September 05, 2004
A Strategy for Kerry
While it seems most of the Kerry supporters are suddenly in a panic due to recent polls, it was only a few weeks ago that Kerry had been the favorite for months. Remember that since he accepted the nomination he hasn't been able to spend money like Bush, so it's only natural that his lead has dissipated. That said, he does need a coherent strategy, which Mark Schmitt is happy to provide:
Bush's case for himself is all about vision and will. He's willing to make enemies internationally, offend liberals, and transgress some of the principles of public life, because getting things done in a dangerous world sometimes requires that. For that reason, I think the two planks of Kevin's proposed case against Bush -- that he's going to get people killed and that he operates in secret -- actually reinforce the Bush message. The problem with Bush message is that he doesn't really have a coherent vision or will, and the problems we've created for ourselves didn't need to be created. That has to be the base of the message, and other points build on that. For example, Kevin's point that Bush should be critiqued for operating in secret doesn't have much bite if you assume the administration is competent. Given the threat of terrorism and other chaos, we need a certain amount of secrecy. The problem, however, is that the administration uses secrecy not to protect us, but to cover up its own incompetence and failings, and to suppress useful criticism."
The really interesting point about this post is how it attempts to show that criticizing Bush for being too secretive might actually help Bush if he's not first shown to be incompetent. Whether Kerry will be able to muster a simple and effective criticism of Bush that strikes a majority of voters as true remains to be seen, but be it the one Schmitt suggests or something else, he needs to come up with one soon.
Very interesting thoughts
I'm suddenly inspired to write more about this, so there'll be a full post later tonight or tomorrow sometime, but here are two ideas of mine in rough form -
1) Get Edwards to conjoin the "competence" attack to a "silver spoon" attack. make a point of Bush's priveliged lineage by recounting his litany of failures - his failure in school, his failure to fulfill his military duties, his repeated failures in business, and [kicker], his failure in politics. Ask people why someone who has been given so much would really care about them? (This one's gotta come from Edwards, since he's got a striver's background).
2)Get Kerry to call Bush a liar. Hammer away at WMDs, SBVFT (whether or not W endorsed them). This is DIFFERENT from the issues of 'secrecy' that they're saying won't work. Why, oh why, has the Democratic Party decided that calling a spade a spade is a bad idea?
I'm not sure calling Bush a liar would be an effective strategy. It would be seen by many as excessively negative. Since we require a certain decorum of our candidates, the one who is seen as smearing the opponent tends to lose more than the one smeared, regardless of the truthfulness of the claims made. So, even if Kerry could provide inarguable evidence that Bush knowingly lied about many important issues, he's still be seen as the bad guy and lose some of the more idiotic swing voters.
The way to go is to campaign negatively through surrogates. There are plenty of 527s that could start hitting Bush for lying.
You seem to be forgetting that campaigns are not allowed to coordinate with 527s. It'd be nice if they took it upon themselves to do the attacking, but Kerry can't use them as surrogates.
With the dem's leadership as it is, how can you honestly expect to win?
All you have done with your phlem slinging speeches from the likes of Gore, Dean, Kennedy, Hilary and even Kerry is united the dem's against Bush. You have not united your party behind your candidate. That will be why you lose.
You have painted yourself into a losing corner where moderate to conservative democrats are being forced to vote AGAINST someone.... rather than FOR someone.
I have talked to many democrats and they are full of emotion when talking about their hatred for Bush. But they are pretty much void of emotion when talking about their support of Kerry, if they even mention him at all.
Your campaign of hatred has polarized this nation unlike any I have ever seen. You have brought out the fringe voters on both sides.
That is why this election will be decided by the independants such as myself.
As for this "idiotic swing voter"... as much as I dislike some of the policies of the Bush administration..... I just can't bring myself to vote for Kerry.
You dem's have spent all your time bashing Bush instead of speaking of and clarifing Kerry's positions on key issues.
You have left it up to me.... and you should have never allowed that to happen because when I researched it for myself I find it depends on what day of the week and who he is speaking to as to the position he takes on any given issue..... you should have spent your time and money hammering on what Kerry was going to do to lead us instead of bashing Bush.
oh well....think I'm wrong wait and see. Many self thinking voters such as myself will not vote for a candidate (right or wrong) that has not projected a clear vison of what he stands for.
Don't really expect any of you to agree but at least when you lose again this time you won't be able to blame it on the hanging chads.
It will be your own fault. See you at the polls.
Actually, we couldn't agree more with your main point. I don't think we'd be having a discussion about what Kerry SHOULD be doing if we already thought he was doing the right thing. But just because Kerry hasn't articulated his own image well, doesn't mean that Bush hatred is unjustified - and to blame the division of the country on the Democrats' relatively feeble attempts to highlight Bush's many inadequacies is putting the cart waaaay before the horse.
If most "undecided" voters think like you, then I really am worried. The Bush camps effort to paint Kerry as a "waffler" are unbelievably ridiculous, and that they've actually worked is just appalling (though it's really Kerry's fault).
If you find Bush's vision of "steadfast" and "unwavering" incompetence, destruction and death compelling, then by all means vote for him. I'm sure the people who own the company you work for will really appreciate your solidarity with their interests.
Notadem,
Forgive me for being presumptuous, but your post sounds as if you're getting all your information from Rush and cable news. These are not good sources of information. If you want to know what Kerry's positions are, go read his website. Everything is there in perfectly clear and unequivocal language.
This election is serious business. There is a lot at stake. Our security, for one thing. Al Qaida is spreading all over the globe, world opinion of the US is at historical lows, and the situation in Iraq continues to look like a quagmire. The GOP's solution to all this is a lot of deluded chest-beating militarism. Not to mention the spiraling budget deficit, GOP contempt for civil liberties, the (non)funding of education and health care. You owe it to your country to think hard about your vote.
Ah Mallarme, I forgot. Let me rephrase. The Kerry campaign needs "non-coordinated" attacks by 527s.
It makes no difference either way. Of course the campaigns are in contact with 527s--or at least the 527s will do what the campaigns say. If Rove wanted to pull the Swiftboats, they would be pulled tomorrow.