Yeah, and Bush deflects any questions by reverting to a "flip-flop" mantra or a "strong defense" mantra -- usually using the two of these combined. Neither will talk about their weakness. It's so funny. It's like saying "You're wrong on X" and having the answer be "I am strong on Y." I swear sometimes it's gibberish.

Candidate A: "I have a plan to let more buckets of gallons from the refrigerator dance."

Candidate B: "In response, the slip slop fizzle will never begin to describe the ice cream typewriter in my plan."

It's so stupid. I wonder if they'll be able to do this in face-to-face debates.

Agreed, both candidates are focusing on their own strengts and their opponents weaknesses. Neither of them want to appear to be the first one to blink. They are doing this because they don't want the other to set the agenda (imho). Most of the supporters of each candidate are following right along on this path. Someone points to an accusation that Bush had something to do with a coverup of Saudi terrorist, then someone else points to an accusation that Kerry would bow to terrorist demands and so on and so forth. Instead of arguing on the merits of each candidate debate descends to the point of petty accusations and counter accusations.

Yes, I've never seen so much work go into "framing the issues."

Candidate A: This campaign is about Green Eggs.
Candidate B: This campaign is all about Ham.

Truth: It's about Green Eggs and Ham.

Yeah Timber, I'm aware now that a green vote is basically a vote for Bush from an ideology that would more likely not support him. I think I realized that days later when it was so close.

If I was a Floridian I think I would have had to be drawn and quartered.

Prediction:

Bush will avoid addressing the loss of jobs, especially overseas jobs, as long as possible. Any criticism with the economy or the Iraq War will simply be met with a flat denial that uses tired and murky facts as a basis. Bush will never discuss his relationship with the Saudis. He will never address the problems of deficit spending -- because a war is a blank check excuse, dontcha know. Getting him to answer a question about Halliburton will be met with a blank blinky look, because that was ignored a long time ago, dontcha know.

Kerry will be hard-pressed to ever discuss his voting record in detail. He will not directly refute flippery-floppery, but will continue to aim the accusation back at Bush.

*End Prognostication*

My tactic: Go for the candidate I like *better* who can *win* and then strive for what I really want. Which probably ain't Nader, just so you know. ;)

lol nobody really wants Nader. The green party dumped him after he left and wanted to come back from what I read. Then again, there's that 2-3 percent who say they'll vote for him...

Gee and I thought that too many people are getting sucked into Kerry's fear mongering and smear tactict. Everytime a weakness of Kerry's is pointed out, Democrats just revert to their usual fear and smear tacticts. I don't think most Americans are going to be guilable enough for Kerry's so called plan and see it for what it is, an attemp to buy the election with a lot of pork-barrel promises. </font>[/QUOTE]Funny thing is that I could say the exact samething for Bush and the Republicans. At least Kerry is taking about issues such as: getting rid of deficit, creating more jobs, and the enviroment. Did you know that the Republicans spend 75% of their advertisments on vicious attack adds (far more than the Democrats). I don't think most Americans will guilable enough to get Bush relected just because of his attempts to make Kerry look weak on defense , when Bush was no economic plan or getting troops out of Iraq.

Getting rid of the deficit by adding another 2 trillion plus in spending?
Creating more jobs by raising taxes?
Haven't heard much about his so-called enviroment plan.

Don't know where you got that figure from but from what I have seen and heard Kerry is just as negative in his attacks if not more so. Pretty much every time I see an ad for Kerry it is not focusing on his strong points but instead it takes cheap shots at Bush. The same goes for all the news clips; instead of making a case for why he should be president he takes petty jabs at Bush.

Kerry was not made the Democratic nominee because of anything he stood for, he was made the nominee because Democrats thought he had a good chance of beating president Bush. Even before the Democrats started their process to nominate a candidate, very negative and petty ads were being produced and distributed by Democratic supporters.

You might see the Republican messages as negative but don't pretend the Democratic message is anything better.


Kerry's voting record on military issues make him look weak on defence.

To say Bush has no economic plan is inaccurate. You may or may not agree with his plan but it is there.

With reguard to Iraq, once again you may not like his plan for Iraq but to dismiss his reasoning altogether is incorrect.

I find it funny you see a difference in these two dogs, even more funny is the fact that you're arguing about it! :D