[Southack]

"Interesting opinion here."

Perhaps, but it also reeks of "setup."

Oh, "Kerry's having an affair." Not.
Oh, "Kerry's medals were scammed." Not.
Oh, "Insert wild goose chase here." Not.

Look, Kerry is an uber-liberal New England perfumed prince son of priviledge.

He's so pro-gay that he can claim to be "anti-gay-marriage" and the Gay Lobby just winks, laughs, and sends him more money.

He's so enviromental that he can tell Union boss Hoffa, Jr. that he is all for drilling as many oil wells in Alaska as possible, and the Greens just laugh, wink, and send him more campaign ca$h.

He's so anti-war that he can vote *for* our invasion of Iraq and the peaceniks just laugh, wink, and send him more money. In short, Kerry's public record cements in most red and blue state voters against and for him.

...but none of that puts him into the White House. All that does is re-win for him in 2004 the states that Gore won in 2000.

And that means that he *loses* in 2004 just like Gore lost in 2000.

So what Kerry needs is to be seen as a victim. It needs to appear as though the great right wing is being unfair to him. It needs to be so unfair in appearance that independent voters in enough states give him the sympathy vote.

And I'm very leary of all of these anti-Kerry "non-scandals" that seem to be appearing first from known rats such as the non-afair rumour from Wesley Clark's aide.

Let me be frank about this matter: even if true, these rumors and scandals do us Pubbies no good. The Gore-2000 states aren't going to be turned off by such things (at least, not if they apply to their guy).

So there is No "upside" to pursuing such filth.

On the other hand, if we get caught hyping a planted, scandalous rumor that turns out to be untrue, then there is an enormous downside risk to us in that a sympathy vote could be generated for Kerry.

So enough of the tabloid chasing, people. These matters can only burn us.

[Howlin]

Duly chastised, sir! And, of course, you're right.

[Southack]

c#93

[MEG33]

I agree that it could backfire ...really turn people off.

Kerry has so much that can be used against him..His very liberal anti national security,anti tax cut liberal voting record is plenty,although I really hold his betrayal of his comrades in arms against him personally.

[sarasmom]

I understand your point, but I do not totally agree with you.
The "intern" problem is sleasy muckraking, and I dont think people should rush to jump on that bandwagon untill and unless some actual proof, like the supposed video interview is made public.
Kerry's unusual war record, and his subsequent activities as an anti-war activist are legitimate issues that deserve full court press.
I do agree holding fire untill the he is actually nominated would normally be the correct thing to do.
Except now we have the new CFR rules to deal with.
And the neverending daily installments of Media instigated sniper attacks on President Bush.
Information management is no longer something politicians and the press can controll and manipulate.
God bless the internet!
Knowledge is power, and its long past time the actual majority of citizens of this country reclaim our power, and step up to the plate to accept our individual duty to use it wisely.
The pendulum is is motion, and the tyranny of the minority is about to feel an overdue backlash.

[michaelt]

Bump to what you said.

[Vigilantcitizen]

I would hate to go against you in a game of chess.

[Southack]

So, has everyone noticed that this "scandal" died as soon as the news media figured out that the elected Pubbies weren't taking the bait?!

Just a reminder to review post #93 on this thread so that we all remember the many ways that our opponents are trying to scam us; especially by planting false or exagerated "scandals" in the hopes that they'll catch *us* repeating such nonsense.