 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Anker-Klanker
Admiral
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1033
Location: Richardson, TX
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:12 pm Post subject: A Post-Election Response |
 |
|
Now that the tide has finally been turned on Kerry, there is going to be a lot of anger and finger-pointing going on regarding who is responsible for Kerry's loss. I think all of this forum knows that the Swiftees had a lot to do with the defeat of John Kerry. I'd like to suggest what I consider to be a "smart" response to this group's contributions for the next few weeks - in the interest of "healing," and (slyly, I think) putting the finger squarely where it belongs.
I think we should go out of our way to suggest that this election was a lot closer than any of us wanted it to be, and that if the Democrats had chosen as their candidate one or two of the contenders who were in the Primary, then GWB might/probably would have lost (I happen to think, BTW, that this is probably true, but whether you agree or not, it suits the purpose). And perhaps 1/3 - 1/2 of the initial Democratic contenders might have been equally as good contenders as Kerry. The important message for us to convey in the next few weeks is that the Democratic Party's mistake was in selecting John Kerry as their very badly flawed candidate! I.e., it is important that the MSM and angry Democrats eventually decide that John Kerry is the scapegoat for their loss.
Once they've come to that (correct) conclusion, it will be infinitely easier for the Swiftees to ensure that John Kerry is in no position to do any further harm to our country.
Last edited by Anker-Klanker on Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:40 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nschlange
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 20 Aug 2004
Posts: 12
Location: california
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't really think that's a stretch, do you? I love president Bush but i know how angry the country was, so the only reason for the loss is who they chose, and make no mistake they chose him. They looked at Dean and that scared them to death, so they did away with Dean (thankfully) and went with Kerry (unfortunately) then they refused to investigate him. The media did everything in their power to keep the swiftvets quiet, and tried to tear up Pres. Bush, i'll just mention Rathers name and leave it at that. I don't think the media had a clue, but to the majority of us a man's character does matter when he wants to be our president, and the thought of that man giving our troops orders after he so dishonored a whole generation of men was an unbearable thought to most of us, apparently the majority of us. Thank you to the swiftvets, this time America was listening   |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anker-Klanker
Admiral
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1033
Location: Richardson, TX
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh, I don't think it's a stretch at all. But I do think it is important for us to be proactive in planting and nurturing the seed that the Democrats lost because they had a flawed candidate (one they didn't even know the truth about). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
diane in IL
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 102
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
I do not like the idea of undermining the president to achieve our goals. In my opinion, the hatred and contempt for this president was fueled by misinformation and distortions from the OIM, the ********, and the Kerry campaign, not by any real shortcomings of GWB. Please don't go there.
diane in IL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
docford
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 149
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
If the question is who or what is rsponsible for the defeat of Kerry and the decline of Democrat influence in Congress, there is only one answer - the candidate. Virtually any other Democrat (exccept Hilllary) would have had a better chance at victory. Traitors with no moral backbone do not play well outside of NYC or Hollywood - especially when they are running against a moral, upstanding man who knows his own mind and disregards opinion polls.
_________________
Doc Ford
HMC (SW) USN |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| diane in IL wrote: | I do not like the idea of undermining the president to achieve our goals. In my opinion, the hatred and contempt for this president was fueled by misinformation and distortions from the OIM, the democrats, and the Kerry campaign, not by any real shortcomings of GWB. Please don't go there.
diane in IL |
You are so right. I could not have put it better myself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anker-Klanker
Admiral
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1033
Location: Richardson, TX
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
I simply do not understand why anyone would think anything said above is "undermining our President." Maybe my filter is clogged.
Despite what we would have liked, it was a close, nail-biting race, and with a better opposition candidate in the running, it could have gone the other way; it very nearly did, anyway (read Tuesday's posts on these forums to be reminded of that).
Last edited by Anker-Klanker on Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:05 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
USAFE5
PO2
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 362
Location: Reno Nevada
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="nschlange"]I don't really think that's a stretch, do you? I love president Bush but i know how angry the country was, ..[/quote]
I feel the MSM  is DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for this anger. When news is reported with such viseral hatred it can only spread to the weak minded viewers (unlike those of us here who have brains and excercise them regularly).
When the real truth is seen and our young learn not to follow blindly we will be rewarded.
God Bless the Swifties and all of our veterans
_________________
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I’m here to help." Ronald Reagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
USAF66-70
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 136
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
You’re all wrong. It’s obviously the Bloggers’ fault, just like it’s their fault regarding the bad exit polls:
| Quote: | Bloggers Said to Blame for Bad Poll Info, By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Write, NEW YORK—News organizations promised Wednesday to look into why their Election Day exit polls showed an initial surge for John Kerry (news - web sites), but also blamed bloggers for spreading news that gave a misleading view of the presidential race.
The exit poll data was delivered at several points Tuesday to ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News Channel and The Associated Press by the National Election Pool, a company formed in the wake of the networks' blown calls on election night 2000.
The first wave showed Kerry with a lead of three percentage points in Florida and four points in Ohio — both battleground states won by President Bush (news - web sites) when the votes were actually counted, giving the president his margin of victory.
"Once one part of it is in question and is wrong, it kind of puts the whole thing in question," said Marty Ryan, Fox News Channel's executive producer for political coverage. "It was disappointing. ... During the primary season, it worked very well for us, we were happy with it. But that was not good last night."
Other network representatives said their confidence in NEP remained unshaken.
The Florida and Ohio exit poll results, along with those in other states were Kerry was strong, was quickly disseminated on Web sites such as Slate, the Drudge Report, Wonkette.com, Atrios.blogspot.com and Command Post.
Some of these sites cautioned readers not to make too much of the information. The Command Post delivered the news under the headline "Grain of Salt." Drudge removed the numbers almost as quickly as they were posted. And Slate warned: "these early exit poll numbers do not divine the name of the winner."
"I didn't have any real compunction about putting it up there," said Alan Nelson, co-manager of The Command Post. "I didn't struggle with the decision, because I knew it was going to become a global news item within about 30 seconds.
"Our approach is: We post, you decide," Nelson said.
But the people who read these numbers — among them, thousands of ordinary Americans with an intense interest in the election — put too much faith into them and leaped to conclusions, said Bill Schneider, CNN's polling expert.
"I think people believed them, and it's particularly the case with Internet bloggers," said Kathy Frankovic, CBS News' polling director. "That's unfortunate because it sets up expectations that may or may not be met. I think it's a good exercise because it reminded people that early exit polls can be unreliable."
Bloggers picked out different numbers to use for their purposes, said Joseph Lenski, who ran the poll with partner Warren Mitofsky for the NEP. As the day wore on, later waves of exit polling showed the race tightening.
"Doing an early poll is like reporting the results of the game at halftime," Lenski said. "You only have about a third of the information. No other survey research is held to that level of accuracy."
The NEP had enough concerns that its early exit polls were skewing too heavily toward Kerry that it held a conference call with news organizations mid-afternoon urging caution in how that information was used. Early polls in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Connecticut were then showing a heavier Kerry vote than anticipated.
Pollsters anticipate a postmortem to find out why that happened. Some possibilities: Democrats were more eager to speak to pollsters than Republicans, or Kerry supporters tended to go to the polls earlier in the day than Bush voters.
"The exit poll is one of several tools that AP uses to call races," said Kathleen Carroll, the news agency's senior vice president and executive editor. "After every election, we look back at how all our tools worked. We'll be doing that in the next few days with our election experts and our colleagues at the National Election Pool, and expect to be able to address any concerns in that process."
NEP members note that the organizations that commissioned the poll did not use the information to mislead the public.
None it was used to wrongly call a state, due to extra care after the disastrous election night of four years ago when networks twiced prematurely declared Bush the winner in Florida.
For particularly close states, NBC relied on actual vote counts, said Bill Wheatley, NBC News vice president.
Still, some correspondents subtly telegraphed the polls to viewers. On the evening news, NBC's David Gregory said Bush "appeared subdued," while ABC's Terry Moran noted the president had expressed a "rare sense of doubt."
Fox News Channel correspondents bluntly addressed the polls early on election night, at about the time Bush campaign officials were alerting reporters that their analysis of the actual vote count showed they were doing better than the exit polls indicated.
"The view in Boston is that if the exit polls are right, it's going to be very difficult for George Bush (news - web sites) to win tonight," Fox News analyst Susan Estrich said.
In the end, those polls — or the reading of them — proved to be incorrect. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anker-Klanker
Admiral
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1033
Location: Richardson, TX
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ha! They're scrambling to find someone to blame, all right. It's everybody's/somebody's fault, but NOT MINE!
Eventually they will settle in one a central scapegoat. I think that scapegoat should be none other than sKerry, and am willing to help them reach that conclusion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twicearound
PO2
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 362
Location: San Antonio
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
There are a couple of reasons and more for our great win. I agree the canidate, but what about him, First and foremost a traitor to the military and country. But this is just the beginning, It was brought out well only on Brit that at the exit polls that people chose morality as there most important reason for ditching the traitor. The amazing number was 78 in favor of Bush to 18 for Kerry. It wasn't about terror, economy, or Iraq.
It was about morality which includes in it values which would never allow someone to do what he did after Vietnam.
The number was astounding, and on Crissie they just couldn't get it and therefore neglected it and talked about how much GW needs to give to the other side. All I can say is to that tell them to change parties. GW doesn't owe the far left anything.
It is not about the economy stupid, it is about moral values which includes honor, which he, they and the MSM lack
THEY JUST DON'T GET IT SINCE THEY ARE SO ENLILGHTENED. not!
_________________
twicearound |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sleeplessinseattle
LCDR
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 430
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:17 am Post subject: Re: A Post-Election Response |
|
|
| Anker-Klanker wrote: | Now that the tide has finally been turned on Kerry, there is going to be a lot of anger and finger-pointing going on regarding who is responsible for Kerry's loss. I think all of this forum knows that the Swiftees had a lot to do with the defeat of John Kerry. I'd like to suggest what I consider to be a "smart" response to this group's contributions for the next few weeks - in the interest of "healing," and (slyly, I think) putting the finger squarely where it belongs.
I think we should go out of our way to suggest that this election was a lot closer than any of us wanted it to be, and that if the Democrats had chosen as their candidate one or two of the contenders who were in the Primary, then GWB might/probably would have lost (I happen to think, BTW, that this is probably true, but whether you agree or not, it suits the purpose). And perhaps 1/3 - 1/2 of the initial Democratic contenders might have been equally as good contenders as Kerry. The important message for us to convey in the next few weeks is that the Democratic Party's mistake was in selecting John Kerry as their very badly flawed candidate! I.e., it is important that the MSM and angry Democrats eventually decide that John Kerry is the scapegoat for their loss.
Once they've come to that (correct) conclusion, it will be infinitely easier for the Swiftees to ensure that John Kerry is in no position to do any further harm to our country. |
Positioning sKerry as the reason the Dems lost is fine - it's simplistic but fine. It will give the Dems the chance to save face (and they'll grab it). Further, as you imply, it dooms sKerry probably from every running for President again (OK, now you've got my attention) - look what he wrote in his concession speech that makes me think he's not given up the idea of being president: "What you did made a difference, and building on itself -- building on itself, we go on to make a difference another day. I promise you, that time will come. The time will come, the election will come when your work and your ballots will change the world, and it's worth fighting for" - and it may just doom him for Senate in 2006 (or sooner depending on many people's efforts here and elsewhere.) Anyhow, the fact that this reasoning is simplistic and, as you point out, may not have necessarily meant a Bush loss, won't prevent it from being believed by the Dem rank and file. In my opinion, the only way to get this thinking into the Dem bloodline is to somehow get it into the MSM chatter in the next 2 to 3 weeks...after that they'll have arrived at their own conclusions - those so and so swifties, it was the security moms, it was Lockhart, it was McCauliffe, we were so close, whatever...so how do you think we best suggest this and help inject it into the national and more importantly the liberal discussion and thinking?
Should we all get busy in the liberal chat rooms?
IMHO, and I think others have brought up many other cogent reasons why the Dems lost big yesterday, it must include the fact the the conservative movement has been vibrant and conservative thinking, coherence and relevence to the national debate remain superior to the liberal mindset. Will this always be the case, not necessarily of course, but that's certainly true now...even Clinton governed as a fiscally moderate Dem (most of the time). The other major reason W won was because he's represented conservatives well...many challenges remain ahead - like shrinking the deficit - but peace abroad and growth at home will spur this...what to do about oil prices?
_________________
"We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail." -- President Bush 2001
Thanks W, Swifties, POWs & brave soldiers everywhere fighting for America and for freedom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anker-Klanker
Admiral
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1033
Location: Richardson, TX
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm wide open on how best to spread the message. Frontal assaults are not likely to work, I think. Maybe "innocent" sounding letters to the editor of local papers will start the buzz. Maybe planting the seed on quasi-conservative blog sites (INDCJournal, PoliPundit, etc.) might work (liberals do visit those sites frequently). Maybe just appending a simple statement like ("Dems lost this election because of a poor candidate") on every letter or email that members of this forum like to send to MSM - might take root. What else? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PrinceLazar
Seaman
Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 164
Location: Daley's tainted lands
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anker-Klanker wrote: | | I'm wide open on how best to spread the message. Frontal assaults are not likely to work, I think. Maybe "innocent" sounding letters to the editor of local papers will start the buzz. Maybe planting the seed on quasi-conservative blog sites (INDCJournal, PoliPundit, etc.) might work (liberals do visit those sites frequently). Maybe just appending a simple statement like ("Dems lost this election because of a poor candidate") on every letter or email that members of this forum like to send to MSM - might take root. What else? |
I think this will go into history as one of the most RIDICULOUS vs one of the most BRILLIANT ways of waging and winning a domestic strife while winning foreign wars..
And our hands to Israel are much easier after Arafat is out of it, so whatever happens next there, is more up to the Israelis, so do nothing and we're OK.
Might W. win the war on terror as totally as Reagan won the Cold??
"Run a VP-candidate that has been enlisted for some years as young canidate" GOP-2008
_________________
---Prince Lazar---
Need some wood?!?! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jwb7605
Rear Admiral
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 690
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anker-Klanker wrote: | | Oh, I don't think it's a stretch at all. But I do think it is important for us to be proactive in planting and nurturing the seed that the Democrats lost because they had a flawed candidate (one they didn't even know the truth about). |
I think that was the initial charter, but it went beyond "planting a seed".
It's not our responsibility to be proactive in promoting candidates or people.
It was and remains our responsibility to see Kerry stopped, and then keep our noses out of Democrat or Republican politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
