Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

pan6467 · 08-27-2004, 04:18 PM

I didn't say ignore totally, I said just say, "I point to my record and I choose to stand by it now instead of living in the past here's my view for the future." You may have to say that a lot at first but.... That's where my Clinton analogy came in, he answered, made his point and moved on (mostly).

Kerry gets down and dirty because he does exactly what the right wants him to do. He changes his story a little, or says, "I was a little over the top." and so on. Then his staff goes to the Elections committee and accuses Bush (and it is shown rightfully) of working together with these groups and shows he is being affected by these ads. Clinton was teflon, he said do your worst, made his replies but always moved forward. (That was probably why he was hated so much because he didn't let anything get to him in '92 and he didn't stray off the issues.)

While he still focuses on issues but he is also very much reacting negatively to the ads in such a way that even if he focuses 95% on the ads, people see the 5% of his sight on the ads. By using my model above, and basically acknowledging, "yes theads are out there, but they do not merit any attention." forces the other side to get nervous and to keep attention on them, forces them to get further out there to the degree their ads become obvious total lies and they start looking foolish.

I'll use a Clinton example, in '92 election, Clinton was accused of smoking pot. He said, "I tried but couldn't inhale, because I'm allergic to smoke. But I truly tried." Then he moved on and focused on the issues. BOOM attacks stopped, what could they do, say "see he admits he tried it." Because of the way he answered people just made jokes of it and it lost all legitimacy as an attack issue.

Yes, it was a national joke, yes he acknowledge the attack, but he answered in a way that the attack had nowhere to go.

Again with Clinton and '92, he was accused of many affairs. He went on 60 Minutes with Hilary said, "yes we seperated and I was unfaithful but my wife and I got back together and she forgave me." Then he moved on and focused on the issues. BOOM... the ads stopped because he turned the tables and the 92 Bush team couldn't use it anymore. What were they going to do, say his wife forgave him, why should you?

Yes, he was Slick Willy, and his answers may not have been the truth, but he answered in a way that was respectful and moved on with more people supporting him because of the way he answered and moved on. Kerry needs to learn that from Clinton.

08-27-2004, 04:18 PM	#19 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I didn't say ignore totally, I said just say, "I point to my record and I choose to stand by it now instead of living in the past here's my view for the future." You may have to say that a lot at first but.... That's where my Clinton analogy came in, he answered, made his point and moved on (mostly). Kerry gets down and dirty because he does exactly what the right wants him to do. He changes his story a little, or says, "I was a little over the top." and so on. Then his staff goes to the Elections committee and accuses Bush (and it is shown rightfully) of working together with these groups and shows he is being affected by these ads. Clinton was teflon, he said do your worst, made his replies but always moved forward. (That was probably why he was hated so much because he didn't let anything get to him in '92 and he didn't stray off the issues.) While he still focuses on issues but he is also very much reacting negatively to the ads in such a way that even if he focuses 95% on the ads, people see the 5% of his sight on the ads. By using my model above, and basically acknowledging, "yes theads are out there, but they do not merit any attention." forces the other side to get nervous and to keep attention on them, forces them to get further out there to the degree their ads become obvious total lies and they start looking foolish. I'll use a Clinton example, in '92 election, Clinton was accused of smoking pot. He said, "I tried but couldn't inhale, because I'm allergic to smoke. But I truly tried." Then he moved on and focused on the issues. BOOM attacks stopped, what could they do, say "see he admits he tried it." Because of the way he answered people just made jokes of it and it lost all legitimacy as an attack issue. Yes, it was a national joke, yes he acknowledge the attack, but he answered in a way that the attack had nowhere to go. Again with Clinton and '92, he was accused of many affairs. He went on 60 Minutes with Hilary said, "yes we seperated and I was unfaithful but my wife and I got back together and she forgave me." Then he moved on and focused on the issues. BOOM... the ads stopped because he turned the tables and the 92 Bush team couldn't use it anymore. What were they going to do, say his wife forgave him, why should you? Yes, he was Slick Willy, and his answers may not have been the truth, but he answered in a way that was respectful and moved on with more people supporting him because of the way he answered and moved on. Kerry needs to learn that from Clinton. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 08-27-2004 at 04:27 PM..