PDA

View Full Version : Kerry' Campaign Advisors - They don't get it do they?


OrangeHeat
09-16-2004, 10:49 AM
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, trying to recover from a brass-knuckles campaign against his character, is attempting to steer the election to a referendum on President Bush's leadership.

Kerry has less than seven weeks to take over the lead in the presidential race. Democrats hope a major shift will come from the debates, but his strategy in the meantime is based less on building himself up than on tearing down the president."

Edit: "So far, the DNC's effort has been focused on accusing Bush of using family connections to get into the National Guard during the Vietnam War, then skipping his duty." - Another reason they are clueless - people don't want to hear any more poltical BS on Vietnam.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/16/kerry.strategy.ap/index.html)


This tactic has not been working for him, yet they continue to make the same mistake.

If he has any chance (not much in my mind) he needs to start defining his agenda.

Orange

tanda
09-16-2004, 12:00 PM
The problem with your suggestion is that he does not have an agenda.

His message: I served with valor in Vietnam and I am not George W. Bush. P.S. I served on committees.

No accomplishments since the return from Vietnam other than winning elections. No executive experience of any significance, no leadership on any significant policy ideas.

A man who changes positions on every issue and speaks for 30 seconds on his Senate record in a one hour convention speech does so for one reason ... he has no agenda.

cjromero
09-16-2004, 12:04 PM
Kerry's recent attacks on Bush's military record aren't going to gain traction because the American public has had 4 years to assess Bush's ability as commander in chief. By way of contrast, the Swift Boat ads were effective against Kerry because he is the unknown challenger. Attacks on Kerry's inconsistencies are even more effective in the post 9/11 world.

Personal attacks on things that occurred before Bush became president simply aren't going to resonate with the American public because he is the incumbent. To the extent it woudl ever work, it would have worked for Gore in 2000, when the revelation two days before the election of Bush's DUI almost certainly led plenty of fundamentalists to stay away from the polls.

When the race is between an incumbent president and a challenger, people will essentially vote as a referendum on Bush's job as president. With his job approval rating now above 51%, the country is pretty evenly divided on the issue.

Kerry just isn't going to change many minds by arguing that Bush was a rich kid who used connections to get out of going to Vietnam, and who used his daddy's connections to get ahead in the business world.

Right or wrong, people of wealth and power use their connections to get ahead to get out of doing things they don't want to do. It's the way the world works. Not enough Americans are going to fault Bush for doing what plenty of other rich kids did.

pudley4
09-16-2004, 12:08 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Not enough Americans are going to fault Bush for doing:

1 - what plenty of other rich kids did.


[/ QUOTE ]

and

2 - what they themselves would have done (would do) if they had the chance.

adios
09-16-2004, 12:26 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not enough Americans are going to fault Bush for doing:

1 - what plenty of other rich kids did.


[/ QUOTE ]

and

2 - what they themselves would have done (would do) if they had the chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

and

3 - what many of the baby boomers actually did themselves if you consider the situation regarding student deferments. The draft wasn't a fair system. The draft lottery was an attempt to make it fair and when that happened you saw the war wind down fairly fast with the eventual elimination of the draft.

Many of the baby boomers just aren't impressed with Kerry's service in Vietnam. There was never a major upside and a considerable downside given Kerry's anti war record. One good think IMO has come out of the Vietnam issue in the campaign is that Vietnam vets are getting some positive recognition for their service, the recognition they did not receive when they returned home originally. I think that it's fair to say that these vets hold people like Kerry accountable for that. Again Kerry could do himself a great favor by recognizing this and reaching out for a reconcilliation but apparently he doesn't see it that way. He called the allegations made in Unfit for Command a pack of lies on Imus yesterday as the allegations are supported by more than 250 Vietnam vets so apparently he doesn't want to have a reconcilliation.

benfranklin
09-16-2004, 12:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]

"So far, the DNC's effort has been focused on accusing Bush of using family connections to get into the National Guard during the Vietnam War, then skipping his duty." - Another reason they are clueless - people don't want to hear any more poltical BS on Vietnam.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think that most people, even partisans on both sides of the political spectrum, know in their hearts that there is little difference between what Bush and Kerry did in the Vietnam period. They both gamed the system to minimize their exposure to flying bullets. This was in no way considered dishonorable by the majority of that generation.

Bush joined the Air Guard because it was safe and at the same time had a macho fly-boy image. Kerry enlisted in the safest branch of the service, and volunteered for duty that had never seen combat up to that point, and at the same time would look good on a political resume.

I repeat, they gamed the system to save their butts. So did I. So did 99% of anyone who could. No regrets, just sorrow for those who didn't or couldn't get out of it. That's how nearly everyone thought of military service at the time: something to get out of.

I think deep down, even those who did not live through that period are starting to get it. And they don't really care about what Bush or Kerry did then, except as an excuse to throw mud at the bad guys. It is not a viable issue for either side. They are preaching to the choir. The GOP understands that better than the Dems, who are beating a dead horse. On a local radio talk show yesterday, the question was to Bush supporters: if the "Dan Rather" memo was proven true, would you still support Bush. About 100% said yes, it would make no difference.

As others stated above, Kerry has a one-note agenda: I am not George Bush. We knew that, John. Tell us something we don't know, like how you would implement some of your sweeping promises, or why we should like you. In polls of people who say that they are going to vote for Kerry, the vast majority give their main reason as wanting to get rid of Bush. Only a small majority give a reason like Kerry would be a great president, or they have great respect for him, or they like him.

More important than the Swift boat vets attack on Kerry is his response to it. He has failed miserably there. He has refused to personally address it except to counter-attack against Bush. He comes across as having an imperial attitude that anyone who dares question him and his background is beneath contempt. The emperor has no clothes. And no answers. And no agenda.

In the Doonesbury comic strip, Bush is pictured as an invisible non-entity wearing a symbolic hat: cowboy, warrior, etc. Kerry is an invisible non-entity wearing an "I'm Not Bush" ball cap. He has zero chance of getting any Republicans to cross over. He has zero chance of getting undecideds to vote for him because they like him better than Bush, or have more confidence in him as a leader. He has zero chance of getting undecideds to vote for him based on his Senate record. His only chance to gain votes is to come out with something more specific and appealing than droning: "I have a plan..."