Kerry is so WEAK, both campaigns ridiculous

Great Debates
1

Memories of 1988, when another weak candidate won the primaries for exactly the same reason: a little something for everyone in the Democrat coalition, but not enough really to thrill the electorate.

Actually, Kerry as a candidate is not nearly so weak as Dukakis, which is what makes his floundering campaign really sad and frustrating to watch. Where is the message? Kerry perhaps is still thinking the self-serving thought, “I’m nuanced.” But that’s not the problem. Nuance that runs and circles and never comes to an “ah-hah” conclusion is just wasted speech. For every 3-hour, run-on speech that Kerry delivers, Bush says, “The economy is strong,” gets his soundbyte, and climbs a notch higher.

I don’t want Bush to win–for one simple reason. Although I suspect Kerry will accomplish zilch in office, he will do less damage internationally than Bush, who is capable of doing much damage indeed, and has done much already. Both candidates are zeros as far as domestic policy. (For the record I’m not a liberal; I’m way farther left than that.)

So I want to root for Kerry, am definitely rooting against chimpo Bush, but I can honestly say that Kerry has not said a single thing that has ever appealed to me. What are his ideas? I can’t think of even one. What is more dangerous, however, is that he is not even good at pointing out Bush’s weaknesses. Iraq War? “Wellll, it should have been done differently.” No joke! But even Bush can say, “Mistakes have been made, but Sadaam’s gone, Iraq is going to be a democratic paradise, freedom, blah.” He wins the soundbyte; he goes up another notch.

By this I don’t just mean that Kerry has a good critique of the Iraq war but is poor at expressing it. I mean, rather, that he doesn’t even have a good critique to begin with. Where are the insights, the biting points? I don’t see any.

Dean had had a chance against Bush. He had voted against Iraq and had been able to speak strongly against the current debacle. But Dean had an edge to him, and the primaries, as they always do unless there is an exceptionally strong candidate like Bill Clinton, choose Mr. Buttermilk, the candidate that is acceptable to all but thrilling to no one. And not just the Democrats. The same thing happened with Mondale in '84 (pathetically weaak), Dukakis in '88 (laughably weaaaak), Dole in '96 (ludicrously weaaaaak), and even GWB himself was unable to defeat mediocre candidate Gore by ordinary means.

So here are some points for debate:

  1. Isn’t it the interest of the parties to change the primary system so that they don’t shoot themselves in the foot every presidential election?

  2. Can Kerry possibly overcome his pathetic weakness (he is behind in the national polls as well as the electoral vote) to defeat the Chimp come November 2?

  3. Will ponderous blather overcome simplistic mantras in the “debates”?

  4. Will Hillary’s wiping the floor with Jeb in 2008 more than make up for our loss this year?

  5. Which will Shrub destroy first, the GOP or the USA?

2

BTW, the SBVT thing has been deliciously, ingeniously, evilly effective. I mean, it’s the hero vs. the slacker when it comes to Viet Nam, and the slacker wins that battle. Unbelievable! Machiavelli must be snorting coke in his grave.

And now these forged documents. Man, if the Rovies did this, they are total geniuses! And if people for Kerry did this, total idiots! Totally deflects scrutiny of the real issue of the Chimp’s slacking and wastes a good two weeks of campaign time–just when Kerry really needed to dig in. Amazing!

At any rate, of all the campaigns I’ve ever witnessed (from '76), this is the most ludicrous and superficial of them all–just when the stakes were highest, too.

3

Who are you, the Red Guard?

Not here, apparently. Oh… you meant those other debates.

4

I’m a socialist, not a communist.

Are you taking the simplistic mantra side?

5

Couldn’t agree more. Democratic primary voters seem clueless about what it takes to get elected nationally. The only recent exception was in '92 when the primaries were frontloaded with Southern states which gave us the moderate and folksy Clinton as the nominee.

Republicans aren’t much better. I still can’t believe they nominated Bush over McCain. They got lucky with the Florida debacle.

Boggles my mind that Kerry has nothing substantive to say. Surely he will make a pithy and substantive criticism at some point during this campaign. Surely.

Ain’t gonna happen. Hillary won’t get nominated. And if she did, she would get wiped out in a general election.

The latter, I fear.

6

Well, your whole rant is just so… ambiguous. It’s almost like you’re a plant for the Bush campaign. You hurl the requisite insults, like chimpo and shrub, and claim that you’re a far left of “liberal”, but you do things like push the Hillary button, as though it were a warning of what might happen lest the right lose its vigilance. You use “freedom” like a throw-away word like any good far-leftist, but manage to slip in Bush’s sound bites nonetheless. And you give for debating topics a rather desultory list of issues from primary campaigns to the fall of the Republic. Can you clearly state your intentions?

7

I’ve heard his message over and over now. Bush has misled the country, and at every turn, he’s made the most colossally bad decisions imaginable. Iraq. The economy. Health care. That it’s time to get the country back on the track. I’ve heard him state this many times.

8

1- Dems did not shoot themselves in the foot. If Kerry ran the last two months like he did in February, Teresa would be picking out the White House china by now.

2- Yes. There are three kinds of people. Those that love Bush, those that hate Bush, and the other kind. Get enough of the other kind in your corner and you win.

3- Good question. I fear the answer. Kerry can argue about the war’s necessity and Bush will just grin and repeat 9/11…9/11…9/11

4- Not in a million years. I’m a liberal Democrat and even I despise Hillary.

5- Good question. A second Bush term could be so disastrous that the Democrats will be back in command for a generation. It’s almost worth losing just for this possibility.

9

Kerry has made a number of points in the campaign. First, he is in favor of trying to rebuild international relations and get our allies involved in the Iraq war, and not just as window-dressing. This clearly sets him apart from Bush (the UN is “irrelevant”). He also has stated that he doesn’t believe the U.S. should go to war unless absolutely necessary. Second, he wants to roll back the tax cuts that Bush gave to the extremely wealthy. Third, he wants to strengthen environmental protections. Fourth, he favors incentives for businesses to keep jobs in the country rather than farming them out overseas. I’ve gotten that much from him, and I don’t even listen to that many political speeches.

But wasn’t Clinton “Mr. Buttermilk” as well? My recollection is that he was branded as a panderer. Weren’t they calling him “The Waffler” or some such name? And to an extent, the charge was legitimate. He apparently relied very heavily on opinion polls and carefully chose everything he said. Seemed to work for him, though.

Honestly, I think a lot of the problem is not Kerry’s message, but the fact that he’s just not an attractive man, and not a very engaging speaker. I happened to catch him on The Daily Show, and he was actually quite relaxed and articulate. He didn’t seem to have the wooden style that characterizes his speeches. I found myself thinking, “Where has this guy been?”

10

Aeschines - are you registered? Today’s the deadline for overseas people:
http://www.overseasvote2004.com/

11

Thanks, I’m back in Indiana now. I’m going to press “D” (no hanging chads for me!) despite my lack of enthusiasm.

12

Thanks, I’m back in Indiana now. I’m going to press “D” (no hanging chads for me!) despite my lack of enthusiasm.

13

“Your crystal ball has crack. So does pipe you smoke.” --Chief Gatopescado

14

I have enough history as a leftie on this site so that people would know otherwise.

Hillary would make a tremendous prez. She’s a born leader, a good orator, and actually has some ideas for change (as an added bonus, these ideas are positive and workable!). Neither Bush nor Kerry has anything. Health care? Billary actually had something ready to go, but the Pubs shot it down.

Quite the opposite, I’m critiquing Bush’s cornball, “We’re bringing freedom to the Iraqi’s and everyplace we attack” crap. America is the free-est, America is the bestest. Why? Because we’re America, and we’re the best by definition. Very convenient. I think the big theme right out to be reducing the burden on the average person in this country (hint: a few hundred dollars in tax cuts for a middle class family is not going to cut it), because a lot of people are groaning under the weight of a system rigged against them.

Sadly, with primaries like these, I think the fall of the republic is only decades away.

15

Lord help us. What you call “cornball” is exactly the food that America swallows. When Hillary was president, her husband knew that. That’s why he eviscerated welfare entitlement schemes, made little or no effort to push her health nonsense, put his trust in the market’s resiliance, balanced the federal budget, and presided over astounding economic growth. Due respect, I honestly think that the best way you could help the Democrats right now is to tiptoe quietly away.

16

Hillary will face Rudy, not Jeb, not Pat, in an epic fight in 2008. A fight so epic that Don King and Bob Arum will want a cut in the action.

17

Gah. First lady, not president. :smack:

18

My take on question #1 in the OP – I’ve always found it interesting that in the primaries, both parties tend to embrace the most “middle of the road” candidate while the more extreme candidates (and I don’t necessarily mean that in a bad way – sometimes they have the more interesting ideas) get left in the dust. Then in the general election you wind up with a couple of guys who aren’t really that different but try to emphasize their differences while everyone bitches about what a couple of boring candidates we wound up with again. Then four years later it happens again, and again…

19

Really, how tough could it be? Pick a theme or two, and hammer away.

“George Bush, Mr. Borrow and Spend, has put us farther into the red than we’ve ever been! He’s refinanced the house 3 or 4 times, and has maxed out all the credit cards! And what have we got? 4 million fewer jobs than when he started!” (Sorry if the number is wrong – you get the point.)

“Two Hund-red Bill-ion Doll-ars spent in Iraq and counting! And what have we got to show for it? 1,000 dead American servicemen and women, your own children, our best and bravest! The entire population of the Mideast turned against us! An entire country turned into a terrorist breeding ground! 3 Divisions of the US Army unfit for duty! Car bombs, suicide bombers and insurgents hell bent on killing more Americans! Cheney and Bush got us into this mess, and I for one don’t trust them to be able to get us out!”

That’s really all you need, as Bush knows. Any question, you can answer with some of the above – “Um, Sen. Kerry, what is your position on health care?” “Two Hund-red Bill-ion Doll-ars spent in Iraq and counting!”

“Uh, that’s great. But seriously, what about the health care thing?” “He’s refinanced the house! He’s maxed out all the credit cards!”

20

Just a couple of points.

First, Kerry need to put out a short, punchy, coherent explanation of the vote to give the President war powers and the subsequent vote against the Iraqi funding bill that passed. I see such an explanation (which is, I think, honest and factual). When the war powers bill came up the President was talking about going to the UN and resort to war as a last resort to be used if nothing else got cooperation out of Saddam. How could a person of good will undercut the President under those circumstances? When the funding bill came up the President and his Congressional allies flat refused to consider getting any part of the $87 Billion price tag by taking back any part of the tax cut. The vote was a protest against fiscal irresponsibility.

Second, the occupation of Iraq is rapidity going to hell in a hand basket. That was throughly predictable and results from a deliberate decision by the Administration to do the war on the cheap. The out break of disorder in the wake of the fall of a dictator was bound to happen. The best, if not the only, way to prevent that was to put enough people on the ground that the disorder would be quickly quelled. We had the example of the Soviets in Afghanistan and we had war college and command and general staff studies out the ears all telling us the same thing – if there are not enough soldiers present to maintain order the whole thing goes down the drain and the level of resistance snowballs.

Third, the President and his people now seem to be cast in the election as a posturing contest in which all concerned proclaim the President’s superior toughness and determination – what some soreheads may regard as recklessness and pigheadedness – in pursuit of a purpose to defeat terrorists. That just takes the whole thing to an emotional level but leaves an opening to forcefully point out that the Iraqi Adventure has deprived us of the opportunity to deal the best organized of the terror organizations a mortal blow. The most entertaining thing going on however is a TV ad with what looks like four Sergeant Rock impersonators from Central Casting proclaiming their unshakeable opinion that Senator Kerry does not have the Right Stuff and that the President has the biggest balls in the race. The guys are represented as veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe so, but give me enough time and I can find you four reasonable looking Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who thing the whole government was set up by reptilian space aliens.

This damn election isn’t over yet.