I don't think the LBN story on Bush listing "air force" in a campaign

[notbush]

ad years ago is gonna mean squat.
Apparently some here think this is going to be a BIG story. I just don't see it.

[Spinzonner]

1. Yeah, fast and loose with the facts

but that's hardly news.

And it wasn't concealing an illegality.

[still_one]

2. I agree, nobody will care

but the mess this administration has made in Iraq is a big deal, and the LIES that Cheney makes linking 9/11 to Iraq, while Powell says there is no link is very significant

[brainshrub]

3. Have to agree with you there.

If the Palme cover-up, the lieing about WMDs, the job losses, the environmental destruction, the loss of international credibility and his AWOL conduct didn't do him in my now.. a tiny blurb in a political flier isn't going to do squat.

[slor]

4. It is indicative of his willingness...

to lie. It shows a pattern of duplicity which is real. That cannot be good for a so-called "born again" integrity-filled punk-ass such as he.

[TrueAmerican]

5. I'm in the Air Force

and I think it is nit-picking.

But it worked on Al Gore, maybe they can label Bush an exaggrator.

[ItsMyParty]

6. The whole AWOL story better be backed up with more and more

strong hitting points not stupid, childish stuff like this. It's raging about things like this that make the whole case seem like a tempest in a teapot. Find more and more solid, riveting evidence and stay off of the "and and and I saw him spit once, too" baloney.

[shraby]

7. Drip drip drip drip

He also said in that ad that he went to Harvard BEFORE he joined TANG.
another drip.

edited to add.

[Democat]

8. The only way anything will stick is if it is framed with a powerful theme

Look at how everything Kerry has done is framed as a "flip flop" or making him "unfit for command" or "not supporting the troops" or something similar. These are all issues that are relevant today even though they use evidence from the past to "prove" their point.

Even when our side attacks, they don't seem very good at finding a few specific messages and applying all attacks to those messages.

"Bush is a liar and can't be trusted to lead America" is an example of a message the Democrats could have used with the AWOL charges. Instead, they just seem to be attacking him on AWOL, now they will move on to some other attack. The Republicans understand that a simple attack on a specific issue in the past is not enough. You must make the voters understand, in very simple terms, why the actions of this person in the past are crucial to his ability to lead the country in the future.

"Bush is a liar" would have been a perfect theme for Kerry to have started developing early in the campaign. Not only would it have hurt Bush's character, but it would have helped to undermine some of the attacks Bush is making on Kerry. If Bush is a liar, then you can't trust what he has to say about Kerry. If Bush is a liar, then everything he says at the Republican Convention is worthless. Etc.

Our lack of strategy has been a major letdown so far in this campaign.

[Teaser]

9. You guys don't get it.

You say that it won't mean squat because all of Bushes substantive fuckups haven't hurt him.

That represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the modern American psyche. Substance no longer matters. It just doesn't, and that's something Democrats have to face.

What does matter is image. Stylistic fuckups. Flubbed lines. Misstatements. Propaganda.

and this fits that description like a glass slipper.

[Gyre]

10. Just cause it doesn't equal squat to you

doesn't mean it won't resonate w/a substantial % of the population. It doesn't do much for me either, but thats in the context of knowing well the other crimes of the chimp. That's not the average bush or swing voter. Who knows?

Gyre