Bush Strategy: Lead with your Chin? (VANITY-ish)

My febrile mind | February 3, 2004 | Daniel J. Phillips (BibChr)

[StriperSniper]

now, he's ranckled their chains.

Tonight on Mark Levin's show a firefighter called and said that he was glad that it was shown because it was important. He said that the firehouse has Rush, then Sean, then Mark on everyday and they are onboard, don't worry.(That is in NYC.)

[delapaz]

I dont know if they saw it coming or not. But the Democrats are screaming bloody murder because they know it is such a strong card to play. They would love to raise a big enough outcry so that 9/11 was taken off the table entirely. The outrage is entirely faked.

If the Bush strategists saw it coming, then they might have included the images on purpose. In effect this would be a shot across the bow, a message saying, Yes 9/11 will be an issue in this campaign and you'd better get used to it.

9/11 was a traumatic event that led to real policy consequences for America, How can we debate the issues if we can't talk about the event that triggered it?

[Torie]

I think the best approach is for Bush to distance himself from Perle and Wolfowitz

Bush likes neocons, and neocons like Bush. Almost all of us have made up our minds to support Bush I suspect. Bush has it right on the the big issues that really matter. We are not going to be deflected by the garbage stuff.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Think about it this way if you will; President Bush runs a decent, patriotic ad that shows nothing but total respect for the victims of 9/11 which he is very much a part of as our Comander in Chief.

The Leftists whine and cry about how "uncalled for" it was, and the media focuses on their comments. The layman who never saw the ads, gets curious to see how terrible the President is according to the medias spin. The layman sees the ads for him/her self and wonders where the heinousness of the Presidents actions went, certainly not in this nicely done non-negtative ad. The Media loses credibility and causes more people to question their honesty as a result.

The President also gets free advertising and is put back into the peoples minds as the good and moral man he truly is. The Democrats and the media are also labeled as being in bed together and people become angry with the double standards, the negativity and the dishonesty of both.

(Watch the Presidents poll numbers to come back up steadily with a heavy spike in September on the anniversary of 9/11.)

[BibChr]

I don't expect my rants to be studied closely, but I think if you read me again you'd not see me saying they were being apologetic, but expressing the fear that, in light of the past, and in view of an aggressive supporting campaign, this is what they would again do.

See?

Still, nobody's answered my question: where is the good guys' Carville, Stepalloverus, Begala?

We need three each Karen Hugheses and Ari Fleischers, all over the place.

Dan

[BibChr]

Thanks, I hope you're right.

But I think I'll "relax" (some) when Bush wins by double-digits, and we increase control of Congress.

And a touch more seriously, I'd relax more if I saw the same all-out aggressiveness that The Nameless One showed in his evil campaign, '90.

Dan
(c8

[BibChr]

I hope you're right, and you may very well be. My point is just... are you old enough to have been interested during the elder Bush's campaign against The Nameless One? They'd make a point or two, get pummelled, draw back.

And you'd think, "America can't be buying this!" And you'd hope common sense would reign.

But it didn't. And part of it was that The Nameless One's defenders were ALL OVER the media, making sure his viewpoint was dominant.

I can't offhand think of ONE GOP campaign that's done that --- including Bush 2000. And you remember how that turned out.

I don't want another close one. I don't want another "squeaker." I want a thunderous victory that (like Schwarzenegger's here in CA) gives Bush a mandate.

Dan

[Question King]

I thought personal attacks were anathema to this website. Apparently you chose to disregard this. My point, if your skull can absorb another's position (I'm not asking you to agree with me), is Perle and Wolfowitz are people loathed by moderated conservatives for their "think tank" view of the US position in creating World order. The President's position need not change, but he stands a stronger chance of re-election by dumping these guys. Reagan shuffled the deck in his second term. A friend of mine in Islamabad, Pakistan says that even defense contractors like Stratfor believe PNAC is damaging to the geo-political and military objectives of the administration. Even the Cato Institute echoes this. As for the add campaign, there is nothing obscene about it, but firefighters unions are taking issue with it. Let that station in NY who support the adds get some PR time. See, you should read more and listen to talk radio slightly less, then you might be able to see the whole picture and not wish to use ad hominem on fellow website participants.

[Question King]

Really? Call the guys at the Cato Institute and see what there Middle East experts have to say about PNAC, Wolfowitz, Perle, and the notion of pre-emptive war. Also, the boys at Stratfor (quasi-CIA defense operatives) don't believe the plans of these two are effective in dealing with the situations and enemies at hand. If I'm in the Kookburger weeds, I'm in good company and more covert and effective than Wolfy and Perly. Read more man.

[MrB]

An enraged enemy will make more mistakes.

They need to be subtly poked, more and more.

[Question King]

Agreed he is not trying to exploit the families or victims of the tragedy...however, he is exploiting the issue, and "so what"? This is politics. I hope he gets a better bead on solutions for the deficit, economy and unemployment. He needs to provide substance to woo back the middle ground folk who are hemming and hawing right now. I'm sure he'll have some form of "October Surprise" but he truly needs to strongly address the three issues of the day.

[Question King]

Yes the union of Firefighters and Police support Kerry, but the individual Firefighters and Police generally support Bush, Republicans and Conservatives. However, if you remember the dust up between the firefighters and NYC police shortly after September 11th because the city wanted to stop the search, you see the beginnings of opposition in certain areas. Nationwide I don't believe this is true of these civil servants. Just because the union votes Dem doesn't mean the rest of the people are in lock-step. The union has politicized the commercials to support Kerry, but even moderates of these groups are raising objections.

[Stentor]

My point, if your skull can absorb another's position

I've been around here long enough to know what's being said. When challenged, those like yourself are at your most eloquent in achieving victim status. I know what you are up to. You just think we're all too dumb around here to notice.

[weegee]

The police and fire departments booed Queen Hillary at the Concert for NYC after 9.11.

Viacom edited the broadcast to dub in cheers in place of those boos. Even the DVD has this misrepresentation of historical fact.

Then again, FReepers already know about Hillary's use of Union thugs as her goon squad who are perfectly willing to rough up a crowd of protesters.

[Question King]

By the way, it really isn't much of a challenge to refer to someone as being "bullcrapped", or that they don't know a whole lot, when you begin to phrase a question but finish it with a statement. I would be impressed if you cited some information which indicated that most firefighters were supportive of the president to dispel this myth that just because the union endorses Kerry, fireman are going to vote for Kerry. Not necessarily true. I don't know if you are aware of this, but much of what we here on talk radio, just like the press, isn't necessarily true, too. If you read carefully, I haven't expressed victim-status in any of my notes, I just feel intelligence is noted when comments are supported by facts, not name calling.