John Kerry's current problem

[LordMagnusKain]

In responce to those who think Kerry needs to show anger: he doesn't need to show anger he needs to show he gives a flying F#ck by showing how he feels about the way america is now.

he?s afraid to admit that he?s liberal, it?s sad really. I?d love a left-right debate between the ideas of larger vs. managed government. But apparently the democrats are afraid that politics in new England won?t play across the country? it?s sad that Dean didn?t win the primaries.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: gutharius
Personally, I agree with those that say Kerry is not wearing his heart on his sleeve for all to see. I feel he does not show any real emotion towards getting the presidency. At times to me it really seems Kerry is a empty body speaking about how bad things are with out showing how he feels about things being so bad which to me leads to a message with out feeling and therefore and empty message. Most of america knows on some level Bush is a bad president but at least they can tell what he is thinking and feeling by simply looking at him when he speaks. They can see a sense of feeling and emotion. Kerry lacks this ability and unless he can show he is a human being with a beating heart and the ability to empathize with those he wants to represent as president he will be slaughtered in the debates. We Democrats need to learn to show the passion we feel for our message of unity and togetherness. If not I fear we will continue to slip and lose ground to the Republicans. We as democrats need to learn a lesson from the Republican stratedy books, we as Humans are chained to our emotions and feelings and if you can grab that chain and control it you control the populace in general.

My dear friend. I do not what the power to manipulate people via their emotions. I consider that to be a cleaver evil, something that I could potentially be all to good at doing. What I want to be is genuine and real. I want to know myself and speak from what is deepest in my soul. If I could, I would rather radiate warmth and love that could be felt perhaps by very few that control millions. I think that politics makes people cynical and that cynicism makes people eschew the heart in favor of the mind. The mind that operates on a theory of others is cynical and dead, I think. Politics is calculation. And pretending to be real and genuinely caring is perhaps the worst thing of all. I think that politics is the process of external validation and that makes people phony. I want a Real Democrat and I think it was Dean.

 

[gutharius]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

its sad that Dean didn?t win the primaries.

I agree, at least he could show he had a heart. in my opinion that is one of the main things which kept his campaign alive. But he scared democrats in the end with that stupid pep rally scream.

 

[T2T III]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
It's sad that the majority of Americans are so stupid they vote for a president based upon a popularity contest.

It's sad that you honestly believe anyone who disagrees with your opinions doesn't consider issues. Kerry has shown nothing on the issues, and the issues that he has, I can't support.

Which is why when the debates happen, Kerry will be pulling what will ultimately be his emergency brake ... and skidding to a halt.

If Bush challenges him on what he stands for, Kerry will not be able to say "I stand for the opposite of you, Pres. Bush." That will not fly. However, since Kerry has effectively done that in each of his speeches, that's all I know him for. He can't relay his plan so I can see what he has on his plate.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: gutharius
In responce to those who think Kerry needs to show anger: he doesn't need to show anger he needs to show he gives a flying F#ck by showing how he feels about the way america is now.

boy you summed that up better than my rambling drivil could

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: gutharius
In responce to those who think Kerry needs to show anger: he doesn't need to show anger he needs to show he gives a flying F#ck by showing how he feels about the way america is now.

boy you summed that up better than my rambling drivil could

I think it he may, but he has been a career politician forever. That is good because he knows how things work, but bad because he is acting "Senatorial". Performing for the Senate and the public are two different things, and he has not learned to campaign. Being from MA, the political machine there insures (as in most states) that the dominant party's encumbent never has to work too hard to get reelected. Kerry has to fight with someone who never needed to cooperate. Just bulldoze. In many ways Bush is so much like LBJ it's frightening. Maybe a Texas thing

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Kerry lacks real anger and passion about his cause. Not enough emotion. His face also seems to lack the ability to show different expressions. As silly as Bush's expressions are sometimes, you can tell when he is perplexed, happy, sad, etc... Kerry is a stiff.

I think this is exactly it: Kerry lacks conviction, or at least that's how he appears to me. Anyone here see it differently?

Unlike the Dub Kerry lacks a conviction J/K.One of the differences is the Dub and his Republican supporters are more united than Kerry and his Democratic supporters. The Democrats are made up of two different camps, the Anti War and the Anti Bush who realize that we need to cleanup the mess the Dub made in Iraq and pulling the troops is not going to do it!

 

[gutharius]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
My dear friend. I do not what the power to manipulate people via their emotions. I consider that to be a cleaver evil, something that I could potentially be all to good at doing. What I want to be is genuine and real. I want to know myself and speak from what is deepest in my soul. If I could, I would rather radiate warmth and love that could be felt perhaps by very few that control millions. I think that politics makes people cynical and that cynicism makes people eschew the heart in favor of the mind. The mind that operates on a theory of others is cynical and dead, I think. Politics is calculation. And pretending to be real and genuinely caring is perhaps the worst thing of all. I think that politics is the process of external validation and that makes people phony. I want a Real Democrat and I think it was Dean.

I think manipulate is a harsh word, but i see how this usage of feelings can be used towards such an end. My belief as to why the american public is looking for these visual queues is because they can no longer believe what a politician says unless he shows emotions which are relevant and corellary to what he is espousing. People are willing to believe someone if that someone is willing to show conviction about how they feel about it and how it is important to them. More and more everyday people realize there is alot in government that they cant understand and simply have to trust politicians to do their best. More and more this trust is built on a "show me" philosophy of showing a person how strongly you feel about an issue and your proposed way of resolving it. And trust me people will know if you are being fake about it. You have to one hell of an actor to fool everyone and that is one thing American politicians are not good at acting out emotion and this is what the american public, for now at least, is betting on -- that politicians don't know how to fake it to the point of it being believeable....

 

[Gravity]

I agree, sounds like the bob dole syndrome. He was a decorated war hero, senator and man of integrity. However, none of that made him electable.

They say that electability is a certain something. There are actually people that tell you if you have it or not, one of them is an attorney friend of mine. Both dems and repubs parade potential candidates in front of him at various times of the year and much like Simon on Amer Idol, he gives a thumbs up or down.

The funny thing is, when he ran for office himself, he got spanked, lol.

So, either you have it or not.

BTW, I met Bill Clinton once. He was the single most charismatic human I've ever met. I have no question now as to why he got in or why he spent 8 years there.

 

[randym431]

Just listened to fridays Al Franken show. He had a pollster on that was going over the polls from 2000 to compare. I also realized, due to the polls coming out the last few days, that I was falling into writing Kerry?s obituary. Glad I listened to Al Franken. They reminded that this time in 2000, Bush was 13-15 ahead of Gore. And we all know how that went, Gore actually won the popular vote. Almost an even split or 48/48, with Gore + 500,000 some. They also pointed out the polls that had Bush 2000 at 15 points ahead of Gore are the same polls with Bush 2004 13 points ahead. I realized we shouldn?t call this over till its over. So don?t fall into that hole, just make sure (above all else) that you get out and vote on Nov 2nd. I feel we'll be pleasantly surprised that night.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: gutharius
Personally, I agree with those that say Kerry is not wearing his heart on his sleeve for all to see. I feel he does not show any real emotion towards getting the presidency. At times to me it really seems Kerry is a empty body speaking about how bad things are with out showing how he feels about things being so bad which to me leads to a message with out feeling and therefore and empty message. Most of america knows on some level Bush is a bad president but at least they can tell what he is thinking and feeling by simply looking at him when he speaks. They can see a sense of feeling and emotion. Kerry lacks this ability and unless he can show he is a human being with a beating heart and the ability to empathize with those he wants to represent as president he will be slaughtered in the debates. We Democrats need to learn to show the passion we feel for our message of unity and togetherness. If not I fear we will continue to slip and lose ground to the Republicans. We as democrats need to learn a lesson from the Republican stratedy books, we as Humans are chained to our emotions and feelings and if you can grab that chain and control it you control the populace in general.

My dear friend. I do not what the power to manipulate people via their emotions. I consider that to be a cleaver evil, something that I could potentially be all to good at doing. What I want to be is genuine and real. I want to know myself and speak from what is deepest in my soul. If I could, I would rather radiate warmth and love that could be felt perhaps by very few that control millions. I think that politics makes people cynical and that cynicism makes people eschew the heart in favor of the mind. The mind that operates on a theory of others is cynical and dead, I think. Politics is calculation. And pretending to be real and genuinely caring is perhaps the worst thing of all. I think that politics is the process of external validation and that makes people phony. I want a Real Democrat and I think it was Dean.

Dean was against the war in Iraq and he wasn't so entrenched in the political system as Kerry (i.e. less corrupted), both of these traits would have made him a much better candidate than Kerry. It also explains why he was scuttled by the Party leadership.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Kerry lacks real anger

LOL you people are so wacked out that you think that people don't hate bush because Kerry isn't angry enough!

he's the manifestation of your rage against a moderate with some conservative social views and now you think you could win if he was just more of an embodiment of your hatred.

... beautiful.

WTF are you talking about? Happy to see you have found work building strawmen. Go sit down in the corner and let the adults play. This thread was going fine by both sides until you decided to piss in it.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: gutharius
In responce to those who think Kerry needs to show anger: he doesn't need to show anger he needs to show he gives a flying F#ck by showing how he feels about the way america is now.

boy you summed that up better than my rambling drivil could

I think it he may, but he has been a career politician forever. That is good because he knows how things work, but bad because he is acting "Senatorial". Performing for the Senate and the public are two different things, and he has not learned to campaign. Being from MA, the political machine there insures (as in most states) that the dominant party's encumbent never has to work too hard to get reelected. Kerry has to fight with someone who never needed to cooperate. Just bulldoze. In many ways Bush is so much like LBJ it's frightening. Maybe a Texas thing

you know Ive thought About the simularities between George and Lbj many of times.
Its rather Scary. I wonder if George holds meetings while he is on the crapper.

 

[slyedog]

in the last election the dems remade Gore over everyday and he lost. he was like a ball of clay. i think kerry has a better chance if he remains his everyday self and keeps pushing. he cannot win but after the election is over he can go back to the senate and be respected instead of having to grow a beard and hide like Gore did.

 

[CocoMunkee]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Kerry lacks real anger

LOL you people are so wacked out that you think that people don't hate bush because Kerry isn't angry enough!

he's the manifestation of your rage against a moderate with some conservative social views and now you think you could win if he was just more of an embodiment of your hatred.

... beautiful.

WTF are you talking about? Happy to see you have found work building strawmen. Go sit down in the corner and let the adults play. This thread was going fine by both sides until you decided to piss in it.

LordMagnus has a valid point. he must a pushed a button right for your BS response; Kerry is dead in the water and you all know it.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: CocoMunkee

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Kerry lacks real anger

LOL you people are so wacked out that you think that people don't hate bush because Kerry isn't angry enough!

he's the manifestation of your rage against a moderate with some conservative social views and now you think you could win if he was just more of an embodiment of your hatred.

... beautiful.

WTF are you talking about? Happy to see you have found work building strawmen. Go sit down in the corner and let the adults play. This thread was going fine by both sides until you decided to piss in it.

LordMagnus has a valid point. he must a pushed a button right for your BS response; Kerry is dead in the water and you all know it.

Stay on topic. This was one of the few civil threads until LMK and now you shat in it. There is a rock under a bridge somewhere missing its troll, I suggest you reunite with one another. I don't remember saying people don't hate Bush because Kerry isn't angry enough. LMK seems to think the only reason to be mad at Bush is because he is a conservative. Again something that no one said. So your valid point parroting is deserving of a cracker.

This thread was about what Kerry is doing wrong in our opinions. I think most of us, reps and dems were pretty critical of Kerry. Then comes along LMK acting like a child. Then you come along and offer nothing other than a troll post. Both of you had to choice to state why you think he is such a dip$shit right now (something you should have pages and pages of notes on) and instead you took the opportunity to attack our views. If that is not a troll I don't know what is.

The point in stating Kerry lacks anger was to show how he isn't very believible when he is talking about the Bush administration negatives. It just seems like he is reading what they are telling him to read and not something that he really has any passion about. So again, what was your point in posting?

 

[CocoMunkee]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: CocoMunkee

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Kerry lacks real anger

LOL you people are so wacked out that you think that people don't hate bush because Kerry isn't angry enough!

he's the manifestation of your rage against a moderate with some conservative social views and now you think you could win if he was just more of an embodiment of your hatred.

... beautiful.

WTF are you talking about? Happy to see you have found work building strawmen. Go sit down in the corner and let the adults play. This thread was going fine by both sides until you decided to piss in it.

LordMagnus has a valid point. he must a pushed a button right for your BS response; Kerry is dead in the water and you all know it.

Stay on topic. This was one of the few civil threads until LMK and now you shat in it. There is a rock under a bridge somewhere missing its troll, I suggest you reunite with one another. I don't remember saying people don't hate Bush because Kerry isn't angry enough. LMK seems to think the only reason to be mad at Bush is because he is a conservative. Again something that no one said. So your valid point parroting is deserving of a cracker.

This thread was about what Kerry is doing wrong in our opinions. I think most of us, reps and dems were pretty critical of Kerry. Then comes along LMK acting like a child. Then you come along and offer nothing other than a troll post. Both of you had to choice to state why you think he is such a dip$shit right now (something you should have pages and pages of notes on) and instead you took the opportunity to attack our views. If that is not a troll I don't know what is.

It is you that is missing the point. Typical of a lib to go off in some imaginative tangent. I too like RPG's and D&D but I'll try to be a liitle more civil than the garbage you just spewed. Since Kerry is sinking like a lead balloon I can understand your pain. I felt it in 1996.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: CocoMunkee

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: CocoMunkee

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Kerry lacks real anger

LOL you people are so wacked out that you think that people don't hate bush because Kerry isn't angry enough!

he's the manifestation of your rage against a moderate with some conservative social views and now you think you could win if he was just more of an embodiment of your hatred.

... beautiful.

WTF are you talking about? Happy to see you have found work building strawmen. Go sit down in the corner and let the adults play. This thread was going fine by both sides until you decided to piss in it.

LordMagnus has a valid point. he must a pushed a button right for your BS response; Kerry is dead in the water and you all know it.

Stay on topic. This was one of the few civil threads until LMK and now you shat in it. There is a rock under a bridge somewhere missing its troll, I suggest you reunite with one another. I don't remember saying people don't hate Bush because Kerry isn't angry enough. LMK seems to think the only reason to be mad at Bush is because he is a conservative. Again something that no one said. So your valid point parroting is deserving of a cracker.

This thread was about what Kerry is doing wrong in our opinions. I think most of us, reps and dems were pretty critical of Kerry. Then comes along LMK acting like a child. Then you come along and offer nothing other than a troll post. Both of you had to choice to state why you think he is such a dip$shit right now (something you should have pages and pages of notes on) and instead you took the opportunity to attack our views. If that is not a troll I don't know what is.

It is you that is missing the point. Typical of a lib to go off in some imaginative tangent. I too like RPG's and D&D but I'll try to be a liitle more civil than the garbage you just spewed. Since Kerry is sinking like a lead balloon I can understand your pain. I felt it in 1996.

Yawn. Way to never address the topic. Welcome to the PLONK club.

 

[gutharius]

Look! None of us Democrats want to see Kerry lose, NOR DO WE THINK HE WILL, but we see a quality in Bush which is putting our candidate at a disadvantage. WE as democrats are trying to cometogether on this issue. Those of you who have nothing to add to this, with all due respect, please butt out! This thread is not about your partisian issues!

 

[StageLeft]

Don't worry so much. This will all be over soon and kerry will be a distant memory.

 

[Moonbeam]

I believe that Kerry lacks passion because he lacks passion. I think the Kerry campaign is going nowhere because Kerry is a politician and is playing the part his political instinct tell him will cost the least votes. I believe that Bush lacks passion too, but Gush has an enormous ego grafted over a two year old mentality that has knocked over all the jars of candy in the candy store and is radiating the delight of a pig in slop with his new found power and popularity. I believe that both parties will make sure that nobody with any real passion ever gets near the reigns of power where something they could do would upset those who share and support that power on both sides causing them to lose that power. The one constant in Washington is the fight among the pie holders for their piece of pie. The American people be damned. And we are, too, because we can neither see this or if we can, we can do nothing about it. Probably no more than 2 to 5% of any population anywhere has sufficient independence of mind to be able to see or think outside of the box the culture packages us in. Change will probably only be possible when the pie begins to rot and then we'll probably all rush out to follow some mad man with a twinkle in his eye and a promise of MORE on his lips.

On the good side, this is Heaven if you happen to notice.

 

[Gaard]

Schaller wrote a letter to Kerry making a few suggestions on how kerry can help himself during these last 2 months.

It's closing time, Senator Kerry

MEMORANDUM

To: Senator John Kerry
From: Tom Schaller
Date: September 7, 2004
Re: Out-Roving Rove

Your reputation is that of a closer. Well, it's closing time, Senator. Stop worrying like Al Gore did about how the editorial pages will judge you. Rove and Bush don't give a damn whether the Beltway snobatorium thinks they play gutter-level politics; indeed, many are happy to smile cheerily as they get knee-deep in the sewage.

The point is that the Bush team knows history will only remember the Electoral College results. That said, it's long past time to start giving Rove the Rove Treatment by going directly after the President's strengths.

Essentially, Bush has four:

1. His image as a successful, wartime commander-in-chief;
2. His reputation as a strong leader;
3. His image as a straight-shootin' tough-talker; and
4. His family name and connections.

Here, respectively and respectfully, are suggestions for how to Rovertime each:

1. Reconnect Iraq to the war on terror. Bush repeatedly claimed (past tense) that Iraq was central to the war on terror - until, of course, the warrants for and management of that war went afoul. Now he wants to disconnect Iraq because his Iraq approval ratings are consistently lower than (and, thus, pull down) his approval ratings for the generic war on terror. Don't let him get away with that. Keep repeating that the President told America that Iraq is central to the war on terror, and by that standard, he's doing a terrible job on the war on terror. It's really that simple. To make the reconnection hurt, start repeating two very simple facts: (a) according to Defense Department counts, the rate of military fatalities is higher since Saddam Hussein was captured than before his capture; and (b) according to the State Department, the number of global terrorist incidents and deaths is increasing, not decreasing.

Have surrogates repeat these two facts endlessly, followed by the question: "If American fatality rates are higher this year than last year, and terrorist incidents are increasing worldwide, what kind of progress in the war in Iraq and the war on terror is the President talking about?" Even the stupid-ass media will be able to follow this argument. And, from this point forward you and your surrogates should cease referring only to "the war on terror" but instead and always jointly as "the war in Iraq and the war on terror." This is political jujitsu, pure and simple; you must turn Bush's best weapon back on him by re-linking Iraq to the war on terror.

2. George Balker Bush. Strong, resolute and decisive - whatever. Reports indicate that western Iraq is becoming an Afghanistan-style swamp, and Afghanistan remains an Afghan-style swamp. And why? Because the truth is, at the critical moments in both countries, Bush went soft. The Islamic terrorist threat in Iraq is growing because, in the moment of truth in Falluja, Bush balked; meanwhile, the Afghan situation remains unstable and Osama at large because, in the moment of truth in Tora Bora, Bush balked. So say so. Then, in order to complete the balker trifecta and remove once and for all the giant rhetorical monkey from your back, you also need to flip the script on the $87 billion war appropriation. This will be hard, given that ridiculously senatorial phrase you uttered about "voting for before voting against." The solution is to point out that doing "whatever it takes" to support the troops, as the President claims he always does, means having the courage to find the money for the $87 billion - rather than balking, by adding the costs to the national debt that returning soldiers, their kids and grandkids will be handed after they've returned from combat. You'll have to educate the public a bit about what's happening in Afghanistan or Iraq, and how congressional budgeting and voting work; that's tougher than blurting out Bush-style platitudes. But if you can't educate the electorate a bit, you don't deserve to win anyway.

3. Scared Straight. Forget Bush's fleeting gaffe about the war on terrorism not being winnable; he's not going to trip up again. Besides, micro-angles like this or the band-aid purple heart flap are thin threads onto which to hang your campaign message. (N.B.: Your staff must end its fixation on minutiae.) You need a strong, simple and damning line of attack. That said, the dirty (but open) secret the conservative national media know, yet won't dare utter, is this: Bush is petrified to speak in public about most everything, and especially about policies and his specific record over the past four years. He's scared to do press conferences; scared to allow anyone who hasn't signed a loyalty agreement into his campaign events; scared to debate you; scared to talk about how his prescription drug plan is backfiring among seniors and fiscal conservatives, his immigration policies are backfiring among Latinos and social conservatives; his steel tariffs and tax cut policies are backfiring among blue-collar white workers in manufacturing states; and his No Child Left Behind and stem cell policies are backfiring among suburban white women.

The key point is not the specific policies or economic statistics; to mention them, or call for weekly debates, is to fight smaller skirmishes instead of the larger war. Rather, push the macro message that Bush is petrified to talk about any of it. You and your surrogates should use these exacts words: not "doesn't want to," but "scared and petrified." Make the media repeat them, thereby forcing the Republicans to refute your charges in your language. And you need to do this now, pre-emptively, because Jim Baker came on board specifically to negotiate you down to two debates and Bush-favorable rules. You need all three; if you have established the "President is petrified" storyline in advance, no matter how scared Bush-Rove may be of debating three times they'll be more scared of being labeled scared for backing down. And when the tough questions during the debates on the economy, health care and Iraq are asked, and Bush's answers and eyes start darting around, he will ratify the scared-and-petrified criticism with his verbal and non-verbal responses.

4. Royal Treatment. This last strength - the family dynasty and its connections - is different from the others because it's an asset the campaign likes to utilize (see Baker arrival, above) but not discuss publicly (notice that father and brother never spoke from the stage in NYC). Now, you don't need Euclid on your campaign staff to recognize that somebody named George Bush has been on six of the last seven Republican national tickets. I repeat: that's six of seven, every year since 1980 but 1996 (aka, The Kennebunkport Regroup Year). Um, how about pointing this out, say, daily? Try: "There's been a George Bush on every Republican ticket since 1980. That's six of the last seven elections!. The president's dad was on the ticket in 1980, 1984, 1988 and 1992. After taking a brief family hiatus, George W. Bush was on the ticket in 2000 and again this year. And if you think the reason Jeb Bush was quiet at this year's convention means the mantle is going to be passed next to Rudy Giuliani or John McCain, folks, you're not paying attention to how the Bushes run the family monarchy. Maybe George Bush slept through his American history classes at Yale, but I seem to recall that we fought a war 200 years ago to free ourselves from a monarchy led by a guy named George."

The presidency is not won on esoteric arguments about this or that economic report; sadly, it's won by convincing Americans - 70 percent of whom cannot identify their member of Congress - with schoolyard political tactics. Bush is the guy who gets the girls to do his homework, and still gets to be class president because he is a star on the baseball team and sits at the cool table at lunchtime. But enough kids, though scared of him, still hate him. Play on that base-level animosity (filmmaker John Hughes made a career doing so), because the "enough with the Bushes already" sentiment offers a strong motive people can access readily once they're inside the voting booth. The latest Bureau of Labor Statistics report is not.

Once you take these fights straight at Bush's four strengths, and discipline yourself and your surrogates to sing from the same libretto, all the advantages on the domestic economy, environment, health care, and so on will provide the margin you need. Or, you can keep micro-refuting which Swift Boater was where, doing what, on which boat 35 years ago, offering symbolic salutes for the camera, and have the staff release another memo about how much the latest Halliburton fine was - and lose.

Oh, and in closing, I will reiterate a recommendation I made earlier, in regard to television ads, Senator: Because you may not be the best person (and in fact, may be the worst person) to advocate for yourself, your positive ad campaign between now and election day should borrow a page from the "everyday surrogates" media approach used by Stevens & Schriefer to defeat Bob Shrum client Kathleen Kennedy Townsend in the 2002 Maryland governor's race.

 

[GrGr]

During the 2000 election Bush and Gore agreed to keep Indonesia out of the campaign because it would be embarrassing for the US image to discuss the US' blood soaked involvement there. Kerry is a horrible candidate so entrenched in the political system that he barely has room to maneouver. It would not surprise me if Bush and Kerry have agreed not to make Iraq a major issue in this election. If that is the case Kerry deserves to lose. Not that Bush deserves to be re-elected either.

If you read the Democratic Foreign Policy Manifest you will see that essentially the Democratic party is marching to the same fascist drumbeat as the neocons when it comes to foreign policy. Kerry might have the advantage over Bush in that he is more liberal on social issues but that is about it. Even his economic policies are basically watered down versions of Bush's.

As for this Tom Schaller guy. His advice is BS.

For example: 1. Reconnect Iraq to the war on terror.

It is time to tell the truth about Iraq, not to further the fantasy of "war on terror" crap. It is time to impeach President Bush. Right. I'm holding my breath. pppppppppppppppp :roll:

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: Gaard
This will be hard, given that ridiculously senatorial phrase you uttered about "voting for before voting against." The solution is to point out that doing "whatever it takes" to support the troops, as the President claims he always does, means having the courage to find the money for the $87 billion - rather than balking, by adding the costs to the national debt that returning soldiers, their kids and grandkids will be handed after they've returned from combat. You'll have to educate the public a bit about what's happening in Afghanistan or Iraq, and how congressional budgeting and voting work; that's tougher than blurting out Bush-style platitudes. But if you can't educate the electorate a bit, you don't deserve to win anyway.
[/b]

This the fundamental problem for Kerry. GWB and Rove have successfully painted him as a flip-flopper and this give some people doubts as to whether he could be a commander during this critical time in history.

People say they don't like negative ads and that they want the candidates to talk about issues but the simple fact is that many people will repeat back to pollsters what they've been told i.e. Kerry flip-flops.
Negative ads are used because negative ads work.

This 87 billion dollar issues is critical for Kerry to address and I don't think he has done so successfully.

I would say something along this line, as this question will come up in the debates.

I voted to the give the president the authority to go to war. With that authority comes responsibility. A responsibility to build a true coalition, a responsibility to do the job right and a responsibility to tell the truth ?to tell the truth about the planning, about the execution and about how Iraq is doing today. GWB simply has not done so.
I voted for the authorization. It was the president who played politics with the 87 billions aid package. The president was the one who threatened to veto and who killed the bipartisan version that I supported. Our bipartisan version would have been fully paid for. It was GWB that played politics with his threats of veto against a fully funded 87 billion dollar bill.

The race has to be about the GWB and his record. The media/pundits are always asking about Kerry?s plans for Iraq and how it?s not so different from GWB?s. The question should be what is GWB?s plan for Iraq. Stay the course has led to the bloodiest three months yet and more and more chaos in Iraq. What is GWB?s plans in Iraq?

 

[jetaime]

Whats really scary is that liberals make decisions based on the way something looks. They criticize Kerry on the way he acts and the way Bush talks instead of whether a person is honest or is making the right decision. And that is why liberals should not be in power. They lack common sense and priority.