republicans (to keep it Bi-Partisan) are shown making comments about Iraq being an immediate threat due to WMD. Also pundits and newspapers are shown doing the same thing. After showing all of these you see President Bush. He asks simply, "Was I wrong about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction?" "Possibly, however, we are still looking. If I was wrong though, we all were."

[cripplecreek]

One good strategy would be for republicans to start standing up for themselves. No more bending over on the judicial nominations and the president needs to learn to use that VETO stamp to slash spending.

[NonValueAdded]

Will leave the lying to them, we'll just tell the truth.

Clarify please. I'll assume you mean the democRATs doing the lying. There is no place (or need) for lying in the Bush campaign. Further, I don't believe he would stand for it.

A nice ad campaign would be a kerry v. kerry debate (as others have suggested) showing him looking right making claim a then lookling left making opposite claim, then looking at camera claiming honesty.

Like I said, we don't need to lie. Kerry will do enough of that for us.

[jonboy]

Them is DEM! Sorry, LOL, I thought that HAD to be obvious.

[RebelBanker]

Although a lot of great conservative thinkers do at least lurk here, so do a lot of trolls and/or spies for the other side. We would be foolish to telegraph our punches by posting future ads on an open forum like Free Republic. That would only serve to tip off the Dems so they could prepare counter-attacks.

However, I will admit that trying to brainstorm ideas for ads for the President sounds like fun.

[apackof2]

We Know that Rush lurks here as well as Hannity, Mark Levin and others of their ilk.

But does Karl Rove?

[Mr.Atos]

I'd like to see Kerry's contemporary comments about President Bush and Iraq, paired with his Congressional statements about President Nixon and Vietnam as aired by "The Hammer" yesterday.

New Threat, same Kerry.

New Enemy, same Kerry.

New Generation, same Kerry.

New Era, same Kerry... same judgement... same error.

Vote Right! What's Left is Wrong!

[GraniteStateConservative]

The problem is that Bush believed it enough to strike Iraq in March 2003 with the meager coalition we had (yes, there were many nation, but not many troops). Bush has to explain why he was so sure that it made sense to first attack Iraq and risk the destabilization of that area among other risks like causing schisms with our war-against-al Qaeda coalition. Why not Syria first? Why not March 2004? Does he have good answers for those questions?

[NonValueAdded]

Obvious to most of FR but there is a lot of troll activity lately. It pays to be explicit and not leave something open to misinterpretation, like that we're all signing up for ads that lie or something. Thanks for clarifying and FReep on!

[jonboy]

Where was he when it was his time to serve? He couldn't be found. He was missing and unaccounted for on multiple occasions. Now, in a time of war, he wants to be elected again anyway. Why should such neglect be rewarded? The people of Massachusetts deserved better than the in excess of 300 missed votes by Senator John Kerry totaling more than 64% of all total votes. The American people can't afford an AWOL president in times like these. Vote for George Bush in November.

[GraniteStateConservative]

I wish we could just modify posts.

Anyway, I forgot to add that it's a question of threshold when it comes to this question of whether Iraq had WMD. There was intelligence on both sides of the debate regarding WMD. So, do you proceed cautiously or quickly? None of the people in your ad decided to pull the trigger on going to war-- even the ones who voted for the Iraq war resolution. I've heard the Dem arguments and they have not been answered by Bush. I'm sure a lot of independents have the same questions. Why not have a broad military coalition surrounding Iraq, forcing full acceptance of inspectors perpetually? It would strike some as ridiculous, but it is a legitimate option different from going to war, and he hasn't said why that was not an option he went with. He explained his stem cell decision much better than going to war with Iraq.

[WVNan]

Always always use their own words against them. With Kerry it should be easy. Plenty of tape out there, and the Congressional Record.

[NonValueAdded]

The problem is that Bush believed it enough to strike Iraq in March 2003 with the meager coalition we had (yes, there were many nation, but not many troops). Bush has to explain why he was so sure that it made sense to first attack Iraq and risk the destabilization of that area among other risks like causing schisms with our war-against-al Qaeda coalition. Why not Syria first? Why not March 2004? Does he have good answers for those questions?

What a softball question. First, the area was already destabilized with the Butcher of Baghdad and all his oil money ready to destabilize it further.

Why not wait until 3/2004? Why let him have another year to become an imminent threat? Read the post-911 speeches. By the time the guy becomes imminent, it is too late or the cost is way too high. Look at North Korea. Clinton let them become imminent. Whatever you do, the risk of a nuke getting popped is high. Why wait and let Saddam get into the same position?

Why not Syria first? Iraq was a bigger threat, a known problem, all the UN resolutions, etc. By dealing with Iraq you show the other nations like Syria and Libya what is in store if they don't shape up. You fight Iraq so you don't have to fight the others. Just ask Quadaffi (I don't care if it's spelled wrong).

Why a small coalition? First off, it was a chance to get everyone on record as "with us or against us" Second, and this isn't really mentioned much if at all, we went with a small force in case WMD were used. The size of the force shows we DID believe he had some and would use them. Sure, it would be better politically if Saddam gassed soldiers from many more nations, but not better morally. GWB knows the difference and chose the moral route. Also, the larger the coalition, the more chances of a leak, the more 3rd world primadonna generals want a piece of the action (see French army in Gulf War 1), the more checking back with the respective govt's takes place, etc. The one fault I have with the way GW2 was prosecuted is we waited too long to go in and our troops had to deal with the hotter weather. We gave one too many chances to Saddam and the CESM (cheese eating surrender monkeys) and had to overcome internal qualms (SecState?). Time was our enemy and if the WMD were hidden / moved elsewhere, we gave Saddam a few extra months to do it.

As to the al-qaeda question, what country was a better asylum for alQ after Afghanistan? Answer, Iraq. At a minimum there were informal ties in place and today's capture simply underscores our success. Let the fighters flock to Iraq do be taken out by America's finest. Where else would you rather have that occur?

My grade for the operation is a B+ with points off for waiting too long.

[cricket]

"A nice ad campaign would be a kerry v. kerry debate (as others have suggested) showing him looking right making claim a then lookling left making opposite claim, then looking at camera claiming honesty."

Great idea. . .Do different ads on various Kerry opinings. . .so to speak. Some would require a four/spit screen.

What he tells 'southerners'. . .Hollywood. . .the Unions. . .and of course, his 'home folks'". . .and then there are those poll-driven flip-flops. . .

[mhking]

Call me after the GOP gets off of it's collective knees.

[cricket]

p.s.. . .if these folks ARE here; then they will see the thread. Think that is a better approach than 'sending' it along to whomever. Say that only because; don't think these people care about having ideas comning from the 'outside'; so to speak. Might be better, just coming quietly. . .from within.

Have worked on campaigns and great ideas were traded around - NO ONE in Washington was interested in the least, in what was being offered in the 'hinterlands' (anywhere outside the Beltway)

If that should be the case; maybe we could just do our own. . .take the best ideas; and let someone do graphics; we all copy and share. . .

Or. . .do a 'Moveon.org' type campaign.

[PRND21]

Play the video of President Bush speaking to the police and firemen at ground zero.
"Well, we hear you..." Over and over and over...

[cricket]

"Them is DEM! Sorry, LOL, I thought that HAD to be obvious."

LOL. . .thought it had to be as well :^)

[cricket]

"Call me after the GOP gets off of it's collective knees."

. . .my knees hurt just watching it all!

[Landru]

How about 30 secs of actual footage of the 1st jetliner slamming into the WTC TT#1 & a question dryly asking, "What would you have done?"

Then shortly after the 2nd jetliner slams into WTC#2, the voice says.

..."Now think about what he did."