HELP WANTED:Therapist, witch doctor, or hypnotist. Light John Kerry's Fire.

Great Debates
21

You may be correct, although I still believe a reasonable recovery will swamp any other considerations, rightly or wrongly.

Kerry needs to distinguish himself from Bush on Iraq for it to play to his advantage. His plan to date seems to be to try to foist the whole thing off on the UN, and it will be difficult to distinguish between that and a “failed turnover”.

The interesting question to me is what will happen if Bush sticks to June 30th as a hard date for transition. How well does it have to go before voters believe Kerry would have done any better? And will the whole issue drop off the radar?

Kerry’s best shot might be to present himself as a leader foreign leaders can cooperate with, and therefore he will be able to get the UN to take responsibility in a way that Bush cannot. What Kerry has to be careful with is preventing any more discussion of his “foreign leaders all endorsed me” remark, or any general perception that the French, Germans, or Russians are choosing our leader for us. And if Kerry does get elected, and the other members of the UNSC simply tell him, “The US made this mess - you can damn well clean it up”, it will start off any Kerry administration with a big black eye.

Which I think they will do in any case, regardless of who is President.

Regards,
Shodan

22

I think Kerry is following a strategy, and I think he’s probably right.

First off, Bush is beating up Bush better than Kerry ever could. As the bankruptcy of his policies becomes more apparent, it wears away at his core of support. This is crucial: GeeDubya benefits from having a core of voters who are committed to him for reasons less than entirely rational: they believe they are obliged to support a “war President” as a patriotic duty. Thier support cannot be argued with or contradicted by argumentative means, you can’t argue someone out of a position they didn’t think their way into in the first place.

Along with this, if Kerry piles on now, he paints himself as a villain to these very same people. Poor George, assailed on all sides by unpatriotic, “hate-America” liberals for his firm leadership, etc. etc.

And then of course, there’s the three Bigs of politics: money, money, and more money. GeeDubya has oodles of cash, he can afford to hammer away all summer long, Kerry can’t. He has no choice but to conserve his monetary ammo and to let his stump speech serve. It ain’t right, it ain’t fair, but that’s democracy in America.

With enough money and professional gravitas consultants, you can make tapioca pudding look like a ball o’ fire. Underneath the professional handling and spin control, GeeDubya is an entire mediocrity. His weakness as a public speaker can be handled and massaged, so long as he is not required to think for himself. But sooner or later there will be debates. If GeeDubya’s handlers could think of a way to avoid those, without incurring a huge political cost, they would. But they can’t.

And lest we forget: GeeDubya just spent a huge wad of cash, rumored to be about 50 megabucks, for which he got bupkiss: he’s still neck and neck, with that sinking feeling. Ask yourself: if you had a buck for every GeeDubya ad you’ve seen in the last month, less a buck for every Kerry ad, would you come out ahead? Here in Minnesota, I could easily afford that bottle of single-malt I’ve been eyeing.

Kerry isn’t campaigning heavily for two reasons, one, he doesn’t have the money, and two, he doesn’t have to.

23

Excuse please? A question from the conservative wing of the extreme left?

“Transition”? To what? To whom? Has he told you yet, because he hasn’t told me. So far, we are assured that there will be a handover of “soveriegnty”, which is apparently a word meaning “meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

This “soveriegn” Iraqi governance. Will it have control of all military units within its borders? Can it make or nullify laws? If it tells us to go, do we have to? Will it have any powers at all, beyond the awesome power to declare “Gosh, We Sure Love The Americans!” Day?

If Fearless Misleader sternly and firmly sticks to a date that means diddly squat, what is it that you imagine he has proven? Leadership? The ability to read and interpret a calender?

24

elucidator, presidential debates aren’t courtrooms. A candidate has to come off likeable in them, or he’s not going to win over voters.

It’s a painful lesson George W. Bush taught Al Gore last time around. And John Kerry would be wise to learn it heading in. He doesn’t have “likeability” going for him.

You can call Bush a mediocrity if you want to, but that doesn’t necessarily make it so. Given the choice between “smarter than he looks” or “empty suit”, I know which one I’d pick.

John Kerry doesn’t have a tremendously great legislative record to run on. He doesn’t introduce a lot of bills, and the ones he does introduce don’t typically win. Since this is the chief business of a Senator, it’s creeping very close to “empty suit” territory for me.

Give Ted Kennedy his due, at least he gets behind bills and works to get them passed. Massachusetts’ junior senator can’t say the same.

25

word up. .

To this day, W has a small claim on a small spot in my hear (yes, even mine, and yes I do have one…)

How can you completely revile a man who gets up on the bar in the Animal House, and dances naked? Say what you will, the man has a certain style, or shall we say flash…

26

Well, you certainly have a point there. Domo arigato, Mr. Moto

Kerry’s Senate record isn’t entirely inspiring. And I appreciate the agony you must have suffered to post even a mildly approving comment about Ol’ Teddy.

As well, Kerry must run against GeeDubya’s perfectly sterling record as President…no, I can’t go there, there isn’t enough irony in the known universe.

And this quality of “likeability”? Just as you say, it does seem to have an inordinate amount of importance. Does this please you? Would you have it otherwise? I get the impression this makes you slightly queesy: its ok with you if your candidate benefits from an entirely irrelevent impression of his “aw-shucks” demeanor and “down-home” venality, but its not entirely kosher to elect the most powerful man on Earth based on affability.

Got that about right?

27

I’d suggest to Kerry to attack Bush-Cheney where they are totally defenseless - serving your country. A good speech could be:

"Tell me President Bush, how can you send our troops to do the fighting and the dying in Iraq when you spent the Vietnam War in Texas? And Mr Cheney, you’ve made that nonchalant off-the-cuff remark that you didn’t serve in the military because you had “other priorities”. People have eluded to me as being elitist but what does had other priorities sound like ? It sounds as if you are too good for any dirty military assignment. Let’s bring this to the people. How about all 3 of us going to the Vietnam Wall and talk to the people who have lost children, spouses, parents and friends? Please Mr Cheney, comfort one of these grieving people by saying - “Gee I’m sorry your son got his head blown off. I would have served myself but I had other priorities.” Or Mr Bush tell someone that “because I didn’t go to Vietnam that means someone else went in my place. Perhaps it was your Daddy who was blown apart by that VC grenade which should have been meant for me”.
People have had the gall to accuse me of what medals and/or ribbons I threw away. Mr President and Vice President at least I earned those medals!!

Hey, that makes me feel better. But you know something? Even with a personal up-front attack like this, people would still regard Bush and Cheney as real heroes. Heck if real military service were the determining factor, we’d now be talking about the re-election chances of John McCain. (I’m still reeling from the fact that McCain lost to Bush). This country loves phonies doesn’t it? (I’ve made uncomplimentary references to John Wayne’s avoidance of military service in other posts and boy did I get blasted for that !! Oh yeah he really wanted to serve.)

Okay folks - feel free to “pounce” on my posting.

28

Jeez, Howard Dean had fire out the wahzoo, and half the Dem. party concluded he was nuts. So now that Kerry has thus far not rivalled the “I Have a Scream” speech, you criticise him for being uninspiring?

Frankly, I’m tired of folks rooting for populists and demagogues. I don’t want the victory to go to the one who bellows loudest. It well may, but that tells me my fellow American is, on average, a dolt, not that the losing candidate was a bad one.

Sadly, it’s starting to look like the average American is a little on the thick side, and would rather have a version of themselves in the Oval Office than someone they should rightly look up to. It seems strange that it’s bad for a candidate to appear too thoughtful, too cautious, too intellectual, and so on. No, they’ve got to yell from the beer-belly in sentences not exceeding ten words, with no more than two sylables per word. Deviate from this winning formula, and the voter tunes out. He/she gets bored by the weight of the wonkishness.

Well fuck the voter then, I say. I’d rather see Kerry lose with some integrity than beat Dubya at his pea-brained game. He can still come back to be our senator, he’s got tons of money, and the Dems can maybe work a little bit harder at having some unity and a game plan on a national level, like the neocons do. If we Dems are so smart, why can’t we outwit these fools rather than try to emulate them? And if emulation is the only way to be palatable to the miserable centrist, why bother? Again, I’d rather lose.

29

My impression was that Dean didn’t do the famous scream until after he started losing. My question is still, why did Dean lose and Kerry win?

You may get your wish.

Although I still feel the “I’d rather be right than President” kind of misses the point. So does the “anyone who doesn’t vote like me is an idiot” attitude that tends to get adopted everytime someone’s pet candidate loses.

It happened with Goldwater in 64. Four years later, Republicans took the White House.

But we didn’t tell the voters they were stupid.

Regards,
Shodan

30

If being right isn’t the point, than what is? Winning by lying, and then doing whatever the hell you want once in office? Actually, now that I think about it, that appears to have been Bush’s plan, but he lost the popular vote. Since being in office, however, he clearly not only has renegged on many of his campaign promises, he’s swung so far in the other direction on some of them it’s hard to understand why he’s so popular. I guess no bad deed goes unrewarded in US politics.

Again, I’d rather be right and lose. Also, if you’re right, and you lose, aren’t the folks who voted against you probably nitwits? Goldwater lost for some extremely good reasons. Dukakis lost becaue he was short, dark, and boring, apparrently. I’ve considered the possibility his New-England-Liberalishness was to blame, but then how do we explain Kennedy? Easy! He looked good. Not even an antebellum Belle could resist him.

31

I would say “trying to make a change for the better”.

And, possibly, realizing that if your ideas keep getting rejected by the voters, maybe the voters aren’t necessarily the ones that are wrong.

But be that as it may - what are Kerry’s ideas that are so much better than Bush’s? I keep asking the question, and, apart from some thoughtful response from BobLibDem and a couple of others, Kerry supporters get either offended or return to the endless round of Bush-bashing that seems to suck them in ineluctably.

I honestly think that the issues don’t matter to the Kerry side. Or rather, the only issue is that “Bush is bad”. So anybody would be better.

Well - Kerry is anybody. Why isn’t he ahead in the polls? If he isn’t, what issue is he going to use to try to get there? Or will he try something else, and if so, what will it be?

Or is he also going to be satisfied to be right, and decide on November 5th that it was really that most of America is stupid.

He can do that if he likes. But it seems a recipe for irrelevance for the Democratic party.

Besides, if Bush is so stupid and bad, why can’t the Democrats beat him?

Regards,
Shodan

32

Once, that argument would have seemed reasonable, but I’m not sure anymore. Sometimes I wonder if the only reason folks with my politics made it into any office is because the fathers of the neocons had gotten fat and complacent. Now that they see the likes of Bill Clinton can rule in Washington for 8 years, the troops have finally been rallied, and they’re not content to merely win a majority; they want it all. No alternate voice, no pluralism of any kind. The neocons got their man in office, and had the fantastic luck to be in a position of power when 9/11 occurred. Now they’ve got their trump card: Patriotism. They’ll play it for every hand they can, until all opposition is marginalized. After all, if you can convince the average Joe that dissenters aren’t just wrong, they’re un-American, why, how powerful a message could you hope for. If the masses are flag-waving sheep, that’s not a very difficult way to herd them, now is it? Maybe that’s why brighter folks lose: They’d never stoop so low as to manipulate the sheep with God and Country to inflate themselves and their power.

If such behavior sounds “right” to you, a way to make a “change for the better”, I don’t want to be associated with you, much less have your vote. Like I said, I’d rather lose and have some integrity.

33

The empty suit apparently. Bush can’t even testify in front of the 9/11 commission without Cheney holding his hand. :smiley:

34

Based on your characterization of all the elections your side has lost, I don’t think you need to worry much about getting my vote. :slight_smile:

If you say so. Good luck with the election, Mr. Nader.

Regards,
Shodan

35

Yes, Dean’s famous “scream” came long after sentiment had turned against him. Hard though it is to remember, there was a time not too long before the primaries started when Dean looked unstoppable, but he shot his wad just a bit too early, so the press and the public (in that order, IMO) turned on him. Kerry has probably learned from that mistake–anyone who is truly undecided at this point is not going to make up his mind right now, but probably much closer to November.

Besides, Bush’s approval ratings have reached some all-time lows lately, and it’s doubtful that the right’s recent attacks on Kerry’s military service and subsequent anti-Vietnam sentiment will resonate with anyone who isn’t inclined to take the right-wing word as gospel. The administration’s actions during the 9/11 hearings did not earn them much favor. Bush and the right are not helping themselves right now. Kerry needs to save it for when it counts.

36

Loopydude
Your posting #30 is scary and very true. Yes, the American people seem to want to elect a “bubba” type instead of someone who can and will do something.

And it is funny that Bush and Cheney stand for patriotism. Had 9/11 occurred during Clinton’s Presidency, he would have been reviled for being negligent, weak on national defense, etc. It happened during a Republican administration and the country rallies around the President. Yes it is so ironic how the Republicans have the gall to use patriotism as their rallying cry. Oh Republicans are patriotic as long as someone else does the fighting. They have a nice phony, armchair patriot, summer soldier, John Wayne patriotism. (See Posting 27)

37

Loopydude
Maybe it’s your posting#28 that is closer to what I was referencing. Darned message boards don’t show posting #'s while typing a response.
:smack:

38

Y’know, maybe I should just vote for a loser, though it won’t be Nader. Hell, the complaint everybody on the neocon side has against Kerry is his pandery. It happens to be the major problem I have with him. I’d gladly take a boring Kerry if I too could be sure his boring message wasn’t simply one of many he’d he’d whip out for my kind of audience. My motives have been flawed: Voting for “non-Bush” doesn’t show a lot of integrity. It just rewards pseudo-liberals for populism over principles. Bush is a radical; or rather, he is under the control of radicals. Maybe our problem is Kerry isn’t the radical we need to make a difference. We’re so afraid to lose, we forget what we sacrifice to win. After all, we can’t really win if we don’t know who we are. That’s one thing I’ll readily concede the neocons have never been in doubt about.

39

Ah, now there was a proud moment for the Party of Lincoln! Richard Milhouse Nixon brought forth to fester in the Oval Office for years. Kinda brings a lump to your throat, rising gorge kind of thing… No wonder you guys are so proud, supporting a leader like that, with this “secret plan” for peace, and all. And the “Southern Strategy”, now there was a proud accomplishment, a worthy achievement to burnish in the Halls of Liberty.

(It is said that passersby of Thomas Paine’s grave swear they could hear him puking his guts out…)

No. No, you didn’t. Lied through your collective teeth, appealed to the worse instincts of your fellow citizens, and fanned the flames of a brutal and wrenching polarity.

But you didn’t say they were stupid. You just counted on it.

40

Hmm, let’s see:

  1. Rescind the excessive tax cuts for the wealthy.
  2. Work to get the U.N. to take over the Iraq mess.
  3. Encourage companies through additional tax breaks to not offshore as many jobs as they currently are.
  4. Affordable health care for all
  5. Real support for education and the environment
  6. Restore respect for America throughout the world

There’s more at http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/

That Bush is has been bad for this country is a fact. That he has reneged on many campaign promises is a fact. That he is not a “compassionate conservative” is a fact. That he led us into the Iraq quagmire through at a minimum, misdirection (and worse, possibly lying) is a fact. That $700 million was illegally appropriated from the Afghan war fund for Iraq war planning is a fact.

That nearly 800 American lives have been lost in Iraq to date is a fact. That neither Bush nor Cheney has ever attended a slain soldiers funeral is a fact. That Bush has never vetoed a spending bill in his 3 years in office is a fact. That Bush has taken a $250 billion surplus and tuned it into at least a 500 million deficit is a fact.

I could go on for a long time, but will spare you. Here’s a link that might be of interest: Bush’s top 10 lies

Yes, sad to say, but it seems that just about anybody would be better than Bush.