Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Criticism vs. Spin

Criticism vs. Spin
Thread Tools
UNTeMac
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Denton, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 11:48 AM
 
Here's my take on most Bush supporters' responses to Kerry campaign points.

Kerry says Iraq is not going well.
- Bush says he's pessimistic.

Kerry states a more detailed position on Iraq.
- Bush says he's changing his position on it again.

Kerry criticizes Bush's domestic policies.
- Bush says he's pessimistic.

Kerry says he will repeal Bush tax cuts for people making over $200k a year.
- Bush says he's raising taxes.

Kerry says every American needs affordable healthcare.
- Bush says he's a big gov't liberal.

Kerry says we need to do more than just use force to fight terrorism.
- Bush says he's forgetting 9/11.

Did I miss any?
What I'm saying is that all I ever hear from the Bush side is the same old talking points over and over. Kerry actually fleshes out his positions and Bush keeps bringing up 9/11. Something is really wrong with America if we can't all see it plain as day. I think Kerry should call the Bush campaign on it every time it comes up.

Kerry: Win on the merits of his case.
Bush: Win on how well you fooled everyone into thinking you had the best case.
"This show is filmed before a live studio audience as soon as someone removes that dead guy!" - Stephen Colbert
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 11:51 AM
 
Wow how long did it take you to drum up that spin?

Or did you get this from somewhere else?
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 11:52 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Wow how long did it take you to drum up that spin?

Or did you get this from somewhere else?
LMAO
     
UNTeMac  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Denton, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 11:53 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Wow how long did it take you to drum up that spin?

Or did you get this from somewhere else?
This is mine, and it's not spin IMO. It's what I hear from Bush supporters everyday.
"This show is filmed before a live studio audience as soon as someone removes that dead guy!" - Stephen Colbert
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 11:54 AM
 
If you think that either party in a presidential campaign does anything other than repeat talking points, then I have some swampland in Louisiana to sell you. Presidential elections, indeed all elections, are always about easily digested themes.

The difference is simply that Bush is better at communicating his themes than Kerry. So far, Kerry has only managed to communicate indecision, inclarity of thought, reaction, inability to reach out beyond his base, and that he isn't Bush.
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 11:56 AM
 
Originally posted by UNTiMac:
This is mine, and it's not spin IMO. It's what I hear from Bush supporters everyday.
Can you give us a summary of Kerry's platform? Because, from what I have seen, his only platform is to oppose Bush in every way shape or form. Just curious if he has any original ideas or if he just regurgitates the oppossite of Bush
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 11:57 AM
 
Not really dc, he is FOR Iraq now!

Or has that changed?
     
UNTeMac  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Denton, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 12:00 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
Can you give us a summary of Kerry's platform? Because, from what I have seen, his only platform is to oppose Bush in every way shape or form. Just curious if he has any original ideas or if he just regurgitates the oppossite of Bush
I'll save myself some time. Why not get it from the horse's mouth?

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

Click on the links below "Plan for America"
"This show is filmed before a live studio audience as soon as someone removes that dead guy!" - Stephen Colbert
     
UNTeMac  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Denton, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 12:03 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
If you think that either party in a presidential campaign does anything other than repeat talking points, then I have some swampland in Louisiana to sell you. Presidential elections, indeed all elections, are always about easily digested themes.

The difference is simply that Bush is better at communicating his themes than Kerry. So far, Kerry has only managed to communicate indecision, inclarity of thought, reaction, inability to reach out beyond his base, and that he isn't Bush.
I'm not saying that Bush is the only one with talking points, I'm just pointing out that the ones he uses are so transparent that it makes me laugh.

The fact that Kerry hasn't been able to communicate his themes is because Bush has him tamped down with these idiotic and oversimplified distortions of what Kerry actually says. That's why I said Kerry needs to start calling him on it and raise the level of the debate.
"This show is filmed before a live studio audience as soon as someone removes that dead guy!" - Stephen Colbert
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 12:05 PM
 
Originally posted by UNTiMac:
I'll save myself some time. Why not get it from the horse's mouth?

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

Click on the links below "Plan for America"
pretty vague on all accounts! If he will do so much better, why can't he provide specifics?
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 12:15 PM
 
Originally posted by UNTiMac:
I'm not saying that Bush is the only one with talking points, I'm just pointing out that the ones he uses are so transparent that it makes me laugh.

The fact that Kerry hasn't been able to communicate his themes is because Bush has him tamped down with these idiotic and oversimplified distortions of what Kerry actually says. That's why I said Kerry needs to start calling him on it and raise the level of the debate.
Successful political campaigns are ones that communicate effectively to the public. That communication has to be on two levels. One is on policy statements. The other is more subliminal. The candidate has to communicate trustworthiness, stability, and "leadership."

Kerry so far fails all of those goals. His policy positions are incoherent and poorly articulated. What he communicates subliminally are desperation, instability, aloofness from reality, and poor leadership and judgement. There is still time for him to turn this around, but don't blame Bush for Kerry's inability so far to run an effective campaign.
     
UNTeMac  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Denton, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 12:16 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
pretty vague on all accounts! If he will do so much better, why can't he provide specifics?
If he gave specifics would you actually try and disagree on his points rather than just claiming he's being vague? There's plenty to debate just in the blurb on his website. He talks about making sure his terrorism policy is guided by the use of allies throughout the world rather than isolating as a superpower that throws its weight around. You could debate a 4 page thread on that idea alone.

He talks about using American research and technology to free us from dependance on oil as a source of energy and production. Do you really want to read all the scientific explanations necessary to flesh out that position? Do you think the president really knows about that either?

The point is, again, that all people do is attack Kerry with things like this "vague" business without ever saying what they really think of his positions. The very claim that he's being vague or flip-flopping is a cop-out.
"This show is filmed before a live studio audience as soon as someone removes that dead guy!" - Stephen Colbert
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 12:20 PM
 
Originally posted by UNTiMac:
If he gave specifics would you actually try and disagree on his points rather than just claiming he's being vague? There's plenty to debate just in the blurb on his website. He talks about making sure his terrorism policy is guided by the use of allies throughout the world rather than isolating as a superpower that throws its weight around. You could debate a 4 page thread on that idea alone.

He talks about using American research and technology to free us from dependance on oil as a source of energy and production. Do you really want to read all the scientific explanations necessary to flesh out that position? Do you think the president really knows about that either?

The point is, again, that all people do is attack Kerry with things like this "vague" business without ever saying what they really think of his positions. The very claim that he's being vague or flip-flopping is a cop-out.
It's rhetoric. HE is saying the opposite of Bush and trying to appeal only to those who don't like Bush or are undecided. There are no specific plans...just BS to cover up the fact that he does not have an explanation.

Look at the difference in his Natinal security policy and his Education platform. His education platform is pretty specific while his other 'views' are not. Why?
     
UNTeMac  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Denton, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 12:20 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Kerry so far fails all of those goals. His policy positions are incoherent and poorly articulated. What he communicates subliminally are desperation, instability, aloofness from reality, and poor leadership and judgement. There is still time for him to turn this around, but don't blame Bush for Kerry's inability so far to run an effective campaign.
I'll agree, Kerry at this point is doing as much to lose as Bush is to win, but if you watch the polling history (I'm well aware of the weight polls have with you but bear with me) Kerry's numbers didn't start falling until after the talking points such as 9/11, flip-flop, Vietnam, and MA liberal really started in full force after the RNC. It was only then that his numbers dropped off because he hasn't defended himself well enough.

My point is that Bush is not winning on his merits, he's winning on his ability to play dirty and I can't see why anyone would vote for that.
( Last edited by UNTeMac; Sep 20, 2004 at 12:29 PM. )
"This show is filmed before a live studio audience as soon as someone removes that dead guy!" - Stephen Colbert
     
UNTeMac  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Denton, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 12:28 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
It's rhetoric. HE is saying the opposite of Bush and trying to appeal only to those who don't like Bush or are undecided. There are no specific plans...just BS to cover up the fact that he does not have an explanation.

Look at the difference in his Natinal security policy and his Education platform. His education platform is pretty specific while his other 'views' are not. Why?
I'm not sure there's a way to be more specific than that about foreign policy because it's so much more dynamic than domestic plans. <oblig. straw man>Look at Bush's website under Chapter 4. There's a lot of text there but it's a lot of fluff over the same basic ideas. He does a better job of appearing specific without actually fleshing out his plans for the future.</oblig. straw man>
"This show is filmed before a live studio audience as soon as someone removes that dead guy!" - Stephen Colbert
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 12:37 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
If you think that either party in a presidential campaign does anything other than repeat talking points, then I have some swampland in Louisiana to sell you. (snip)..
I used to live in Louisiana. They do, indeed, have swampland there.

What's your price?

     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 12:48 PM
 
Originally posted by UNTiMac:
I'll agree, Kerry at this point is doing as much to lose as Bush is to win, but if you watch the polling history (I'm well aware of the weight polls have with you but bear with me) Kerry's numbers didn't start falling until after the talking points such as 9/11, flip-flop, Vietnam, and MA liberal really started in full force after the RNC. It was only then that his numbers dropped off because he hasn't defended himself well enough.

My point is that Bush is not winning on his merits, he's winning on his ability to play dirty and I can't see why anyone would vote for that.
I think it is more likely that Kerry's poll numbers (for what they are worth) started dropping the instant that the general population started looking seriously at Kerry as a candidate. Prior to the DNC, most Americans who aren't partisan Democrats (and who therefore paid less attention during the primaries) were only vaguely aware of who Kerry was. I'd have to say I was one of those. I wasn't really aware of his record prior to the Senate as an anti-war activist before the DNC. That is part of his public record. The fact that it turns a lot of people off is just too bad.

I do find it a bit ridiculous that you try to paint the Bush campaign as somehow more negative than the Democrats. The Democrats' entire campaign has been nothing but one negative blast against Bush. We have had two sustained runs at his National Guard record, most recently using forged documents, an attempt to link Abu-Ghraib directly to the White House, the 16 words allegations, a Michael Moore movie, huge public protests, and several well-publicized tell-all books from former officials, and Kitty Kelly's latest check-out counter work.

On and on it has gone -- relentlessly negative. Yet somehow it isn't (so far) working for the Democrats. It isn't lack of negaitivity that is hurting the Democrats. It is lack of anything coherent and positive to offer.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 12:54 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I used to live in Louisiana. They do, indeed, have swampland there.

What's your price?

Probably not much! It actually isn't so swampy. It's up in the northwestern corner of the state near Shreveport -- the area known locally as the "ArkLaTex." It's much drier up there.

I sold some stumpage there a few months back. First productive use that land has been put to in about a decade. Otherwise it is just good for raising snakes and mosquitos.
     
UNTeMac  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Denton, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 01:13 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think it is more likely that Kerry's poll numbers (for what they are worth) started dropping the instant that the general population started looking seriously at Kerry as a candidate. Prior to the DNC, most Americans who aren't partisan Democrats (and who therefore paid less attention during the primaries) were only vaguely aware of who Kerry was. I'd have to say I was one of those. I wasn't really aware of his record prior to the Senate as an anti-war activist before the DNC. That is part of his public record. The fact that it turns a lot of people off is just too bad.

I do find it a bit ridiculous that you try to paint the Bush campaign as somehow more negative than the Democrats. The Democrats' entire campaign has been nothing but one negative blast against Bush. We have had two sustained runs at his National Guard record, most recently using forged documents, an attempt to link Abu-Ghraib directly to the White House, the 16 words allegations, a Michael Moore movie, huge public protests, and several well-publicized tell-all books from former officials, and Kitty Kelly's latest check-out counter work.

On and on it has gone -- relentlessly negative. Yet somehow it isn't (so far) working for the Democrats. It isn't lack of negaitivity that is hurting the Democrats. It is lack of anything coherent and positive to offer.
I find it surprising you call massive public protests part of a negative campaign by Democrats. I guess the world is full of them then.

Without derailing the thread, of course the Kerry campaign has to draw attention to Bush's poor record over the last four years. He's an incumbent and can't really run on his record so Kerry has to draw attention to that. Those tell-all books were written by people on both sides of the aisle about Bush. I don't see how you could link any of those attacks you talk about to the Kerry campaign any more than you can say Bush has real links to Bin Laden's family. Both are ridiculous and part of a fringe.

My point again, is that Bush isn't playing it on the issues, he's playing it on talking points and oversimplified characterizations of what his opponent says. It's signature Karl Rove if you look back at his previous campaigns such as vs. McCain and and vs. Anne Richards. Look again at the talking point responses I outlined and you'll see them every time you turn on a talking head on TV or read a statement from the Bush campaign.
"This show is filmed before a live studio audience as soon as someone removes that dead guy!" - Stephen Colbert
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2004, 01:24 PM
 
Originally posted by UNTiMac:
I don't see how you could link any of those attacks you talk about to the Kerry campaign
Did I ever say they were? The Kerry campaign is a discreet legal entity set up under the rather arbitrary rules of the campaign finance laws. That's basically irrelevant to the fact that Bush has (so far at least) withstood a withering barrage of criticism both fair and unfair. Kerry has undergone a far smaller and far more limited barrage of criticism, yet (so far) he seems to be unable to overcome it with any kind of a positive message. That is his weakness as a candidate.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:15 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,