Poll: Bush Tops Kerry As a "Strong" Leader (And Strategy To Reverse This)

[DrFunkenstein]

WASHINGTON - President Bush retains an advantage with voters on such qualities as decisiveness and strength of leadership despite the Democrats' effort to promote John Kerry as a strong leader, a poll this week finds.

Kerry is seen as better on issues ranging from the economy to health care to education.

Bush has a 10-point, 49-39 percent advantage over the Massachusetts senator on the issue of handling terrorism. They were even on handling Iraq, and Kerry was favored by slightly more on the handling of foreign policy, according to a poll released Thursday by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

When asked which candidate is more likely to change his mind, 47 percent said Kerry and 28 percent said Bush. In May, 42 percent said Kerry is more likely to change his mind.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&e=13&u=/ap/bush_kerry_poll

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The Kerry campaign has to switch the terms from "strength" to "competence."

The public's perception of Bush's simplicity/Kerry's complexity is set in stone. It is a matter of how you use this perception effectively.

"Strength" plays to Bush's simplicity - his inability to see multiple and indirect courses of action, his unwillingness to change with changing conditions, all point to his so-called "moral clarity."

"Competence" plays to Kerry's complexity and willingness to weigh his options before acting decisively. Bush's simplicity lends itself easily to incompetence - sure he's "strong," but he is completely ineffective.

There is no end to the examples that demonstrate Bush's incompetence, largely due to the strategic failures of the Rumsfeld Doctrine and lack of preparation for an ensuing occupation of Iraq.

The Kerry campaign needs to start getting polls out asking Americans whether or not they think Bush is a competent leader against terrorism (if it is possible to use the phrase "incompetent" it would be even better).

Coordinate with the DNC, start getting Dems on the Sunday morning programs talking about this. Get Begala and Carville talking about this on Crossfire.

The campaign did a marvelous job of improving perceptions of Kerry's "strength" as commander-in-chief. But Bush will never be overtaken on this front (and I'm an optimist). We must switch the terms of the debate to "competence."

Strength and wisdom are not mutually exclusive.



A more competent war on terror.

[oly]

1. How about a commercial with Bush* leading ducks on

a wild goose chase in the sands of Iraq with the announcer saying "appears not too be able to lead ducks to water". Try too work in "can't find ass with two hands".

[fujiyama]

2. I think

it was either Mondale or Dukakis that used the word "competant" to describe themself.

Needless to say, we don't talk about President Mondale or President Dukakis very often.

[DrFunkenstein]

7. Colin Powell Would Be Described As A Competent Warrior

Powell Doctrine: competent.

Rumsfeld Doctrine: incompetent.

Bush listens to tough-talking chickenhawks in the Pentagon over the respected voices of competent military veterans in our armed forces like Colin Powell.

John Kerry has seen war from the front lines. He knows that running an international military conflict takes more than tough-talking desk jockeys.

Kerry would not describe himself as "competent," of course. He - and the Dems behind him - would say he will run a much more competent war on terror.

[gulliver]

8. Dukakis: "This (1988) election is about competence, not ideology."

Dukakis cast the 1988 election against Junior's father as a matter of competence. It was one of the bigger mistakes Dukakis made. Bush Sr. won the election, and his just-off-the-bottle, "Eddie Haskell" son George W. was placed in the line of imperial succession.

But that was then and this is now, of course.

I think this year's election is more about competence than ever before, and that does play to Kerry's advantage. People are kicking the tires this year for a change. It's the last thing the Bush side wants.

The case that Bush is incompetent is a slam dunk. My bet is that Kerry or one of the independent groups will make that case. Maybe it will happen in the debates.

A brazen fraud like Bush's supposed advantage in fighting terrorism won't be permitted to stand.

[DrFunkenstein]

9. Powell Vs. Cheney

You ar absolutely right that calling Bush incompetent is where the real strength of this approach lies - Kerry's competence is a natural comparison that might even be inferred without explicit reference.

Bush needs to be aligned with "tough-talking chickenhawks at the Pentagon." We need to distinguish between tough-talk and effective action.

Kerry needs to be aligned with "the voices of veterans at the very highest levels of the U.S. military." The Vietnam card can very easily be played into the divide between veterans and chickenhawks, even - or especially - within Bush's own administration. It will make the administration seem like a house divided, which is a magnificent way to get the Bush people scrambling into denials.

However, even the lazy media will remember Woodward's claim that Powell and Cheney were barely on speaking terms. That's our in.

[stopbush]

3. It much simpler than that:

when bushco was challenged to protect us, when they were given information that called on them to take a strong stance and thwart terrorism, THEY FAILED.

They didn't protect us.

They were weak on thwarting terrorism.

Ands since then (9/11), they've actually made us weaker and MORE open to terrorist attack.

[volosong]

4. Strong Leaders - Letter to the Editor

I am working on a letter to the editor on the topic of strong leaders. I feel that Kerry must dispel that problem if he is to be elected.

Here is the first draft. It will have to be shortened.

Please submit your letters on this or any other Kerry message by using this convenient link:

http://congress.org/congressorg/dbq/media/

Some polls indicate that voters rate Bush has having stronger leadership qualities than Kerry. The purpose of this letter is to briefly analyze the historical characteristics of a "strong leader."

A generic list of great Presidents who displayed "strong" leadership skills might include Washington, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, JFK, and Reagan. While military experience does not guarantee Presidential leadership greatness (Grant, McKinley, Eisenhower), the most obvious shared characteristic is that 5 of the 7 had actual combat experience (Lincoln in the Black Hawk War). FDR was physically disabled, and Reagan did his fighting in Hollywood. None of the 5 went AWOL; and one (JFK) even used family and political influence to obtain a combat assignment and not to flee from it.

Another characteristic of this diverse group, is all politicians "flip flop," even outstanding Presidents. Bush too has a long list of flip flops. It is unclear that this is always a negative characteristic, and the case can be made that it is preferable to stubborn pursuit of an ill-conceived and poorly planned policy that kills people and costs billions.

Lincoln, FDR, and Truman presided over war as a stimulant to jobs and a general boost to the economy. Today we are waging a war with an anemic economy with increased unemployment, loss of jobs overseas, and a shrinking middle class financial base.

All wars were won utilizing restraint and "sensitivity." Lincoln and JFK were brilliant in this regard, with Reagan making great use of both in ending the Cold War. Dick Cheney's kindergarten remarks about "sensitivity" can only make us all thankful that far wiser and calmer minds prevailed during the Cuban Missile Crisis or we would all have died long ago. The absence of wisdom and sensitivity may be two reasons why our Iraq adventure has developed into such a thrombosed hemorrhoid.

The most universal characteristic of strong Presidents is that they embraced and encouraged science rather than hobbled it. Science saves lives, and made America the leader she is today. FDR did not comprehend nuclear fission, yet he aggressively promoted the Manhattan Project. In short, while they are not scientists, strong leaders are not science stupid.

The second almost universal characteristic of these strong leaders is that they did not govern with negativity. This is especially true of FDR in the midst of a world war with enemies patrolling and landing on our coasts. Yes, we did do some terrible things to Japanese Americans, but generally great leaders refrained from playing the Politics of Terror; issuing repetitive terror alerts, and other transparent gimmicks to convince the American public not to leave the G.W. Titanic.

Another characteristic of these strong leaders is that to my knowledge none ever disparaged or questioned the military record of the opposing candidate. Under the law the dictum is "silence means consent." So President Bush in refusing to condemn the anti-Kerry military ad is endorsing same. A new low in dirty politics and a dangerous game to play for someone who was hiding while the other man was fighting, and who violated military law by going AWOL. Where was George?

While it is true that during the Civil War Lincoln did suspend the writ of habeas corpus, none of these seven Presidents attempted to restrict civil liberties, free speech and due process in the manner of the present administration. This has always been characteristic of America's enemies and not her own Government.

And finally, a "strong" leader is not synonymous with a competent or successful leader. Competent and successful Presidents are usually perceived as strong, but strength without other variables is more a recipe for national disaster than success.

[Wheelie_Alex]

5. I don't know if it is possible.

The whole way Kerry is going about explaining his IWR vote ("This is what I said, but this is what I meant") is not inspiring confidence that he would be a decisive leader. Unless he starts showing some clarity, taking positions without leaving himself an obvious out ("This is what I said, but this is what I meant") he is not going to be taken seriously as a strong leader.

[creeksneakers2]

6. That's what I've been saying too.

Kerry needs to redefine the race. Kerry has killed people and felt bad about it for the rest of his life. Bush kills people and loves himself for it. Kerry is never going to win a contest over who hesitates least to kill.

This election has to be about what our nation will do about terrorism in the next four years. Let Bush take the war option and defend it. Let Bush explain how war is the answer when terrorists are in 60 countries. Let Bush say he can solve everything with sound byte solutions. Bush is an incompetent, belligerent, thoughtless man. He had no idea what was going on around him. There is so much ammunition to get Bush with!

Actually, Bush said did say that in the future he would choose war only as a last resort. That's the biggest flip flop of all time. Bush spent his entire term saying Iraq was the war on terror. Is Bush now going to say war isn't the best answer?

[DrFunkenstein]

10. You Reminded Me Of Bush's Personal Affinity For Death Row

Does he still hold the record?

[JohnKleeb]

12. wouldnt doubt it doc

[DrFunkenstein]

14. He Gives New Meaning To "Death Row Records"

And I'm not talking about the rap label.

[Sparkly]

11. Where's my General?!

I think General Clark has always made a superb case on precisely why the Chimp is WEAK on terrorism and wrong in Iraq. Why isn't he on TV every day?

I also agree with "competence" rather than "strength." But if we could combine Kerry "competence" with Chimpy "weakness" it would be a nice double edge.

On the other hand, questions like "who do you consider stronger on..." won't go away, and as long as they define "strength" and keep pushing Chimp as the "strong" one, it borders on a push-poll. We need to redefine "strength," also. Being a musclehead isn't being strong.

[DrFunkenstein]

13. Absolutely - Get Clark (And Sinseki) Out There And Often

Even Freepers begrudgingly respect the voices of military leaders.