Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
Opie,
Smears may work, but I think reaction to the smear is what determines the vote. If a candidate cannot rise above the smear and get his message out he will not win. Bush could have far worse smear than Kerry (cocaine use rumors, driving every business he ever ran into bankruptcy, and so on), but it doesn't stick because Bush doesn't allow it to stick.
Seriously, look at the '92 and '96 elections and watch how Clinton reacted and you'll see what I mean.
|
How does Bush not "allow it to stick"? By ignoring it? No. It doesn't stick because the media doesn't beat it into our heads.
Kerry ignored the SBVT issue for weeks. It didn't go anywhere because the media consistently played it. He then responds to it for a day or two. And now weeks later, you're complaining about him as if he is still responding to it. He is again ignoring it. The media isn't playing it as much because there are new and more interesting things to talk about - like the RNC and now the memos.
You're putting far too much responsibility to the behavior of the nation and the behavior of the media and the non-stop smear tactics of the GOP on Kerry's shoulders by claiming he is "weak". If Kerry had come out the day of the SBVT allegations and emphatically stated that they were false accusations, the media would have continued to spend 2 weeks covering it - because it is juicy and regardless of veracity.
Quote:
|
Clinton was not impeached. He was acquitted on article 1 (45 for 55 against) Article 2 was deadlocked at 50 apiece meaning Gore cast the deciding vote.
|
That's the Senate. He was impeached in the House.
In 1998, as a result of issues surrounding personal indiscretions with a young woman White House intern, Clinton was the second U.S. president to be impeached by the House of Representatives.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html