he will need botox too:
Posted on 08/01/2004 5:24:36 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
Newt just destroyed Kerry's credibility over his "amnesia" about his long record as a liberal.
That adoring gaze of Edwards was so creepy. I really believe they are in love.
I don't know the origin but it's bee widely quoted on this thread.
I caught some of that, thank God for Newt, he is a real genius.
Newt has been on TV a lot lately and he's been magnificent.
WTH has been up w/ MORT lately.......he seems more and more PRO-Kerry.
He just said Bush hasn't put anything new out there for his next term..........did he miss Bush's proposal on " comp-time and flex-time"??
Don't say that when I have my mouth full of iced tea!! :) too funny. :)
PS: I'm a wuss too..I'm only reading the FR thread..can't stomach TV
He's looking for an excuse to be 'won over'.
Mort just had his moment on FNC Sunday he chimed in about how we need someone in CIA who reallly knows his shi... inlcuding the spy business.Good stuff.
Lets consider the strategies being used by the Kerry camp. They Kerry Kampers (or is that adult pampers) know from polls and focus groups that the economy is not a good issue for them. The economy is good and no amount of Media saying it isn't is going to scare the guys at the plant.
People get scared when they fear layoffs. When people are being hired.. even if only a few are being hired .... the workers do not fear lay off. The workers think, they are not going to lay me off... they are hiring people. No media reporting gloom and doom can change that. The workers know better.
That leaves Iraq. The problem is that there has never been a time in American history when cut and run was a good political tactic. It ain't our style. Kerry is well aware that Nixon in 1972 running against an anti war McGovern won the second biggest victory of the 20th century. Only FDR in 1936 bested the Nixon victory by a fraction of a percentage point. So Kerry can't campaign on cut and run. It does not work and he knows it.
What is to be done for Kandidate Kerry? He can play the "I can do anything better than you!" game with Dubya and hope voters believe him. He appears to be trying that ploy. That ploy can reach the centrist voters. But "I have a secret plan", is a bad strategy if it is challenged by President Bush.
What Dubya will likely do is demand that Kerry reveal his plan. Dubya will just say that if Kerry has a good plan, I will immediately put Kerry's plan into effect. Bush could say "Why should More Americans die waiting for Feb. of next year or even never if I win." "If the Kerry plan will work, let's do it now!!" Bush can say, "If you don't think I can accomplish your plan, I will have you accomplish it Senator Kerry." "I don't want Americans to die if your secret plan can work." That puts Kerry in a world of hurt. His bluff will have been called with President Bush in total control. Kerry wouild be on the spot and at the mercy of the Bush Administration.
If Kerry refuses he is toast. If he reveals his plan to be not much different than what Bush is now doing, Kerry is in a world of hurt. If the Kerry plan is to suck up to the French, Bush can destroy him with Kerry own plan being a surrender to Europe. If it is a good plan and Bush does it an it works, then Iraq is off the table and the booming economy is back on. If it worked no matter how much Kerry tried take credit Bush would get a bigger bounce for puttin the nation ahead of politics. It is a lose-lose situation for Kerry.
When Ike used a secret plan in 1952, all Stevenson had to do was demand that Truman send Ike to Korea to end the conflict BEFORE the election. Ike under pressure about his secret plan said he would personally go to Korea and do that it took to end the conflict. Stevenson should have said, "Why should Americans die while waiting.. Solve it now before the election, General Ike." Stevenson should have called on Truman to sent Ike to Korea. The North Koreans who did not want Ike to be president would have made sure Ike failed. It could have elected Stevenson.
The same is true of Nixon in 1968. HHH could have demanded that LBJ send Nixon go to Vietnam to end the war. HHH should have demanded that Nixon produce peace with honor BEFORE the election. Nixon could not have done that either and HHH might very well have won the election. The president is in charge there is no way for the challenger to succeed if the president calls his bluff.
I mentioned the Dewey economy fix in 1948 in an earlier post. Truman called Dewey's buff and Dewey the sure thing lost to Truman the certain loser.
One thing is clear to me. Dubya or someone close to him knows history. Not just what happened, but the strategies used .. what worked and what failed in similar situations. Why it worked and how it could have been defeated.
Time after time George W. Bush has pulled a rabbit out of his hat and turned the tables. Time after time I have been blindsided by his moves. President Bush tends to do brilliant things that people like me can not anticipate. But if president Bush does not follow my take, it is because he had come up with a better strategy than has occured to me.
I think Kerry believes he can just keep stonewalling. The media will make a half-hearted try and then drop the subject. But Bush has a ton of paid media to run. The media can't take it off the table.
The Republicans and the media in 1948 tried to tar Truman with the "Truman is making nasty and unjustified attacks on Dewey" act. Truman turned that into,"Dewey and the press are accusing me of giving Dewey Hell." "I just tell the truth on Dewey and they think it's Hell" Soon crowds at every stop interrupted every Truman speech with chants of "Give'em Hell Harry. Give'em Hell."
When the press asked Truman about his negative attacks, He said if Dewey can't stand the heat he should get out of the Kitchen. Truman took a media attach on him being mean spirited and turned it into a Dewey is a wimp ploy. It worked.
Kerry is taking gambling shots. Shots with little chance of success. It may be lack of political skill, but more likely they have decided that take have to take the log odds shots. They are not likely to work. But they might as well try them.
Does the Kerry camp knows they are in trouble? They are taking long shots. That is good evidence about how they see the race shaping up.
Another enjoyable read, Tator. The only thing I wonder about is that society is much softer than in 1948. Seems to me there could be a much larger sympathy factor if a Dimbulb candidate is seen as being unjustly attacked (for Republican's, it doesn't matter of course, as we've seen for months and months with the constant barrage against Bush). So what worked then, might not be so effective now because we are much more of a nation of "feelings" and not of thinking.
??
Prairie
It was this morning on Fox. He said it again later. I think it was in the interview with Stephanopolous. I expect tape is available. We'll just have to elect him to find out what the secret plan is, but Edwards assures us he is ok with it.
Natch, CT, you know all about Karl Rove. By this time, he has taken apart Kerry's speech. Rove knows exactly what he's doing here, and Kerry and his people will be taken by surprise, of that I'm sure.
In addition, Kerry has made a huge strategic blunder in ressurecting the "Secret Plan" strategy of 1968. Kerry is not Nixon. Nixon probably already had the outlines of Vietnamization in his head. Nixon wouldn't have been stupid enough to give HHH that kind of rope, and could have dazzled the nation with details while befuddling them with bullsh#t long enough to get past November. Nixon had Kissinger at his side, with Rocky's blessing, as well. Kerry has, well, Rand Beers and Richard Holbrooke.
You do the math.
I get the impression that this week's results in Gallup (Bush up four among likelies, and only a four point plus bounce in Newsweek) give Bush the impression that he can go to the country and beat John Freaking into the ground. For the first time since Saddam was caught, I feel a strategic opening in the terrain for Bush.
Finally, Kerry is a victim of timing. The jihadists are in the background, the silent voter in this election. Their very existence reinforces the notion that America is at war. That plays to Bush's strengths of decisiveness and sure-handedness.
You point to Bush's knack for pulling rabbits out of the hat. I say that he does this because he is patient, and he knows how to wait. Compare this to Bush the Elder's hapless campaign in 1992. Bush is successful because he lets the enemy advance across a terrain of his choosing (the war), and then waits until the enemy has overextended himself. Bush doesn't attack, he counterattacks.
Time and again, Bush reminds me of Erich von Manstein, who believed in mobile defensive operations. His most brilliant counterstroke was known as the "Third Battle of Kharkov".
The Red Army had advanced, fresh from its victory at Stalingrad. They had Army Group South on the run. Just as the Russians were about to advance deep into the Ukraine, Manstein sprung his trap:
The Germans had retreated to that start line you see there; the Russians had advanced that far. Manstein's offensive began while the Russian offensive was underway, taking advantage of the forward momentum of the Sixty Ninth and Sixty Second armies. The Germans flanked the two armies and drove around them, displacing them and capturing thousands of Russian soldiers. An SS Panzer Corps took Kharkov itself; the city was littered with abandoned T-34-76 tanks. The Russians never knew what hit them.
Kerry is in the position of the hapless commanders of the 69th and 62nd Armies. Lucky for him, he doesn't have to answer to Uncle Joe. He doesn't know the terrain he has so confidently advanced into is of Bush's choosing. He's listening to Bob Shrum and the rest tell him about the President's reelect numbers. He doesn't realize that the terrain under his feet is shifting.
John Kerry doesn't hear metaphorical German tanks off in the distance; because, as CT has pointed out time and again, he keeps his own counsel to excess. He really believes he's the smartest man in the room. It will be his undoing.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
The only thing I wonder about is that society is much softer than in 1948. Seems to me there could be a much larger sympathy factor if a Dimbulb candidate is seen as being unjustly attacked (for Republican's, it doesn't matter of course,
Let us consider that. Does the average person discriminate against Republicans? Could it just be the media trying to convince you that one dare not attack a Democrat while attacking Republicans is just fine.
Don't you think that who can and can't be attacked has a lot more to do with the bias of the media than what the public will tolerate?
Lets go back to 1948. Most papers in the nation were in the hands of Republicans. RCA which owned both NBC and ABC and was staunchly Republican. ABC AND NBC started out as NBC.. they were the red and blue NBC networks. They outnumbered slightely more liberal CBS 2 ot 1. But CBS was a long way from being leftist.
NBC was the dominate networks and its top Anchor, H.V. Kaltenborn, hated Democrats and infected roaches equally. Well maybe he did like infected roaches a bit better. H.V. could say Harry S. Truman and you were certain he said "NO GOOD S.O.B." with out the abreviations.
The top news weeklies were Time and Life magazines. They had huge circulations in the days before TV. Life was mostly pictures of news events and Time was news and commentary. They were owned by Henry Luce. Luce and his Wife Clara Booth Luce (for a while a Republican congresswoman from New York) made Rush look like a flaming liberal.
Truman referred to Henry Luce and his wife as "Arsenic and Old Luce." Truman made a speech in that campaign where he attacked the media bias.
I don't remember the exact words but this is close. It was the transcript of an H.V. Kaltenborn newscast on NBC. It reached scores of millions.
Today Truman is headed for a get away hide out in South Florida. There Truman is going to hold a sessions hidden from public view. Truman and his cronies are to to plot ways to take this election from Republican front runner Governor Thomas E. Dewey. Observers think Truman is becoming evermore desperate and has stooped to engaging in harsh personal attacks on his opponent. No one thinks Trumans mud slinging tactics will work.
In other news
Republican front runner Thomas E. Dewey has returned to his New York home were trusted advisers and elected government leaders are to brief him on the best ways to solve the problems our nation faces. Dewey is expected to present those plans on how best to fix the economy and international problems to the American people next week. Governor Dewey has conducted a principles and courteous campaign. The same can not be said for Harry S. Truman.
There wasn't any bias in the media back then... was there?
Truman was over and over again referred to as a former failed Haberdasher. Trumans mens clothing store went out of business during the depression. After being a senator, Vice President and president he was still a failed haberdasher.
Consider that Len Hall who was Eisenhower's press secretary left the Eisenhower White House to take the job of President of ABC News.
The leftists first took over CBS and by 1964 were in total control of the media. But that was not true in the 40s and 50's
In 1948 over 2/3 of the newspapers endorsed the Republican candidate. In 1943 Roosevelt was so angry at radio,he had a law passed making it illegal for Radio stations to editorialize.
The media was just as ineffective when it was biased right wing as it is now that it is biased left wing. Would you believe the Washington Post was once a Republican paper?
I spent decades in the media. Media people like to tell you how effective they are.. but the dirty little secret is they are not. They try to preclude their opponents from doing what is effective. I tried for many years to control voters and elections in the counties where I owned radio stations. I was rarely successful.
Truman proved a candidate could do what is effective and kick the media's rump in the process.
I used to be strong believer that human nature changed over time I believed that evolution was true and people were getting kinder and gentler and more opposed to hard fighting.
Then I decided to really analyse Christianity to prove it was garbage... That did not go as planned I got converted to Christianity instead. I believed in God but fought Him for decades. I wanted to be in control... Finally .... at long last .... I surrendered my will to God. I guess you could say the tator got peeled.
I don't know much... but one thing I do know. If it worked on Adam and Eve it will work on you an I.
I could not agree with you more.
You point out some things I missed. They ring very true.
I agree with you on the counter attack analysis. It is a tactic used by the great fighter pilots. If is the theory that deception can cause a less skilled or trained enemy fighter to fly into your sights. When he does all that is needed is to pull the trigger. The only difference is I see Chuck Yeager laid back, cool, and playing possem as they flew into his sightes and he shot 'em down. Chuck made it look so very easy. So does dubya.
Most likely Dubya studied both German Generals and Amerian Aces.
The "secret plan" codswaddle from Kerry is the heigth of hypocrisy.
If he can sit there and say "I can fix it, I can do it better, I can make it work," then it is his obligation to the country and our servicemen to tell us how NOW, rather than wait for reasons of political expediency while even a single soldier dies.
To sit there and effectively say "I will only tell you if you elect me" smacks of "It is my ball, and if I can't play, I am going home and taking it with me."
What a childish putz.
The President has to call him out on this.
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.