Although somehow George W Bush managed to do just that against John Kerry.Yes, as with their other attack lines can't really go hard on that when the obvious counter is there.
Although somehow George W Bush managed to do just that against John Kerry.Yes, as with their other attack lines can't really go hard on that when the obvious counter is there.
True, though these two seem a bit better at sticking up for themselves.Although somehow George W Bush managed to do just that against John Kerry.
I always thought the Bush/Kerry thing was the biggest brassneck ever while being reluctantly admiring that they managed to pull it off. Still no idea how they managed that.True, though these two seem a bit better at sticking up for themselves.
Although somehow George W Bush managed to do just that against John Kerry.
And not just a veteran, he won a purple heart and all that. So a war hero to Americans. Just all really weird.Yeah. That was a bizarre one, a draft-dodger who managed to make a war veteran seem bad because he'd been captured.
(Bill Clinton also dodged the draft, but to give him credit, he also vehemently opposed anyone being drafted, unlike GW).
And not just a veteran, he won a purple heart and all that. So a war hero to Americans. Just all really weird.
It'll be interesting to see just how many of Corporal Vance's attacks manage to land and stick on Command Sergeant Major* Walz... So far it's been about the circumstances of his retirement from service to go into elected office... Vance's current attack line and the story behind it...Although somehow George W Bush managed to do just that against John Kerry.
Incredible, isn't it. At the time, believed it couldn't get worse than Dubya.Yeah. I'm no in favour of seeing all soldiers as heroes, but Kerry definitely fit the profile for hero, and they managed to make him be... weak.
The whole Trump farago has made a lot of people forget just how fucking bad GW Bush was. He wasn't even all that different, but he's seen as some sort of elder statesman now.
They used proxy groups to do the dirty work. Bush and other senior Republicans kept just enough distance to maintain plausible deniability.I always thought the Bush/Kerry thing was the biggest brassneck ever while being reluctantly admiring that they managed to pull it off. Still no idea how they managed that.
Read an article today that was arguing that if the election is focused on cost of living and peoples lives etc - then trump wins -but if its focused on trump then harris wins…
Is it the first time he's come out with the 'Republicans against Trump'?
I've no idea, TBF, but if so, better late than never, and TBH probably more damaging at this point in the campaign.
He’s been endorsing Democrats since 2022 at least, when he came out for Mark Kelly.
Yeah. I'm no in favour of seeing all soldiers as heroes, but Kerry definitely fit the profile for hero, and they managed to make him be... weak.
The whole Trump farago has made a lot of people forget just how fucking bad GW Bush was. He wasn't even all that different, but he's seen as some sort of elder statesman now.
At the time, believed it couldn't get worse than Dubya.
I think that deserves a link for those who may not know the low that Bush and Rove felt happy to descend to in that campaign:What Bush did to McCain in 2000 (over his adopted daughter) hasn't been equalled since in terms of outright disgusting behaviour, even by Trump.
John McCain took the New Hampshire primary and was favored to win in South Carolina. Had he succeeded, he would likely have thwarted the presidential aspirations of George W. Bush and become the Republican nominee. But Bush strategist Karl Rove came to the rescue with a vicious smear tactic. Rove invented a uniquely injurious fiction for his operatives to circulate via a phony poll. Voters were asked, "Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain…if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?"
...Bridget McCain was a seriously ill baby in Mother Teresa's orphanage when Cindy McCain visited and decided to bring her back to the United States for medical treatment in 1991. John and Cindy adopted her not long after.
Jesus. I vaguely remembered something, but not that it was that vile.I think that deserves a link for those who may not know the low that Bush and Rove felt happy to descend to in that campaign:
Dirty Tricks, South Carolina and John McCain
Undone in South Carolina by the Bush campaign's dirty tricks in 2000, John McCain now turns to the man who smeared him.www.thenation.com
Yeah, I mean I obviously don't share McCain's politics but he always came across as basically a decent man. And again, astonishing that GW Bush's side got away with calling him a coward because he ended up in POW camp when Bush dodged the draft. (A case of attack being the best form of defence but still, astonishing.)Jesus. I vaguely remembered something, but not that it was that vile.
Good speech from her to the United Auto Workers Union in Detroit
It's the counter to MAGA, I guess, reclaiming patriotism. That does seem to be a big theme, and US candidates generally always seem to feel the need to talk about how special the USA is.bit waffley though dont you think?... she didnt actually say anything ifynwim...something about ideals was it? we believe in our country? we know the people, we see the people? they were coherent sentences though, which does make her stand out
She's been doing plenty of that.I'd hope she would, or think she would do well to attack, Trump's unwholsome seedy criminality.
I disagree with your characterisation of Clinton as vacuous, she's an extremely well-educated and competent lawyer and is quite astute and capable, politically. Ultimately and unfortunately, however, I suppose Clinton was arguably more Washington DC establishment, she was more 'inside the beltway' whereas Harris' background is California senate then veep, she seems more fresh and new and approachable and 'of the people' iyswim, with her folksy ways, her Converse and jeans, etc., much more approachable and warmer and more empathetic than the arguably political wonk/dorky Clinton who seemingly went through the motions making/baking cookies. Where that kind of thing seemed forced and fake with Clinton, you can imagine Harris getting stuck in and enjoying that.It's the counter to MAGA, I guess, reclaiming patriotism. That does seem to be a big theme, and US candidates generally always seem to feel the need to talk about how special the USA is.
She has said something concrete regarding the right to join a union before, though. My guess is that she maybe mentioned that before the clip starts?
The language in the waffle is important, though. She's not afraid to use the word 'collective', for example. In reality, if she's elected, it won't mean a massive amount. Maybe slightly better terms for health care, maybe slightly better holiday entitlement. Making the US a bit more like Canada, essentially. But it is a very different kind of waffle from the Trumpian variety.
And all this could work. Casting the Dems as the party of freedom, the party that will keep government out of private affairs, is a pretty good trick.
ETA:
There is also some other context there. Shawn Fain is kind of the US equivalent of Mick Lynch. He's a relatively militant union leader. She's thanking him for his endorsement, which means something in itself. TBH Harris has surprised me thus far. She's not quite the vacuous Clinton-style (husband or wife) centrist that I had assumed her to be. Imagine Keir Starmer sharing a stage with Mick Lynch and thanking him for his endorsement!
.... Maybe slightly better terms for health care, maybe slightly better holiday entitlement. Making the US a bit more like Canada, essentially.