Dreadsox Campaign Advice

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Dreadsox

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
10,885
I am completely amazed that this election has spent more time on these too men's Vietnam era service to the country.

#1 It has come up when GW ran for Governor.
#2 It came up when he ran for President.

Please note, that he won both elections. In other words, he was elected Governor of one of the largest states and President of the country and this issue did not sink his candidacy.

The fact that Kerry's campaign continues to take the bait and respond to these allegations and then attack Bush's service amazes me. It is a failed tactic. Bush defeated McCain a solid Veteran, and the Rove Machine defeated Max Cleland another solid Vet. Yet the Democratic pary continues to NOT realize that this is EXACTLY the issue the republicans wanted. It is a mistake and their guy is going to lose if he continues to do battle over this issue.

the American public is NOT going to unseat a sitting president during a time of war in a cmapaign filled with mudslinging. Look at the history of this country. It does not happen.

A campaign of issues would help. I am amazed that I have not ONCE heard the topic of the Supreme Court come up. Not a single time!

Education? Where is it? Where is this issue on the radar.

Where is the talk about Iran, S. Korea.....

Or

Better yet.....why aren't the democrats attacking about the war. I am sorry. I have tried to have an open mind. On my children I wanted options and choices for a vote. I have heard Kerry three times since I "retired" from posting. He HAS NOT clearly defined himself on this issue. Saying I cannot make it any clearer does not make it so. On one show he said going in was the right thing to do. On Imus he said it was the wrong thing to do. He is trying to defend his vote, which was illogical based on the fact he did not support the first gulf war.

John here is what you do.

#1 I should never have authorized the use of force because I did not realize the President was going to act without the UN's full support.

#2 The president did not make a coalition that would share the burden of rebuilding Iraq.

#3 Your sons and daughters are dying because of this blunder.

#4 We CANNOT go back in time and fix this, but we can move forward by allowing other countries to come in a share equally in the burden of rebuiling. Instead, the president has chosen to go it alone by giving a majority of the contracts to American countries.

#5 You cannot say it enough. Bring up Mission Accompllished and the fact that Americans have been dying for NO reason! None, because the second we did not have WMD, we should have begun leaving. The US army is NOT a social charity. The army is designed to break, kill, destroy. It is not a humanitarian organization. If it were, we would not win any wars. If the Mission is accomplished why are our young men coming home limbless or even lifeless. It is because we are fronting more than 90% of this coalitions operations due to the FAILED policies of this commander in chief.

Mission accomplished John Say it again and again!!!!! There have been more dead American soldiers since your convention than died in the entire war! Say it John!!!!!! 1,000 dead soldiers,,,at least the first 150 died for a cause. Say that you support the search for WMD. But we are not doing than since the MISSION WAS ACCOMPLISHED. We are playing target practice.

#6 Our own intelligence says there IS GOING to be a Civil War. Get the troops out now. There is NOTHING the Unitesd States can do to prevent a civil war here other than install another Despot. These people have hated each other for thousands of years.

John, there is one war I and a majority of the world care about, it is the current one.
 
Last edited:
Gee, Dread, you are a voice of reason! :ohmy:

That's not what is happening now.
Then again, it might be wise, because from the other side of the ocean this campaign does look like a severe case of mudslinging.

C ya!

Marty
 
I agree with Dread, he is not going to win as Bush-lite, if he goes down he may as well go down in a blaze of glory or else be doomed as one more indecisive political opponent.
 
Gay MArriage John! Stop talking out both sides of your mouth.

Say how your opponents wish to change the constitution! The constitution. How many times have we done that? John, have we changed it to discriminate or should the constitution be changed for a more NOBLE CAUSE? That makes you different from your opponent.

Say I oppose it, but more importantly you oppose trying to use the constitution as a weapon against your own citizens. That the federal constitution should stand for something not against its own people.
 
John please, on education, talk about the funding!!!!!! Damn it talk about NCLB.

How rediculous is it John that teachers are expeted to have all of the children including SPECIAL NEEDS pass this test by 2014.

How rediculuous is it that a school and teacher is labeled FAILING because the special needs population did not show growth over the course of two years.

How rediculous that because of this, parents can move any child out of that school?

I am sorry, can some achieve it? Can every child?

Talk about the $$$ John. Talk about the effects on children's crime rates since the Clintons left office. After 8 years of Clinton programs that helped keep children off the streets, what has happened under four years of Bush.

Give me a CHOICE!!!!!!!!
 
Dreadsox :up:

I keep waiting for Kerry to turn his boat towards the enemy fire, as it were. I've seen stirrings, but he's not as strong as he needs to be. Hopefully he'll start hitting these points as we come into the final stretch. If not I'll be very disappointed.
 
I have seen reports that the latest anti-Bush service stories were faxed from a Texas Kinko's and that they appear to have been computer generated- technology that was not available in 1972 :uhoh: We have this and the back and forth Swift boat thing. I ask, WHY does it matter to a country who TWICE in a row elected a draft dodger?? :confused: :shrug:
 
Dread, your hiatus served you well. :up:

Meanwhile I just got back from the County Clerk's office to apply for an absentee ballot even though the choices make me sick.
 
I think as soon as Kerry mentions the war in Iraq the response will be that he supposedly betrayed every soldier who had been to Vietnam
this might seem an non sensical response when you read it from me here but it is how politics work

when Kerry mentions "Mission Accomplished" the response will be that had he been the president he probably wouldn't have taken any action but would have tried dialogue with terrorists
again a non sensical response but it is how politics work


I agree that Kerry should try to talk about subjects that really matter, but at the same time you have democrats who say they will vote for Bush because of the way he handles the war on terror

so it seems difficult to me
 
Kerry should talk about post-war Iraq and how poorly Bush and company have managed it. Kerry attacking the premise for going to war (let his surrogates talk about it) only makes him look like an idiot b/c (a) he supported the war and voted for it, and (b) he gave many statements about Iraq prior to the War that were very hawkish and Bush-esque. It makes him look more like waffler/ flip flopper. He shouldn't act like he was deceived either. Every senator had access to the same information that Bush had. Clinton made like staements that actually have become Bush talking points for the war in the first place. That argument makes him look like a dummy as well.

The whole issue of "vote for me" b/c of other countries hate Bush is a lousy way to promote himself as well. Again, it should be done by surrogates and casually talked about. Talk of other countires having a say in our elections is a turn off.

Talk about post-war Iraq, medicare-health care, and Bush spending that has helped push up the deficit and debt.

National Guard service issues are a dead end.
 
Last edited:
It pisses me off. I had an open mind...until Kerry was selected. He is shooting himself in the foot.

If what I am seeing is true, and he is losing in Minnesota....a state that supported Gore and leans towards the Democratic party....this election may be over.

He has been getting BAD advice.
I wanted a choice.
I had an open mind.

There will be no Kerry sticker on my cah.
 
I wish I had a lot of time to reply to this post. I have so much going on in my head, but it isn't so easy to spill it out here and have everything backed up by fact and not just emotion. Check out my response in the middle class thread for more of my thoughts. I, too, am frustrated as to how the issues you mention are not front burner. I can't stand the Vietnam moral rights and wrongs being the focus of this campaign.

Have you checked out John Kerry's stances on all of the issues?

http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html

I don't think either candidate has spelled out an exact plan to solve our problems, but it seems to me that John Kerry has more drive to get somewhere domestically than George Bush.

Also, the HUGE difference in re-electing Bush and electing Kerry over the Iraq war is that John Kerry finds a huge importance in forging alliances with the rest of the world and Bush has a record of working on our own. I don't understand how that difference is not very clear and how Kerry seems like "Bush lite". It seems to me that John Kerry wants to get somewhere better in foreign policy than George Bush. George Bush doesn't think we are anywhere bad to better.

Since you are on the fence and I really respect your opinion, perhaps you can point out to me what the benefits would be to re-elect George Bush rather than giving John Kerry a chance? What are Bush's pluses?
 
I am not discussing GW in this thread. Sorry....this is advice to the Kerry Campaign. I am not interested in debating one shred about GW.

Peace
 
Here is my next piece of advice. A wonderful analogy for you so you can stop flip flopping on Iraq.

Stand up and ask the following question to the audience you are speaking to: When you lend your car to someone, do you expect them to get drunk and drive your car irresponsibly? My vote on Iraq was the equivalent of giving the President the keys to the car. When I voted to give him the power to wage war, never did I expect him to go into battle without a vote from the UN Security Council. Never did I expect him to go in without enough troops to secure the peace. Never did I expect that there would be a lack of support from the nations boardering the region. Never did I expect that there would be no exit strategy that did not account for providing stability to the region without us having to stay in Iraq virtually by ourselves.

As the person who gave the President the keys to the car, I regret my vote, because clearly, Iraq was contained. Clearly Iraq had no WMD, and clearly the United Nations was successfully making certain Iraq was fulfilling its obligations.

I am asking America to give me the keys to the car, so that RESPONSIBLE foreign policy will prevail. Can we afford another four years of irresponsible driving? Can we afford another war, only to find out that the facts were wrong? Can you trust the current occupant of the White House to make certain that when the Mission is Accomplished, all our troops are home safe and sound with their families? Give me the keys, and I will make sure if we need to act unilaterally, there will be no doubt in anyones mind that it was the right thing to do.
 
I read it...he needs to work in something about his vote for IRAQ or it appears to be
 
Dreadsox said:
I read it...he needs to work in something about his vote for IRAQ or it appears to be

Does this cover it?

Two years ago, Congress was right to give the President the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This President… any President… would have needed the threat of force to act effectively. This President misused that authority.

The power entrusted to the President gave him a strong hand to play in the international community. The idea was simple. We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam: disarm or be disarmed.

A month before the war, President Bush told the nation: “If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail.” He said that military action wasn’t “unavoidable.”

Instead, the President rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted without making sure our troops had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead without understanding or preparing for the consequences of the post-war. None of which I would have done.
 
Two years ago, Congress was right to give the President the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This President… any President… would have needed the threat of force to act effectively.

Isn't this an explaination? I don't get the nitpicking?
 
Back
Top Bottom