Edwards defends his running mate: "What it is is an effort to distract"

[bigtree]

Edwards Defends Kerry From Cheney's Jabs

Saturday August 14, 2004 2:01 AM
By KATHY BARKS HOFFMAN- Associated Press Writer

FLINT, Mich. (AP) - A day after Vice President Dick Cheney criticized John Kerry, Democratic Sen. John Edwards defended his running mate on Friday, saying he spilled ``his blood for the United States'' and accusing the Republican of distorting Kerry's words.

``He took that word and distorted and tried to use it to argue John Kerry will not keep the American people safe,'' Edwards said. ``He's talking about a man who still carries shrapnel in his body. He's talking about a man who spilled his blood for the United States of America.''

Edwards' visit to Flint focused on issues polls show are even higher than security on Michigan voters' list of concerns: jobs and the economy.

``What it is is an effort to distract, not to talk about the problems here in Flint, Michigan,'' the North Carolina senator told the audience of about 1,500, who gathered in a drizzling rain outside Mott Community College.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4419705,00.html

[wurzel]

1. Edwards should have added:

"And this man with temerity to criticize Kerry is a DRAFT DODGER". When are the Dems going to learn to go for the jugular??? That sure would have made the news. Instead it appears in the Guardian. How many voters read the Guardian????

[bigtree]

3. Kerry and his running mate should stay away from the invective.

The purpose of the recent tour was to highlight Kerry's plan for the economy and put the focus on Bush's dismal record. The purpose of the bush-cheney-swiftliar's attacks and jibes was to distract and throw the campaign off message. They would have our campaign talking about swiftboats and the word sensitive rather than focusing on the economy as is the Kerry plan of the week. Kerry should stay on message and so should his surrogates. The only statements that I want to see reported on from the campaign are the ones which concern and affect most voters like the ones in Ohio, like the economy.

Here's an interesting article:

Kerry May Benefit From Voter Concern About Economy Under Bush, Polls Show- http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a...

Aug. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Two-thirds of U.S. adults rate the country's economy as ``fair'' or ``poor'' and voters say Democrat John Kerry, a four-term senator from Massachusetts, is more likely to improve it than President George W. Bush, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center.

Fifty-two percent of the registered voters among the adults surveyed by Pew Aug. 5-10 said they think Kerry would do a better job improving economic conditions and 37 percent said Bush would be better. That is an increase of 4 percentage points for Kerry on the issue since Pew last asked the question in May.


The cheney jibes and the swiftlies are designed to fill the headlines and obscure the focus of our candidate. Kerry's job is to not allow himself or his campaign message to be co-opted by responses to every swipe, rather, he needs to make certain that he is not obscuring his own agenda by focusing on the noise from the other side. He needs to keep his campaign on message.

[wurzel]

14. A week ago I would have agreed with you.

But I was astounded at the general media approbation of Cheney's "sensitive" speech. While Kerry's reasoned responses to Bush's attacks are appearing in laudable publications like the Guardian, Bush's vicious attacks are played up daily in the despicable TV networks over here. Which of these do you think the voting public sees? This is a public that spends most of it's leisure hours watching "World wrestling", Ultimate Fear", and "Survivor" shows. And our "journalists" are no different. We don't have Tom Wicker and Eric Severied on TV anymore. At best we have mediocrities like Jim Lehrer, Gwen Ifel, and Howard Finestein.

Gore didn't use "invective" in Florida. Tom Delay and Baker used it in spades. And who won? It is time the Dems recognized the true nature of our media and stopped giving it the benefit of the doubt. Or hoping some how the foreign press will come to our rescue. I'm sick and tired of "moral victories". I'm fed up with a media that piously warns Democrats about being negative while giving an open line to vitriolic Republicans.

End of rant!

[LostInAnomie]

4. I agree

They are going to have to start kicking some ass or they are going to get rolled over.

[bigtree]

5. Where is the evidence that this is hurting the Kerry campaign?

Where is the evidence that the voters we are concerned with, the undecided, are interested in this nonsense? These voters overwhelmingly reject the campaign rhetoric and demand a focus on issues and concerns that affect their lives. I believe that more voters are turned off by the attacks than are swayed by them. I've seen plenty of evidence of this in the primaries and in previous elections. Kerry is correct in not letting himself get knocked off message. Remember? "It's the economy stupid!"

[LostInAnomie]

7. TalkingPointsMemo had a piece on it..

... and so did The Washington Monthly, and I think Bill Maher talked about it last night. Polls have shown that it is hurting with the independent voters. If they aren't going to attack Bush the least they can do is directly call the swiftboat fuckers in no uncertain terms liars, and cowards.

They need to show some goddamn life and prove that they aren't going to just lay down and let the Reich wing slime truck run them over.

[bigtree]

9. No one has lain down. They just aren't foolish to be drawn off message

The swifties proved themselves to be liars. The Cheney jibes were undermined by Bush's own rhetoric. I'm just not impressed by the attacks. These attacks drive up the attacker's negatives and end up turning more voters away from the candidate than they would attract. That's a solid trend that has played out in every election that I have followed. I also don't think independent voters comprise the majority of undecided. I may be wrong, but I don't believe that the majority of undecided identify themselves as Independents. Even so, that very group has always indicated their distain for the negative campaign, preferring instead, a focus on issues and concerns that directly affect their lives, primarily, the economy as in Ohio.

[spooky3]

10. it was linked by Yahoo! yesterday (see my thread about this).

[JuniperLea]

2. i hear a lot of repugs

saying kerry shouldn't focus on his military record... what? he's supposed to ignore his detractors and not defend himself? it's a no win situation.

[bigtree]

8. He has defended himself

at just the right proportion to his positive message and agenda. Personally, I'm not impressed by the recent swiftylies and the chenyjibes. Childish nonsense, in my view. The 'sensitive comment was shot down because the president has used the same word in recent and past speeches. The swiftliars proved themselves to be monumentally untruthful. I think this week the Bush campaign shot themselves in the foot. Any focus on Kerry's military record just puts the spotlight on Bush's absense from duty and Cheney's refusal to serve.

I believe that most voters will see it that way, at least the ones we need to persuade to participate in the process and choose our nominee. They want a focus on their lives, their concerns, not tit for tat sniping.

[bushwakker]

6. Six deferment (other priorities) Dick Cheney

way to go JE!!!

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

11. I know K/E are trying to keep this a positive campaign, but I'm thinking

it's going to come down to "fighting fire w/ fire." Attack dog, get ready to kick some Cheney and Rove ass! Grrruffff!!!

[union_maid]

12. Can't really be done that way

At least not a direct frontal assault. Negative ads work by depressing voter turnout. That works in their favor, but it doesn't really work in ours.

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

13. Interesting perspective. I hope Edwards wipes the floor with Cheney's

smug face in the debates! :bounce: