Candidate Kerry

[Gavin in Va Beach]

The Bush folks know this election can only be won if they can make Kerry an unacceptable CinC.  They know they can't win on the economy or any other issue: healthcare, environment, education, etc.  Kerry doesn't need to talk about his record in the Senate - accept about the POW/MIA stuff, because he's crushing Bush on domestic issues.  If Bush wants to go there then I'm sure the Kerry folks would gladly accomodate him.

6014[/snapback]

 

 

Yeah right. Kerry is a HUGE liberal. Tell me how liberals like Mondale and Dukakis did running on those issues. Clinton only won because he ran like a conservative (and had help from Perot the first time) and it was a lot easier for him to do so as a governor with a so-so record. Kerry has 19 years of being one of the BIGGEST liberal senators of all time. The reason he isn't running on that record is because once people learn how he voted on economic, healthcare,education issues etc is because he would get smoked on them.

 

Crushing Bush on domestic issues? Please.

[RCow]

Or more to the point...you and Kerry have a lot to worry about if you want him to win the election because he's put himself in a hole and does not have the mental acumen to find his way out. He and his handlers have completely messed up.

 

He should have never gone with the "reporting for duty" and "help is on the way" bit. It's gonna kill him.

 

There's still time, I think. If he just stops talking about Vietnam and begins pushing the public on his service in the Senate, he can still pull it off. He needs to find a catch phrase..."When I was in Senate for 19 years, I did this..." or "After 19 years in the Senate, I can tell you this much..."

 

Yes, the GOP will counter that, but it gets them off the Vietnam thing...and even an honest Democrat has to admit; the Vietnam thing ain't working real well.

 

I don't say this in a combative way. It's just the truth. Its time for the Kerry camp to shift gears and get away from the Vietnam bit. If the Kerry camp shuts up, the GOP will ultimately follow suit.

 

If they don't shift focus...well...you know the old saying: If you keep doing what you're doing you're going to keep getting what you're getting.

6049[/snapback]

 

I'll put this post in the file marked "wishful thinking." I know you want to believe this but the GOP strategists certainly don't. Moreover, polls say otherwise.

 

There is no reason to "get away from the Vietnam bit" since it's working. Why would they NOT want to discuss his service? If the Bush attacks were working then they're be no reason for the Dems to keep discussing Kerry's war record.

 

The real question is why are the Bush people obsessed with Kerry's war record? Why don't they simply contrast their national security policy with Kerry's? Don't you think that would work? Why haven't they done that, if people on this board are so convinced that Kerry has plans to weaken the nation then the GOP clearly would see it, too.

[_BiB_]

I'll put this post in the file marked "wishful thinking."  I know you want to believe this but the GOP strategists certainly don't.  Moreover, polls say otherwise. 

 

There is no reason to "get away from the Vietnam bit" since it's working.  Why would they NOT want to discuss his service?  If the Bush attacks were working then they're be no reason for the Dems to keep discussing Kerry's war record.

 

The real question is why are the Bush people obsessed with Kerry's war record?  Why don't they simply contrast their national security policy with Kerry's?  Don't you think that would work?  Why haven't they done that, if people on this board are so convinced that Kerry has plans to weaken the nation then the GOP clearly would see it, too.

6077[/snapback]

 

Part of the answer lies in the fact that because of the nature of the beast, much of what is successfull can not be discussed publicly. I don't know if Kerry is aware of any details or not. I think this is a big disadvantage to Bush.

 

This is also a tremendously complicated subject. Not to insult anyone's intelligence, but I wonder if both campaigns understand that the American public just doesn't have the knowledge to understand the geo-political situations and asymetrical warfare. Also, I don't think the media would give it the kind of attention it would take.

 

It is also very unfortunate that the current strategic policy of the US is sound, is the right thing to do but on the surface looks horrible and can be played very easilly by the Kerry camp.

 

In very, very broad terms, Bush defense policy is to fight an away game. Unilaterally if need be. Kerry's is to wage it as a home game, with reliance on alliances to cover the offshore business. I, and many others feel this to be a mistake.

[RCow]

   

 

Yeah right. Kerry is a HUGE liberal. Tell me how liberals like Mondale and Dukakis did running on those issues. Clinton only won because he ran like a conservative (and had help from Perot the first time) and it was a lot easier for him to do so as a governor with a so-so record. Kerry has 19 years of being one of the BIGGEST liberal senators of all time. The reason he isn't running on that record is because once people learn how he voted on economic, healthcare,education issues etc is because he would get smoked on them.

 

Crushing Bush on domestic issues? Please.

6054[/snapback]

 

Ah, read the polls. Economy, healthcare, jobs, education, the environment -- Kerry scores much better on every issue. That's a fact.

 

Question is: if Kerry is so vulnerable on domestic issues why hasn't the Bush folks tried to force the debate on those issues? Why not run a Mondale/Dukakis style campaign instead of obsessing over Kerry's war record?

 

The simplist answer is that Bush is too vulnerable on those issues to engage Kerry. Bush doesn't want to talk economy -- they've tried that, remember "turn the corner?" That worked well. Not education: haven't heard much about "No Child Left Behind" in about 8 months. Healthcare? Remember the prescription drug bill, what a disaster - seniors opinion on healthcare is at an alltime low. Environment? -- enough said.

 

Again, if you're so confident Kerry would get "smoked" you should be at least a bit puzzled why Bush and GOP's campaign is obsessed with Kerry's war record and ignoring Kerry's so-called vulnerabilities.

[Arondale]

I'll put this post in the file marked "wishful thinking."  I know you want to believe this but the GOP strategists certainly don't.  Moreover, polls say otherwise. 

 

There is no reason to "get away from the Vietnam bit" since it's working.  Why would they NOT want to discuss his service?  If the Bush attacks were working then they're be no reason for the Dems to keep discussing Kerry's war record.

 

The real question is why are the Bush people obsessed with Kerry's war record?  Why don't they simply contrast their national security policy with Kerry's?  Don't you think that would work?  Why haven't they done that, if people on this board are so convinced that Kerry has plans to weaken the nation then the GOP clearly would see it, too.

6077[/snapback]

A question for you: in what way are the Bush people obsessed with Kerry's war record? I'm being serious, are you just clumping the SBVT group in with Bush? In my area (PA) and the news I have been reading, the "Bush people" (which to me means: GW, his speaches & the ads approved by GW) have been doing exactly what you are saying.

 

Dick Cheney blasted Kerry on trying to fight a "sensitive" war on terror. The current big ad on tv is blasting Kerry's desire to reform intelligence. Another ad is criticizing Kerry's history on taxes. These are just a few of the most recent examples I can think of, but I can't think of any specific attacks by GW on Kerry's service record.

 

Again, for my own sake, what Bush people are criticizing Kerry's vietnam record, excluding the SBVT and talk radio?

[Alaska Darin]

Ah, read the polls.  Economy, healthcare, jobs, education, the environment -- Kerry scores much better on every issue.  That's a fact. 

6103[/snapback]

Oh good. Now we're using polls again.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

Ah, read the polls.  Economy, healthcare, jobs, education, the environment -- Kerry scores much better on every issue.  That's a fact. 

 

Question is: if Kerry is so vulnerable on domestic issues why hasn't the Bush folks tried to force the debate on those issues?  Why not run a Mondale/Dukakis style campaign instead of obsessing over Kerry's war record?

 

The simplist answer is that Bush is too vulnerable on those issues to engage Kerry.  Bush doesn't want to talk economy -- they've tried that, remember "turn the corner?"  That worked well.  Not education: haven't heard much about "No Child Left Behind" in about 8 months.  Healthcare?  Remember the prescription drug bill, what a disaster - seniors opinion on healthcare is at an alltime low.  Environment? -- enough said.

 

Again, if you're so confident Kerry would get "smoked" you should be at least a bit puzzled why Bush and GOP's campaign is obsessed with Kerry's war record and ignoring Kerry's so-called vulnerabilities.

6103[/snapback]

 

"Hey, we need polls showing Kerry in the lead. Let's call our NEA database again"

 

Uhhh how many months until election day? The RNC hasn't even happened yet. Plenty of time to bring up Kerry's VERY LIBERAL senate voting record. We still have some debates coming up as well, although I'm sure supersmart Kerry will wax the floors with amicable dunce Bush, just like supersmart Gore did.

 

Keep drinking the koolaid!

[Arondale]

Ah, read the polls.  Economy, healthcare, jobs, education, the environment -- Kerry scores much better on every issue.  That's a fact. 

 

Question is: if Kerry is so vulnerable on domestic issues why hasn't the Bush folks tried to force the debate on those issues?  Why not run a Mondale/Dukakis style campaign instead of obsessing over Kerry's war record?

 

The simplist answer is that Bush is too vulnerable on those issues to engage Kerry.  Bush doesn't want to talk economy -- they've tried that, remember "turn the corner?"  That worked well.  Not education: haven't heard much about "No Child Left Behind" in about 8 months.  Healthcare?  Remember the prescription drug bill, what a disaster - seniors opinion on healthcare is at an alltime low.  Environment? -- enough said.

 

Again, if you're so confident Kerry would get "smoked" you should be at least a bit puzzled why Bush and GOP's campaign is obsessed with Kerry's war record and ignoring Kerry's so-called vulnerabilities.

6103[/snapback]

 

Here is my take. Think back 9 months or more, what were the Democrats attacking Bush for? They were attacking the economy, because it had yet to see substantial recovery. Only Dean and some other outspoken liberals were seriously criticizing the war.

 

However, as soon as jobs started being created, record growth experienced, etc. the Democrats switched gears from the economy to the war. Kerry realized the economy was going well and that might not be his ticket to election, so now he put his hope in attacking Bush and the war.

 

Now, its kind of a mix. I remember "turn the corner", just as much as I remember Kerry's great line "it must be a u-turn". So now the economic recovery has slowed, although it is not reversing as a "u-turn" would indicate. The war continues to be an issue as well. In the home stretch I think everything is going to be fair game. Personally, I'm hoping this Vietnam stuff calms down so I can hear more on the real issues, from both sides.

 

You have to be fair, Bush is going to argue where he feels his strengths are. When the economy was hot, that was an emphasis. The economy is cooling, so now I am seeing ads attacking Kerry on taxes and intelligence. The overtime stuff just went into effect - if Bush was scared of the economy and the middle class, why would he plan for this in the heat of an election?

 

For argument's sake though, what specifics has Kerry given in terms of education and healthcare (other than just criticizing Bush)?

[RCow]

Part of the answer lies in the fact that because of the nature of the beast, much of what is successfull can not be discussed publicly. I don't know if Kerry is aware of any details or not. I think this is a big disadvantage to Bush.

 

This is also a tremendously complicated subject. Not to insult anyone's intelligence, but I wonder if both campaigns understand that the American public just doesn't have the knowledge to understand the geo-political situations and asymetrical warfare. Also, I don't think the media would give it the kind of attention it would take.

 

It is also very unfortunate that the current strategic policy of the US is sound, is the right thing to do but on the surface looks horrible and can be played very easilly by the Kerry camp.

 

In very, very broad terms, Bush defense policy is to fight an away game. Unilaterally if need be. Kerry's is to wage it as a home game, with reliance on alliances to cover the offshore business. I, and many others feel this to be a mistake.

6098[/snapback]

 

No offense, you clearly have experience in this subject but there are many others in the military who very much disagree with you. The trick in politics and as leader of a nation is to explain difficult concepts. Bush has utterly failed to accomplish this task NOR has the GOP and Kerry's detractors made a good case as to why Kerry's plans would not succeed.

 

A democracy is hamstrung by the need for "secret" and/or esoteric national security and vice versa. However, that's no excuse for poor leadership and clearly demonstrating why the nation is better off with the current policy. In fact, it's the leaders duty to continually rally and convince the nation that they are doing the right thing not to have others say "trust us, we can't tell you or explain why it's the right thing, just trust us."

 

Other leaders like TR, Wilson, FDR, Truman and others could do it; other were not nearly as effective, and often for good reason -- the policy did not work.

 

Moreover, there are untold numbers of "experts" who very much disagree that the Bush policy is "sound." Many experts have called it disasterous. The same way economic experts can simultaneously contend the economy will get better while others say worse. Often, both can be right at the same time.

 

Just as the home game, away game concepts are far too simplified to be honestly debated. Even if that was the case you can make a good arguement that a poorly executed "away" game is a lot more harmful than a well executed home game. Or even better -- Kerry's away game strategy, while different could be much better than what Bush has done.

 

Last, the onus should be on the Bush camp. Explain why Kerry is not right for the nation's security, and more important, explain why their policy is working and will work for years to come.

[RCow]

Oh good.  Now we're using polls again. 

6132[/snapback]

 

I'm I the first to break it to you that polls DO matter? It's the lifeblood of American political strategy whether you like it or not.

 

I suppose you have another measurement of public attitudes?

[RCow]

"Hey, we need polls showing Kerry in the lead. Let's call our NEA database again" 

 

Uhhh how many months until election day? The RNC hasn't even happened yet. Plenty of time to bring up Kerry's VERY LIBERAL senate voting record. We still have some debates coming up as well, although I'm sure supersmart Kerry will wax the floors with amicable dunce Bush, just like supersmart Gore did. 

 

Keep drinking the koolaid!

6145[/snapback]

 

I thought you were going to try and prove I was wrong? You said I was wrong but the polls today clearly illustrate I'm right. I did not and will never say they are an indication of what people will do on Election Day but how they would vote today.

 

The weakest retort is to say polls don't matter.

 

The fact is the Republicans are scared of Kerry's service record and that's why they have obsessed over it.

[KRC]

I thought you were going to try and prove I was wrong?  You said I was wrong but the polls today clearly illustrate I'm right.  I did not and will never say they are an indication of what people will do on Election Day but how they would vote today. 

 

The weakest retort is to say polls don't matter. 

 

The fact is the Republicans are scared of Kerry's service record and that's why they have obsessed over it.

6169[/snapback]

 

Could you post links to these polls, so that everyone can see what you are talking about?

[IDBillzFan]

The Republicans are afraid because Kerry spent four months in Vietnam?

 

Man, if ever I needed a link to an assertion, this is the time.

[Alaska Darin]

I'm I the first to break it to you that polls DO matter?  It's the lifeblood of American political strategy whether you like it or not. 

 

I suppose you have another measurement of public attitudes?

6168[/snapback]

Well that explains why the government is so out of touch, then.

[RCow]

A question for you: in what way are the Bush people obsessed with Kerry's war record?  I'm being serious, are you just clumping the SBVT group in with Bush?  In my area (PA) and the news I have been reading, the "Bush people" (which to me means: GW, his speaches & the ads approved by GW) have been doing exactly what you are saying.

 

Dick Cheney blasted Kerry on trying to fight a "sensitive" war on terror.  The current big ad on tv is blasting Kerry's desire to reform intelligence.  Another ad is criticizing Kerry's history on taxes.  These are just a few of the most recent examples I can think of, but I can't think of any specific attacks by GW on Kerry's service record.

 

Again, for my own sake, what Bush people are criticizing Kerry's vietnam record, excluding the SBVT and talk radio?

6113[/snapback]

 

I'm being serious when I say that the Republican message nationally will be what they want it to be. While you can't be serious to suggest the SBVT and Bush don't run in the same circles, right? For some time the GOP message has focused on Kerry's service record. Cheney talks about it, the strategists talk about it, all the surrogates talk about it, the conservative pundits talk about it over and over and over.

 

It's called a talking points strategy. You get everyone to talk about the same thing at the same time. If they didn't want to discuss it they would change the subject. If they wanted to focus on Kerry's liberal record on any other issue and compare it Bush then the national discussion would focus on those issues.

 

If they really wanted the swift boat guys against Kerry to stop the ads and stop talking they would but the strategy was to give them as much air time as possible, keep the story alive and pump it up. I'm not accusing the Bush folks of illegal coordination (which indeed happened) but it's not hard to do.

 

Yes, the other ads continue (taxes, etc) but none are yet the national or even a state GOP message. Maybe they will switch over to those issues but up to this week (and after a furious and violent push back by the Democrats) the focus is on Kerry's service record.

 

The Kerry strategy is to establish himself on national security issues by giving himself the initial boost (deserved or not) from his service record.

[RCow]

Well that explains why the government is so out of touch, then.

6194[/snapback]

 

 

Could be.

[Arondale]

It's called a talking points strategy.  You get everyone to talk about the same thing at the same time.  If they didn't want to discuss it they would change the subject.  If they wanted to focus on Kerry's liberal record on any other issue and compare it Bush then the national discussion would focus on those issues. 

 

If they really wanted the swift boat guys against Kerry to stop the ads and stop talking they would but the strategy was to give them as much air time as possible, keep the story alive and pump it up.  I'm not accusing the Bush folks of illegal coordination (which indeed happened) but it's not hard to do.

6199[/snapback]

 

 

I just don't get how they can drop it when Kerry emphasizes it so much. Even if they do change the subject, which I think they have based on the ads I am seeing, if Kerry continues to emphasize it, they can't just ignore it. Plain and simple.

 

Again, I would love to see Vietnam dropped and everyone move on. I think both Kerry and Bush are responsible for not allowing that to happen, although I think Kerry is more so.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

Again, I would love to see Vietnam dropped and everyone move on.  I think both Kerry and Bush are responsible for not allowing that to happen, although I think Kerry is more so.

6209[/snapback]

 

It has been reported that the Swifties have refused to stop their ads at Bush's request. I can understand that, as they don't like Kerry much for backstabbing them when he got back stateside. Do you really think if Jane Fonda were running that a veterans group would stop running ads against her if Bush asked? Doubt it.

 

.

[_BiB_]

It has been reported that the Swifties have refused to stop their ads at Bush's request. I can understand that, as they don't like Kerry much for backstabbing them when he got back stateside. Do you really think if Jane Fonda were running that a veterans group would stop running ads against her if Bush asked? Doubt it.

 

.

6221[/snapback]

 

Yeah, it just doesn't seem to cross some people's minds that this might not be about them, or Bush. There were and are a lot of people REAL unhappy with Kerry for what he pulled in 1971.

[BRH]

It has been reported that the Swifties have refused to stop their ads at Bush's request.

6221[/snapback]

Please provide link where it says Bush specifically asked the Swifties to stop their ad.