Finally!
John Kerry is finally talking about Bush's miserable failure to effectively wage the war on terror. From his recent speech at New York University:
[W]e must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The President claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight.In the radio clips I've heard in the past few days, Kerry's finally turning around and sounding like he did in the eleventh hour in Iowa ó smart, impassioned, and right. And that change made all the difference then.
Bush doesn't have a leg to stand on when you consider his "performance" over the last four years. I'm getting very optimistic that the Kerry campaign is finally going to point out to the nation that the emperor is naked as a jaybird.
Comments
I honestly don't think being right matters in this election. It appears to be all about fear. Lying about how safe we are as a nation is working much better than telling the truth because it makes people feel better.
Why in the world would *any*one besides multimillionaires, their heirs, rascists, homophobes, or the genuinely evil vote for Bush? Because he lies to them and assuages their fears. It's a classic abusive relationship.
Take a group I'm in: Christians. How could any Christian in good conscience vote for a President that advocates killing people, starts wars, has greatly increased human suffering in this country, and could give two shits about anyone but the elite? Simple. The very conservative, traditional, and therefore fearful and insecure Christian folks are afraid because they see their faith traditions falling by the wayside and their ideal lifestyle evaporating.
They are afraid, so when the President tells them he will "defend marriage" by discriminating against 10% of our citizens, and when he tells them he will "protect life" by limitiing access to family planning, and when he says he will "fight terrorism" by attacking innocent Muslims they buy it. Then they go out and vote for the candidate who will make (and already has made) their lives more difficult and this country a worse place.
You can see the same thing happening in other groups in other ways, but it all boils down to lying to assuage fear.
It sickens me. Are we as a people so fearful and lazy that we will allow ourselves to be manipulated so blatantly? Apparently.
Good Luck John Kerry.
I also applaud Mr. Kerry's increased clarity and specificity.
I disagree with Mr. Kerry's choice to begin his increased clarity and specificity by highlighting differences on Iraq. I have thought for months that, if the Democrats campaign with Iraq as their key issue, they will lose.
More generally, I continue to urge Democrats to resist the urge to prove "the emperor has no clothes." They may very well be correct. But, I think the general public knows that Bush has not been a particularly good president thus far. They don't need to be convinced on this point. They do need to be convinced that Mr. Kerry can do better or, at a minimum, no worse. Many Democrats take this as a given; I do not think that the general public does.
In that respect, Mr. Kerry's recent presentation was disappointing. He may very well be right in his criticisms of Mr. Bush's policies. But, there is no "Bush is wrong" selection on the ballot. I believe that Mr. Kerry needs to direct focus to his policies to convince undecided/borderline voters and to energize people to turn out to vote for him.
Democrats may not be able to win if Iraq is their key issue. I don't know about that one way or the other.
I'm not convinced, however, that the general public is widely aware of what a miserable job Bush has done on just about everything he's attempted. (Unless you are an HMO, oil company, or connected defense contractor, of course.) The Bush campaign trumpets their medicare drug benefit, for example, and I don't think it's widely understood just how bad that legislation is for the American citizenry as a whole.
You can step and repeat this template with pretty much every "accomplishment" of the Bush administration. They trumpet their "successes," which informed people know are crap but which the average voter doesn't. I think this is where Kerry can score; by exposing the Bush successes as a series of shams and lies.
Until John Kerry does two things he has no hope. Fortunately they are not too hard.
1) Speak in simple declarative sentences. The man cannot say "Hi" without it being a run-on sentence. Pleh.
2) Have an actual positive message and agenda and not "Bush sucks" (in a long, boring run-on sentence).
Don't get me wrong I am voting for, have given money to, and otherwise support Kerry. But I am annoyed at his mismanagement of this election thus far.
Joe
Although my previous post is very, very bitter I still stand by my fundemental premise: This election is all about fear.
You can vote for either Bush with "What will all those people who are different than you do to your family?", or Kerry with "What will Bush do to your family?"
There seems to be no room in the debate for plans, ideals, or hope.
Accordingly, I'm with those who think Kerry should point out how bad things have gotten under Bush and try to scare people about a second term (which shouldn't be too hard).
Anyone with access to the Wall Street Journal and interest may want to look at Jacob Schlesinger's front page article yesterday, Thursday, 9/23/04. Mr. Schlesinger documents the decision to focus on Iraq. Being capitalists, wsj.com is a pay-to-read site and the article is too long for me to want to post here.
In addition, Mr. Kerry's interview published in today's Columbus Dispatch is noteworthy: 'Kerry declined to portray the three presidential debates over the next 17 days as "make or break" for his candidacy, but said he has to "present myself clearly, forcefully to the American people with a clear set of priorities."' It seems that he is aware of the issue.
So Jim are you saying that everyone who votes for Bush is afraid, scared, racist, homophobe, etc.?
Now I am not voting for Bush as well as I am not voting for Kerry, atleast not yet. I have yet to make up my mind, but yet Kerry has not impressed me and I don't believe in changing leadership at a time of war. Just look at Vietnam. So I guess you could say right now I am 52% Bush, 48% Kerry.
I don't like the negative adds or people who bash another person such as I have see some people do. I just want to hear what a candidate can do for me. Both Bush as Kerry are as dishonest as they come...Hell pretty much all politicans are dishonest. They will say what they think you want to hear. Both Bush and Kerry are there for the rich..don't be fooled. Bush is an oilman and Kerry (or should I say his wife) is a billionaire. Neither one has the middle/lower class in mind.
Well I think I said enough...being the non-political person that I am.
Jeff R.
Not everyone who votes for Bush is a homophobe or a racist, I only said that those groups would support him wholeheartedly based on his agenda. They don't need fear to vote for him.
Do I think everyone else who votes Bush is afraid? To a certain degree, yes I do. Unless you actually agree with all the horrible stuff GWB has done to this country and the world and his even more horrible plans for our nation's future, the only reason to vote for him is fear that things will get somehow worse if someone else gets elected.
Why *not* change leadership in times of war, especially when that very leadership started the war and has mismanaged it so horribly? Why not get a new team in -does anyone honestly believe they'd do a *worse* job? Here's the clear-cut Iraq difference:
Bush: Pretend things are fine, let the situation continue to devolve into chaos, reinstate the draft to send more kids to their pointless deaths and stir up more terrorism.
Kerry: TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT, like actually going after the people who attacked us and getting more help from our allies.
Of course both candidates are rich -you have to be rich to have the connections to run for President, but look at how they plan to treat the middle class. It's pretty straight forward:
Bush: Remove all taxes the wealthy actually pay, make up the shortfall by shorting programs the middle class uses and cranking up the defecit. This raises most people's overall tax burden and lessens services. I know my overall tax burden is much higher than it was 4 years ago, and as a police officer you must be seeing what all the funding problems are doing to essential services.
Kerry: Reinstate the taxes that the wealthy actually pay, use the money to fully fund programs the middle class uses and pay down the defecit. This lowers people's overall tax burden and increases services.
I suggest watching the debates, as Kerry will probably do a good job of getting his ideas across in them. Fundementally, do you want to pay more taxes, get less services, and be stuck in the quagmire of Iraq with no plan forever? That prospect is more fear-inducing to me than change.
My only comment about Iraq is....let the military do the job that they have to do. Politicans should not be involved in a war, except to the point of approving it and funding the troops. Other than that, get the hell out of the way, ya fucked up Vietnam, you're fucking up Iraq. Let the Generals do their job how they see fit. They are the experts, not politicans.
I will probably watch the debates until I get too bored with egotism between the both of them. They I'll turn it to something more enjoyable like a sitcom.
The AP issued a poll last night which seems to support my contention that, although many undecided voters have concerns over Iraq, they will not break in Kerry's favor on the issue.
The poll does, however, document a serious level of concern over Iraq among undecided voters, which could lead someone to believe that they should focus on the issue.
See http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=703&e=1&u=/ap/20040929/ap_on_el_pr/ap_poll_persuadables
Now that was more like it, John!
Great debate; I have a tape for anyone who missed it.
I'm looking forward to the VP debate Wednesday: Cheney vs. Edwards! Pit Bull vs. Golden Retreiver! The smart money is normally on the Pit Bull as he is meaner, but sometimes the Golden gets pissed (or is an experienced trial lawyer) and kicks ass while still seeming nice and looking cute. Either way it should be fun viewing.
Also, the Town Hall format on Friday looks like a winner. What will Bush say when someone asks him a tough question? Will Kerry answer each detail of every question in exhaustively detailed sentences without dangling participles? Only by watching will you know.