|
Edited on Wed Sep-15-04 12:11 PM by stoptheinsandity
With the recently-announced support of the 9-11 widows, how's this for an idea:
instead of the 347 page manifestos on *'s flip-flops, why not take a page out of Rove's playbook and hit shrub where he's perceived to be his strongest (i.e. national security). Two simple (yet, I think, possibly effective) lines that could be utilized (either in ads or the debates, or both) to neutralize shrub's "my opponent says he voted against the 87 billion before he voted for it":
1. "(P)resident Bush, is it true or is it not true that you were against the 9-11 commission before you were for it? The 9-11 widows have said that you repeatedly resisted all attempts by their group to launch a commission.
2. "(P)resident Bush, is it true or is it not true that you were against a Department of Homeland Security before you were for it? You repeatedly railed against the creation of this Department, which was proposed by my Democratic colleagues in Congress, before you suddenly flip-flopped after sticking your finger in the wind and finding out that public support was for it."
If you wanted to take the argument further, you could add: "Then, you underhandedly called the very same members of the Democratic party who had originally called for the creation of the department "obstructionists" because they were seeking to protect the rights of the individuals who would serve in this department."
Alright, so #2 should be pared down to be a sound bite, but it seems to me that this would serve a two-fold purpose in showing people that * is neither as resolute, or as strong on national security, as he would like the general public to believe. Thoughts?
|