Will Pitt: Riddle me this, if you please....

[Selwynn]

OK, Will let me ask you this about the Kerry campaign:

You've posted that all of DU's "Kerry should do this, Kerry should do that" stuff cracks you up, which left me with the impression that you thought most of the concerns posted here were silly and that Kerry shouldn't do anything different than what he is doing.

You posted groans and other various sound effects in response to someone who said Kerry was making a big mistake not going on the attack in response to being attacked. And all in all I get the distinct impression that if anyone has anything critical - but what I would call constructive, i.e. people who want Kerry to win but have critical comments to make about this strategy - they are silly and misguided, because Kerry is executing things with near flawless perfection.

First part of my question: is that more or less, pretty accurate?

Second part: if so, why exactly do you think that? It is striking to me to reflect on the fact that Dukakis lost in great part due to the devastation of the Willie Horton thing and his failure to proactively respond or get on the offensive. It is striking to me to remember that Al Gore also played this same tactic and did not respond aggressively with counter-attacks to a quite a lot of the things ran against him, whether it was a silly as the "i invented the internet" bullshit, or if it was attacks on his personal character or demeanor. And while Al Gore won, it was by no means decisive in any way. And then I reflect on Bill Clinton..

Clinton fought back. And he won. Twice. By a good margin. And ended his two terms in office with one of the highest public approval ratings around. He played the republicans own game and beat them at it. When they would go after him, he knew that meant he could go after them without appearing like a bully - because they opened the door for it. What exactly is wrong with wanting our candidate to speak the truth and honestly defend himself when attacked, and what is wrong with expecting our candidate to stand up for truth and point out the truthful criticism that should be made about the other guys?

[MikeG]

1. Didn't Bush win in '88 because of the economy?

[Selwynn]

2. Bush won in 88 because his opposition couldn't defend himself...

..from any attack or show any kind of spine.

[deutsey]

21. Right. Dukakis was way ahead in the polls until Bush I went negative

In fact, Lee Atwater admitted it was his strategy to go so negative that he would energize his base and make everyone else so disgusted that they wouldn't bother to vote.

[JPJones]

3. The 'Economy is better under Republicans' meme

did have an influence. I think that it was easy to reflect on the economy under Jimmy Carter and assume that those 'tax and spend Democrats' screw up the economy. The economy wasn't great then, but it got much worse under HW.

Thank God for Bill Clinton. He saved the Democratic party.

[jab105]

33. READ THIS!! This is a MUST READ to ANY Kerry supporters!!

Bush is going negative in a big way, and I barely hear a peap from Kerry, and YES, I'm in florida...

If polls start doing this, you better start screaming and yelling bloody murder, or else the same thing is going to happen to Kerry...

Sorry, but you have to respond, and responding on a web blog that reaches abot 10,000 people or so, just aint gonna cut it!!

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/analysis/back.time/9611/26/

The Governor's 85-year-old mother Euterpe, however, when offered a microphone, stated angrily, "We have not compromised our honor."

When Bush launched his attack strategy in August, Dukakis let the Vice President's charges go unanswered. Confident that the once hapless Vice President would eventually self-destruct, Dukakis stuck to the bland themes and rhetoric -- typified by his campaign mantra, "good jobs at god wages" -- that had carried him through the primaries. Voters who knew little about Dukakis' record in Massachusetts readily believed what Bush had to say about him. By September the 18-point lead that Dukakis held over Bush in midsummer had disappeared. Says G.O.P. strategist Lance Tarrance: "This election was probably won by Labor Day."

Perhaps. But what maddens Democrats is that Dukakis could probably have recovered had he reacted more quickly and more vigorously to Bush's assault. In the final weeks of his campaign, Dukakis executed a shift in strategy that nearly rescued his moribund candidacy. He finally responded to Bush's distortions of his record and successfully made an issue of the Republicans' negative tactics. He countered Bush's talk about values with a powerful message of economic populism. He learned to hit Bush where he was most vulnerable, condemning the patrician Vice President as an enemy of the middle class. "I'm on your side," Dukakis said in one stump speech after another until he went hoarse.

[Snoggera]

4. I remember Clinton bringing primarily a positive message

to his campaigns, just as the current one is.

Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow!

I think a key to the fighting back strategy is whether or not the media will spin every response as whining, looking weak and confused, flip-flopping, etc. There are other methods for fighting other than aggressively responding to every attack.

[codegreen]

6. didn't Clinton only get 38 percent? without Perot he maybe would have lost

too often this is forgetten or swept under the rug by us.

regardless of what one wants to infer about Clinton's campaign, this must be remembered.

[Selwynn]

14. It's had to pin down that's true, but I believe...

Clinton's strategy is as much a part of his success as anything else.

[codegreen]

19. yeah, i wasn't trying to interpret why, or his strategy either way

just sounding the reminder neutrally

[bushwakker]

20. 43% for Clinton

No polling evidence that without Perot Bush would have won. Perot ran as the ultimate outsider - Bush was the ultimate insider. The idea that these people would have shifted their vote 180 degrees is not credible although the GOP has been spreading this line for years. I remember that election well and anecdotally I would say that most Perot voters were would not have voted at all in that election. I have always contended that Perot HURT Clinton in that he kept him from the 50% figure and allowed the GOP to smear him as a "minority president". Clinton mos certainly would have won and got 50% without Perot.

[Cheswick2.0]

8. Yes, Cinton responded very positively and with in 24 hours to every

single attack the bush campaign leveled against him.

[desi]

17. Yep..

...a very effective "War Room" that immediately took care of all the attacks.

[Seabiscuit]

41. Perhaps you forgot that Clinton

*did* respond very aggressively to *every* negative smear attack from the Repukes both in 1992 and 1996. His formula for success was combining such aggressive responsive with positive messages. THAT's how Kerry's campaign is missing the boat. Dukakis failed miserably because, like Kerry's trying to do now, he attempted to simply stay "positive" and "optimistic", but lost big because he failed to respond to the Repuke attacks.

Look, far too much is at stake for Kerry to let us down. America's future is in the balance as never before. Perhaps if we can wake up some people like William Pitt, who have Kerry's ear, Kerry's campaign strategy will improve. Meanwhile, however, Kerry's dug himself a hole so deep on the Iraq issue that it's not just the right wing press that is pointing out that it's hard to discern any difference between Kerry and Bush on Iraq. Kerry's "nuances" don't reach the average voter. Why the #%+^&*! can't Kerry *stand up* to Bush on all fronts about Iraq???

[WilliamPitt]

5. Answers

I don't think Kerry is running a perfect campaign. It is impossible for him to do so with the media slanted against him the way we've seen. Christ, when Chris Matthews compares Kerry commercial makers to Nazi propaganda filmmakers, you know you're up against some serious bullshit.

I posted what I posted because I imagine a team of Kerry campaigners reading thread after thread of tactical advice from DUers, watching them come wave after wave, and then I imagine them running around like maniacs trying to act on all the advice - even the really bad ideas - and then I imagine their heads exploding. It does crack me up.

I have, however, an enormous amount of faith in Kerry's crew. When they decide to drop it into the high gear - and they will - there will be GOPer brains splattered on walls from here to Hawaii. Take a look at the body count from the primaries. Kerry's team dropped it into gear and buried the competition like compost, using tactics you won't find in Emily Post. Lots of people here want Kerry to come out swinging yesterday. My advice: Wait and watch, and bring some popcorn.

My memory of campaigns past is that the real hard stuff happens after the conventions are over. Kerry's crew knows that Bush is going to get all the ink soon because of his convention. There's nothing to be done about it, so he's taking a break and resting for the September-October push...and the debates.

There is also the reality of this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3222-2004May30_3.html

If Kerry spent his time trying to refute every bullshit allegation these guys had slung, he would

a) Have no time for anything else;

b) Be playing right into the Bushies game plan by being reactive to them, thus letting them set the agenda;

c) Lose the veneer of optimism they've worked hard to cultivate.

I've been a Kerry suppoprter for President for two years now, and he has yet to let me down. He's been my Senator for 19 years, and I know the crew he's working with. I trust them, and thus I can't help finding some of the Chicken Little's here more than a bit amusing. But that's my own bias.

[jjmalonejr]

9. My sentiments exactly

This is precisely what I would have written if I were half as eloquent as you are, Will.

[JPJones]

16. To listen to every suggestion - silly. To ignore the sentiment...

DU is just another poll. Posts that ask Kerry to be something he isn't are silly. Posts that reflect what is going on in America, what people are saying and thinking, could be pretty valuable.

I think the take-home message is that the SWVFB attacks are having an effect out here in the fly-over states.

[ibegurpard]

23. Here's the problem with that

that's pretty much what many of us were fed during the 2002 elections. So please forgive the skepticism. Nothing would please me more than for you to be correct but once burned...

[WilliamPitt]

24. I'm confused

You were burned exactly how? By claims that Kerry is a strong closer? That he and his crew know how to win? Because he was, and they did.

[ibegurpard]

27. Did you read my post?

THE 2002 ELECTIONS! Everyone was reassured that the Democrats would let Bush and the Republicans have "just enough rope" and then BANG! they'd let them have it. What we got was talk about a prescription drug benefit.
So, many of us are skeptical of these claims.

[WilliamPitt]

31. My bad.

[zulchzulu]

30. Based on your avatar, I see right through your strategery

Here is what I'm guessing you want to Kerry to do:

1. Scream like Dean did. Guess what. That doesn't work. This is a campaign with about 80 days left. You give the RNC and their shills a blowout sound bite like Dean did in Iowa AND IT'S ALL OVER. Bzzzt. Toast. Buh-bye. Anger and shouting ain't gonna cut it with those undecided... it would be a disaster.

2. You think Kerry should attack the media for the evil little bastards that they are. Wrong again.... You piss of the media during this critical election cycle AND IT'S ALL OVER. Bologna without the mayo, the shit would hit the fan.

We need Bush out as the only thing you should be seriously and hopefully doing grassroots work with right now. You should be helping to register voters and educating those that are on the fence about Kerry to get a goddamn clue.

Once Kerry gets in, then your and my mission is to make sure he does what is best for the country.

We need to not focus on sub-events that will not even be remembered two weeks from now and instead engage in using all our talents, time and efforts to get Kerry elected. As for Dean, I personally was not a big fan during the primaries, but am very happy with what he's doing now.

[Elidor]

26. Will's got it all figured out, folks.

We should sit down and shut up. Our petty concerns for the future of our country are just that - petty. Trust Kerry and his team. Be calm. There is no point in airing our opinions, because we are little people.

/sarcasm

[Carni]

32. I see what you're saying because I watched it in 2000

There was NOTHING worse than watching the Gore campaign continually playing catch up. They were always playing defense.

One day it was Gore invented the Internet, the next it was Love canal, Love story...or the always asinine Gore had iced tea with buddists bla bla

Then there were his change in clothing colors and on and on and on

All of this crap was responded to, but not FULLY responded to...
(and in most cases there was no way to even respond to such moronathon claims and accusations because the answers were too boring to hold the public's attention)So then what the public saw were semi-responses, pre-empted by more crap, followed by more semi-half responses.

Even election night was a pre-emptive strike putting Gore in the doghouse, via Jon Ellis at faux.

My opinion only, the Kerry campaign people seem to have avoided this trap so far (even though I myself have often thought WTF aren't they responding to THIS?)

I think all in all they have played things well because idiot bush doesn't seem to be setting the agenda.

[Selwynn]

37. Thank you very much for the reply.

:toast:

[Toucano]

39. A new quotable quote.

"there will be GOPer brains splattered on walls from here to Hawaii."

You are gifted! :)

[Seabiscuit]

40. I take issue with the following:

"If Kerry spent his time trying to refute every bullshit allegation these guys had slung, he would

a) Have no time for anything else;

b) Be playing right into the Bushies game plan by being reactive to them, thus letting them set the agenda;

c) Lose the veneer of optimism they've worked hard to cultivate.

I've been a Kerry suppoprter for President for two years now, and he has yet to let me down."

First, I find a) ludicrous. It's a formula for utter failure - Dukakis recently admitted his biggest campaign mistake was in *not* responding directly to all the negative attacks. Look, Kerry has been responding throughout his campaign - just not enough. It's really just a handful or two he's been silent about - but they're pretty serious and leave a lasting impression on the dumbed-down American voting public if not responded to.

Second, I think you've got b) backwards - on the contrary, he's playing right into the Bushies game plan by *not* responding to the most recent attacks with the truth - responding does not equal being "reactive", or allowing the Bushies to set the agenda - Kerry's response can and should include postive messages for the American voter in addition to a forceful refutation of the smears.

Third, how does addressing smears with truth ever cause any political campaign to lose a "veneer of optimism", when the same addresses can and should end on an optimistic message to the American voters?

Finally, I not only felt "let down", but entirely "betrayed in October, 2002 when Kerry argued forcefully against the IWR on the Senate floor (supporting Robert Byrd) only to completely "betray" my trust in him by silently voting in favor of the same resolution he argued against. And I've felt "betrayed", not just "let down" every time Kerry, from the outset of his campaign, has opened his mouth and stuck his foot in it ever since in attempting, in at least half a dozen different self-contradictory ways to falsely justify that vote. The most recent attempt in response to a question about if he knew then what he knows now (about all the falsehoods which led to the resolution and the war in the first place) would his vote have been different, was the icing on the cake to me. Kerry had a golden opportunity to appeal to his base rather than to an imaginary (a sick fantasy of the DLC) "swing vote", and attempt to sound as foolishly macho as Bush, by simply admitting he and his fellow Senators and Congressment were obviously deceived by all the false and fudged intelligence the administration had by then presented to them prior to the vote.

I for one, am not willing to give *any* candidate a free pass on all issues. As a Dean supporter during the primaries, I was vociferous in my criticisms of Dean on the Dean blog. My criticisms of Kerry on the Kerry blog resulted in my being banned from posting there because his campaign people are too thin-skinned to take any criticism.

Kerry continues to embody, in my mind, the object of Dean's campaign contempt for "spineless beltway Democrats". As much as Kerry copied and adopted many of Dean's positions on numerous issues once he had to play catch-up with Dean, his various justifications for his misguided vote on the IWR continue to constitute a "miserable failure".

I will vote Kerry/Edwards, but primarily because I'll vote for anyone who has a ghost's chance in hell of ousting the Bushistas. Secondarily, I like Edwards. Kerry has yet to redeem himself in my mind. I still feel "betrayed". I find it incomprehensible that a man of your insight and intelligence doesn't feel equally betrayed.

[kentuck]

7. Kerry said he would not go "negative"...

But he didn't say that he wouldn't defend himself from unwarranted attacks. There is a difference, isn't there?

[BeatleBoot]

10. Not speaking for Will but...

I don't think that you are both on the same page.

I really don't think Will is upset that you criticize the Kerry campaign...

I think that Will is disappointed that we aren't focused on Bush's defeat.

I think Dem Strategist is trying to tell us the most effective way to spend our time in the next couple of months - but sitting here behind our PC's talking about shit out of our control doesn't get the job done.

It's not focused.

We all want Bush out and we need to focus - real fast and real hard.

But that is just my interpretation.

[bushwakker]

I think this spate of criticism is a positive thing

this campaign is still in very good position but it needs a kick in the ass.

[BeatleBoot]

18. Well, I'm off to pop a few Guiness and to

smoke some ribs...

Rock On Brothers John!

:beer:

[bushwakker]

22. More like a cold Red Stripe on a hot, muggy day

enjoy

[Selwynn]

15. Hey, I'm not the one criticizing the campaign...

However I do read, and I'm reading both people's concerns and people's defenses .... and asking questions.

[chuck555]

11. Wow! Pitt has so many handles.

There's problably only 500 DUers. The rest are Will Pitt.

[WilliamPitt]

13. Including you

Mwah hah hah...

[bushwakker]

12. Great post

Some laugh at and ridicule people who deign to disagree with the strategy and tactics of the campaign. They seem to confuse this criticism of mechanics with disatisfaction with the candidate - which in my case couldn't be farther from the truth. Your example of Clinton is spot on. I've been inspired to post negative things about the campaign because of the recent appearance of the Kerry staffer on this board. I am not impressed with this person and have found the posts to be utterly unilluminating. This person had not inspired any confidence in me that the JK camp has come into this with their eyes wide open.

[stellanoir]

25. I fundamentally think that the best thing we can do is. . .

Since JK has such a fine reputation for being "a good closer," that we should all concentrate our efforts on crafting the most effective e-missive that we can possibly collectively draft and sending it to all the recipients in our address books after the debates.

It's what is in the consciousness of the short attention span theater audience in the short weeks before the elections that really matters.

I think that much of our problems lie in the fact that there are so many scandals and so little time. It can be truly mind boggling.

If a group of us can get together and write something truly concise, funny, and true, then it'll have legs.

if you think I'm full of it about this consider that someone wrote an e-mail during the impeachment absurdities. They sent it to eleven recipients in early January of '99. . By the end of the day it was referenced by Senators and quoted on the evening news. At the time, conventional wisdom suggested that the controversy and the hearings would ensue for another 7 months. The e-mailer demanded resolution of the matter by President's day. And low and behold it was so.

We can bitch endlessly about the strategies of the party operatives and the media. Or we can do something creative on our own. I prefer the latter. Just consider it, there is still time.

[zulchzulu]

28. 2 questions

1. Who did you back in the primaries?

2. Where do you get your news?

[Monte Carlo]

29. Kerry is not incapable of attacking.

He has done it quite well in the past.

During the Kerry-Weld Senate race here in MA, Weld was looking very strong going into the debates.

I think the the question Bill Weld remembers as the most harmful to him was to link him with Gingrich and Jesse Helms - Republicans that Weld himself had ugly confrontations over - and his supposed loyalties to them as a GOP Senator.

Not that this strategy would work with Bush, but I think too many are counting him out. Kerry style in the past has been to come on strong in the last few months before election day. Quite frankly, as White House Chief of Staff Andy Card said, you don't launch new product in August.

[burned]

34. I love Will's articles

and when I read them I feel great satisfaction at having someone so perfectly 'speak' my mind. His thoughts and other's have helped me put my own frustrations into a managable package that I can use when I need to verbalize coherently instead of standing there doing the gaping fish mouth thing.

Asskissing/segue out of the way...

Perhaps people that can't express their political angst, fears,frustrations, and suggestions regarding this current campaign into an article or book, should be allowed to do so in a forum such as DU, where in a perfect world they would find support, satisfaction, and maybe a cleansing of frustrations, without being ridiculed.

This place is as much an outlet as a resource.

Thank you Skinner, for making it possible. I'll send you money. :)

Everybody...
Play nice! Our goal is a common one.

[ItsMyParty]

35. There's this thing about words and actions and it applies to Kerry

This campaign, expensive ads and the convention were all designed to beat into the people's heads that "I, John Kerry, can be a strong leader who will fight with everything I have in me for the people of this nation and fight to defend it against terror". That's nice. But if one does not ACT like a fighter, big mouths like Bush/Cheney who claim to be "fighters" and then lead attacks fighting against Kerry and Democrats are the ones who are perceived as the "fighters". If you are going to talk it, ya gotta walk it, too. In this tag team of Kerry and Edwards, Edwards just is not going to be able to play the "bad cop" like Cheney. Kerry, unfortunately, is the one who will have to do the heavy lifting. So remember, a "fighter" has to actually put on the gloves and crawl into the ring; he can't just give news conferences in the dressing room telling the world he's a "fighter". Sorry, John, but that's the way the world of "images" works.

[sandnsea]

36. Help Bush or Help Kerry

You can sit on this board and piss and moan until the cows go to California and sing happy cheese songs. OR you can follow the Bush campaign from town to town, post every screw up they make, batter and hammer them to death. This board should be 50% "look what Bush did" and "look what Bush said", and 50% "yeah Kerry". If people spent as much time putting together letters and posts about all the crap Bush has done in the last 4 years, instead of nitpicking John Kerry, maybe he WOULD be 15 points ahead. If WE aren't the echo chamber, there WON'T BE ONE!!!

Hasn't anybody ever played sports around here? Even dodge ball in the 3rd grade??? What would happen to you if you came off the field every 3 minutes and told the coach what he needed to do? What would happen if you yelled at the other players about their screw-ups all through the game? That is just NOT the way it works. We are ON THE FIELD. It's time to put out our individual best effort, encourage it in our teammates, and WIN.

THAT is why people get so pissed off at all the pissing and whining posts around here. Do it after Nov 2.

[Crunchy Frog]

38. I kind of get tired

of people who sit around on this board pissing and moaning about people who sit around on this board pissing and moaning.:)

This board isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things. Certainly nothing that goes on here is going to be responsible for anywhere near a 15 point spread one way or another.

Like it or not, discussion boards tend to be a place for kibbitzing and venting, as well as places that have the potential to generate useful ideas and yes, even constructive criticism. However much you may like to, you are never going to succeed in dictating what people spend their time talking about on here.

The "help Bush or help Kerry" talk seems to me to be very reminiscent of the "with us or against us" talk of a certain person that we are all trying to get out of the White House.

And always remember, if certain kinds of posts bother you that much, the Hide Thread feature is your friend.:)