Thanks!
Even if he said, "As a former great statesman once said, there you go again".
I'm not a professional debater so I don't know if it's considered appropriate or effective but it sounds good to me.
Bye the bye jm, the as you know the debate's tomorrow so...get it out quick!!!
Beyond the gist of your excellent article, that is basically the contradiction inherent in Kerry's whole campaign.
HE can only attack, because his base instincts, and positions are reflexively liberal. Not that there is anything wrong with that...lol. However, The American People, wisely IMHO, reject anything with the Liberal Label On it.
Which is now the attack thrust for the Final March of the BC04 campaign.
"When Kerry plays defensive, he is ineffective and unlikable."
Very good advice in this post! And good luck getting it published online.
Combined
:)
Bump for an excellent article!
Of course this cannot be mentioned, but what soldier wants a traitor for commander in chief?
I would like Bush to put Kerry down with something like, "Talk is cheap." Also, although Debate #3 is about domestic issues, Bush should look for an opportunity to mention Kerry's vote on the 1991 Gulf War. If Kerry had his way, Saddam would still be in power and in Kuwait. Kerry's failure to authorize military force despite the fact that, (1) Saddam invaded and took over a country vital to the world's economy,(2)the UN authorized force to oust Saddam, and (3)we had a large coalition including many countries in the Middle East is a damning indictment of what Kerry would do in the WOT.
Great advice jmstein7! If you don't mind I will paste this on some emails and send them to a list of people I email almost weekly in the Bush campaign. I don't know that anyone ever reads what I send them but I just feel it's better to do something than nothing. I'm gonna go ahead and spend my morning sending this out to a bunch of Bush people and Peggy Noonan. Actually, you might want to contact her because she does have a direct line with the top people in the Bush campaign. I hope and pray that your editorial gets published in a lot of places today.
Bush's best tactic has always been to get Kerry to lose his temper. An angry Kerry is a horror show of scowling, red-faced, finger-shaking ugliness. It is to Bush's discredit that he hasn't yet made the real Kerry come out during a debate.
Over the past year you have posted a number of very sensible and insightful comments on the political situation. They strike me a showing profession competence and good political sense.
This is another instance of that good sense. Kerry needs to be hammered on his liberalism and he needs to be prodded and poked on his sensitive skin. For months he has been shouting, "Bring it on!" yet every time anyone brings it on he has revealed a very thin skin and quick temper.
His handlers will have warned and prepared him for this, but I don't think he has any plausible way to counter it.
If you are trying to get this message to President Bush, edit it severely, like to two paragraphs. He and his people don't have time to read this much copy and they already know the background of the best way to engage in verbal combat. President Bush is great at verbal jujitsu and he knows "The Art of War."
To add, President Bush can also say, "I have a plan and its working." "From what little we know of your plan, its the same one used for eight years by Clinton, and we can all see what that "sensitive plan" led to, which was 9/11.
Anything less will put lives in danger. Anything less will threaten economic growth. Anything less with threaten the very foundation of our country. Hiring a critic to lead the free world would be a critical mistake. If Kerry wants to be a critic, he can join the editorial board of the New York Times. If he wants to become President, he must demonstrate that he can lead. He can't!
Just a small change in wording to give it more '2-birds-with-one-stone' punch, excellent, sir!
BUMP
"I have a Plan". His plan is to ridicule the pres, and claim to have a plan, but not tell anyone what it is til he's elected? The American people need to demand to know what his plan is. My guess is he is just on a I have a plan power trip, and has nothing going on between those ears that is ever going to solve anything.
Bush can disable Kerry on Taxes and put him totally on the defensive. Kerry will say he is only going to tax the rich. Bush should respond with...
"In 1993 John Kerry cast the deciding vote on the largest tax increase in the history of the United States. He raised taxes on EVERYONE. He even taxed your social security. That's right, your social security.
The really amazing part is that he will tell you that he is proud of that vote. Oh, he will try to explain it as it did this or it did that. He can try to frame it in a positive light. The thing you need to remember, the next time Senator Kerry talks about raising taxes, is that he was the man that passed the largest tax increase in US history and he was PROUD of it.
The largest tax increase in United States history and he was proud of it."
Add a pregnant pause...
"And he was proud of it!"
Excellent post. I am confident that the President will be most effective at Wednesdays debate.
Good for you. Similar point to what Rush was making yesterday on his show. Rush reeled off all of John Kerry's quotes including the word 'but'. That wasn't as impressive by itself until Rush reminded listeners just what the word 'but' means. If George Bush were to start off by reminding the audience of Kerry's tendency to preface all his statements and what the word 'but' actually infers, it would leave Kerry virtually speechless. The audience will spend the entire night listening for the word and not paying attention to what Kerry is actually saying (not that it should matter...).
In watching debate number 2 it was quite evident that Kerry did not like being called a Liberal. Calling him a liberal early and often causes Kerry to respond about 'labels' and gets him off stride.