I'll tell you what's f@cking infuriating...

[Redleg]

The pundits who say that the presidential contenders need to keep their message simple (as does Bush) and then criticize John Kerry for not providing enough specific details about his policies.

It seems to me that "simple message" and "specific details" are mutually exclusive. Am I wrong?

What I am really hearing the media whores say is "Bush is great because he stays on his simple message" while "Kerry is terrible because he doesn't provide enough details about his policies and programs." They are using different standards for Bush and Kerry. They did the same to Al Gore in the 2000 election.

This shit burns my ass.

[Redleg]

1. When nobody responds to my post- that's what!

BUMP!

[seabeyond]

3. i went and made kids food, lol lol

didnt have time. hey, i agree with you. right on. i have been saying it out loud to be, enough of us say, then maybe.

whenever anyone says kerry hasnt told us................yes he has. but then one would have to sit and listen to the man, instead of getting the 15 sec spot on news.

hear ya

[blm]

2. I think you're absolutely right.

The pundits are the most inconsistent of creatures. They have NO standards that they apply equally or fairly.

I think the public would WELCOME a deep, nuanced thinker like Kerry after the last few years of the simple, abrasive dictatortot.

[rasputin1952]

4. LOL...bush can't have anything but a 'simple' message...

Kerry is doing just fine...he is playing the admin's implosion like a fiddle. The media will be screeching about it for a while...but kerry is no fool, his messages must be concise, but not 'simple'...:)

[Terry_M]

5. I'll try..

Sometimes when Kerry speaks, what he says sounds complicated, and yet it's empty of details. Like umm normal politician talk.

[Proud_Lefty]

11. That's what killin' us

While the freepers make no sense whatsoever, their retoric remains the same. They all use the same lines and even if they are not true and could easily be attached if given the opportunity, people believe it because they continually hear it. The Democrats are all over the place, probably because we have so many different areas to weakness in the administration to attack. The truth is that the common folk out there can't handle that much and refuse to believe that there's that much.

We need to support Kerry all the way. We need to take only one or two of the most major problems with the shrub and stick to those until they sink in. I loved what Carville said this morning, "Do we want to stay the course and get further into this Iraq mess with Bush, or are we ready to take a better course with Kerry?"

[Redleg]

13. I have also seen Kerry provide relevant details.

Perhaps it depends on the venue and nature of his talk. I expect we will hear many more details in the coming months.

[Malva Zebrina]

6. I know it is the truth, most likely

but I just am so disappointed in Kerry.

Honest.

I hate to do it, but his campaign is like a limp flower that has not been watered in a week.

I am , to be honest, disappointed in his lack of energuy and his lack of ability to challenge Bush.


He is coming off as a wimp. Sorry, but he is, no matter what he has on his web site, the average person does NOT go to his web site.

They read headlines. Bush is dominating the headlines. Kerry is short. He is not being aggressive enough to capture the hearts of the people.

[Redleg]

14. Good point but I am wondering how Kerry can dominate the headlines.

Especially when there is some serious stuff occuring in Iraq. Do you have any ideas on how Kerry can make himself hear above the clamour? I'm sure his campaign would appreciate it.

[Jane Austin]

7. Very good point!

How about some Pinxav on that burned bottom?

(They advertise on Air America.)

[pearl]

8. What really infuriates me

is when the republican liars are defending this prison torture and
saying "they killed our citizens on 9-11" when they know Iraq didn't
attack us and they continue lie and the pundits just sit there
and let them continue to spread this LIE. And then the pundits
almost gleefully announce that a large percentage of the American
people still think Irag attacked us. What Liars, all of them.

[Proud_Lefty]

10. Unfortunately, they really don't know that

Some people just want to believe their government, especially if they belong to the party they've chosen. Most Bush supporters believe Iraq was involved in 911 and refused to listen to anything else.

[DIKB]

12. They're Spoon- Fed Lies

by the Media. Pure and simple.

The American Media has lain down for this administration like a cheap 2-dollar whore. I'm hoping if nothing else good comes out of these Abu Ghraib pics, other than that the media FINALLY finds those 2 shriveled grapes between their legs.

I want Neocons to truly face a hostile media, not this pathetic mockery that they constantly whine about. I'm so close to violently assaulting the next person who bitches about "the leftist Media" . . . If you're near Arkansas, keep your eyes on the paper you may see my picture. :evilgrin:

[immoderate]

9. Sorry redleg

Sometimes the best thoughts are complete and need no reply.

I'll say, "Ain't it the truth!"

IMHO, if consistency from the pundits was food, we'd starve. Jon Stewart said that watching American news was like watching six-year-olds play soccer.

I agree (for now) that Kerry is playing this well. It's so early in he race. Rope-a-dope is a good tactic. Bush is blowing his wad on ads and self destructing on policy. He's got no second act. Timing.

--IMM

[Redleg]

15. I think you may be right.

Maybe Kerry is waiting for the current storm to abate before he comes out with guns blazing. After all, I think it would be pretty hard for Kerry to get attention now that Rummy the Dummy is back on the burner over the torture in Iraq.

[Sparkly]

16. Good point

They made the same criticism of Clinton, constantly. "Not enough details."

I remember an SNL skit around Hillary Clinton's big "cookie controversy" where the press was interviewing them, and kept asking for details about her cookies, and complaining that they weren't getting them. By the end she's reciting the recipe, and the reporters were still complaining.

Also remember the Senate when they gave up on Clinton's impeachment. "We'll let the matter go, but we never did get all the details." What did they want, a re-enactment on the Senate floor?!

This "not enough specific details" thing is an old tactic. Why aren't they asking the Chimp for some details?