Another Good Reason for Kerry Hitting Bush and Company Hard and Often

[Tom Rinaldo]

Every thing has its Pros and Cons. Being seen as "going negative" has its cons. There isn't enough upside for "going negative" if it comes off as personal or mean. OK, don't get personal or mean. That doesn't stop Kerry from saying Cheney was wrong for secretly letting lobbyists write his energy proposals, or that Ashcroft was wrong when he went looking for ways to justify torture, or that Rumsfeld was wrong when he cut the specialists from the State Department out of planning for post invasion Iraq. That's not going negative, that's holding specific people accountable for their poor judgment and bad decisions. It's just leadership.

This is the year when the Democratic Party can seize the emerging loyalty of a generation of young voters. Reagan molded youthful imaginations, and Republicans milked those formative loyalties for years, if not decades. Young voters are tuned into this year's election cycle. Michael Moore and others keep whacking them with anti Bush two by fours, so this race has gotten their attention. But their being strongly anti Bush does not translate into their being strongly Pro Democrats. Not unless they like what they see when they look at John Kerry. Kerry doesn't have to bash Bush, but he must personally make the case that Republican policies endanger our future. Youth has to hear that from Kerry himself, not surrogates like Moore, otherwise Kerry becomes less a leader and more just a means for ousting Bush.

All the talk about Kerry's past heroism in Viet Nam may be essential to our winning, but it resonates most with older swing voters. Praising Americans for having a Can Do attitude is positive and that's great. But it doesn't create a sense of crisis, and it is a sense of crisis that is grabbing the attention of youth right now. If we want youth to identify as Democrats later, they need to identify with Kerry now. And they're in a fighting mood when it comes to Bush.

[Spiffarino]

1. Exactly correct, and it's NOT going negative...

...to spell out exactly what you would have done differently. Bringing issues out in the open is the precise way to challenge a sitting president - you make him run on his record.

Saying Bush looks like Bonzo - obvious as it is - is merely an ad hominem and unworthy of our nominee. But taking issue with past performance is different. Furthermore, why shouldn't Kerry attack? Bush does it all day long, minus any context. Kick Bush's face in the dirt and don't let him up, I say! :mad:

[Inland]

2. As a tactic, why waste time hammering Bush

when the headlines do it every day? Besides, angry people like me and MoveOn will pound on Bush anyway. Let Kerry do what I can't--figure out a way to move us past the Bush debacle and present it to the people. And get elected, which is what I want most of all.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

3. The difference between positive and negative campaigning

Negative campaigning:

George Bush misled us into war. Vice President Cheney conducted secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws. Donald Rumsfield has ignored the advice of our military leaders. And John Ashcroft has subverted the Constitution of the United States.

Positive campaigning:

I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war. I will have a Vice President who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws. I will have a Secretary of Defense who will listen to the best advice of our military leaders. And I will appoint an Attorney General who actually upholds the Constitution of the United States. (John Kerry's acceptance speech 7.29.04)

Which is more 'hard-hitting'? Which is more persuasive?

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. I think that is a false choice

It's like saying what looks better, an Evening Gown, or a clubbing outfit? Context, timing and delivery matter. Another thing, in my header post, I wasn't writing a speech, I was making a point for discussion. If you want to compare different possible speeches, that's different. Kerry made a great one, and it was written for an event where people could reasonably be expected to give him 50 minutes of their full attention. It was a formal affair so to speak, and it was addressed appropriately.

An example of a potential short TV blip oriented "speech"

"After 9/11, I and my Democratic colleagues in Congress called for the creation of a Department of Homeland Security. George Bush opposed that idea when we proposed it. George W. Bush was afraid of an expansion of Government. But the American public understood what George W. Bush failed to realize. Government exists to protect the critical interests of the American people, and nothing is more critical than our safety here at home. The public demanded a strong and immediate approach. I and my colleagues in Congress took the lead on Homeland Security. George W. Bush followed it, eventually. George Bush so distrusts our own government that he contracted out hundreds of critical tasks in Iraq. He hired Halliburton to import Oil into Iraq, paying their contracted drivers multitudes the pay our own Army drivers receive for doing the exact same work. At the same time George Bush refused to send in enough troops to do the job that needed to be done in Iraq. Private contractors were brought in to interrogate prisoners in Iraqi prisons, and we all know where that led. A John Kerry Administration will not be blinded by narrow ideology on issues of importance to our security. As President I will mobilize the full force of our Government to protect our nation from any and all threats, and I will get it right the first time."

And of course I dashed that off in 5 mins. I am not claiming to be a great speech writer, and Kerry's team labored for weeks on his acceptance speech.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

5. Well you've given another example of negative campaign rhetoric.

I could rewrite it in a positive form, similarly to the way I rewrote the Kerry excerpt in negative form. But I think the point is made. And if we were the underdog, I would think going negative would be a good idea. Since we are ahead, with the momentum, and all the historical indicators point to our victory, I think it make more sense to stay positive. Of course, as Kerry demonstrated in his speech, that does not mean to not hit hard.