Should Kerry and the Dem's go after Bush on 911/National Security?

[mzmolly]

Poll question: Should Kerry and the Dem's go after Bush on 911/National Security?

Karl Rove says "attack your opponent at their greatest strength"

Bush's perceived strength is "National Security" and "handling of 911" :eyes:

The 911 commission had plenty of ammo on Bush in the final report. Richard Clark gave us plenty of ammo.

So my question is ... should the Democrats/Kerry campaign take a play from the Rovies and go after Bush on 911?

Bush isn't seen strong on the issues were hitting him on like, jobs, economy and healthcare, so why are we beating a dead horse?

[JI7]

1. it's not about whether he is seen as strong on jobs, economy etc

it's about focusing the debate on those issues.

[mzmolly]

4. Bullshit. Americans KNOW that Bush sucks on these issues. The swift

boat ads have given us our IN.

The Republicans say that Kerry's record in Vietnam was open to LIES and criticism because he mentioned his service at the convention, this is OUR in!

We can say "Bush opened himself up to criticism because he used his failures on 911 as a foundation for his campaign."

Who the hell doesn't know that Bush sucks on HealthCare/Economy and jobs?

Were beating a dead horse. The people voting for Bush aren't doing so because he's strong on the economy, they are doing so because they think he's keeping us "SAFE".

If we don't chip away at his faux bravado/decisive/bold/brave leader crap we will lose this election.

[JI7]

5. yeah, that's why it's about focusing the debate on those issues

because they know he sucks on those issues.

[mzmolly]

7. That's got to be the most ignorant strategy I've ever heard?

Let's waste our time and energy telling Americans what they already know?

Sorry Republicans have this one right. Attack your opponent at his strength and he's got NOTHING LEFT. Bush is THOUGHT strong on National Security, he is not, we must expose him.

[JI7]

9. it's worked for a long time

[mondo joe]

11. It's worked? For Gore and Dukakis?

When has giving the opponent an unchallenged strong point to stand on worked?

[JI7]

12. Gore and Dukakis didn't run on that strategy

[mondo joe]

17. They both tried to be nice guys.

Gore and Dukakis both tried to run positive campaigns.

They both tried to be nice guys.

[JI7]

18. huh ?

i never said anything about being "nice guys"

[AntiCoup2K4]

34. Yes it's worked.

It's accomplishing exactly the objective that the DLC has always had. The complete and utter destruction of the Democratic party.

[mzmolly]

21. No it hasn't. What works is a two fold approach. Attack their strengths

and weaknesses. Most of all their perceived strenghts. Look at the SwiftBoat flap. Do you think it would have gotten any attention, or hurt Kerry if they criticized him for being nuanced?

NO. We all know he's nuanced, the R's won't spend too much time and energy saying that.

[JI7]

22. the swiftboat thing has to do with attacking a weakness of Kerry's

and i don't mean military service .

[mzmolly]

26. Wha? What Kerry did in that era was heroic on both fronts.

Period. However, they started attacking his record in Vietnam, it's been a success for them. They will continue to define this election if WE LET THEM.

[JI7]

28. many people don't see what he did as heroic

and it's not because of the ads either.

[mzmolly]

36. This is another thing that's easy to address. Here's how:

"Kerry was called before the Senate Foreign Relations Comm. to testify about what he knew was taking place in Vietnam. Should he have lied under oath?"

Simple really ...

Kerry could have lied or kept secrets, neither is a good thing.

[mondo joe]

8. Why focus on his weak points and leave him his strong point?

Sorry, that makes no sense at all.

The goal is to win - to beat the bastard.

Why on earth leave him a strong point to stand on?

[JI7]

10. i never said to leave him on his strong point

[mondo joe]

13. You said to focus the debate on his weak points.

Why take the focus OFF his strong suit?

Why keep repeating what everyone already knows are the weak ones?

The object is to take him DOWN.

[JI7]

15. because politics is not so simple like that

[mondo joe]

16. So what is your strategy about Bush's strong suits?

You say to focus on Bush's weak points which are polling about as low as they possible can.

What's the point? Keep him at 40% on the economy? You think he'll rise otherwise? You think people NEED John Kerry to point out that they have less money?

What do you think JK should be doing about Bush's alleged strong suits?

[JI7]

19. Kerry needs to convince Americans HE (Kerry) will defend them

[mondo joe]

20. I disagree. He needs to show that Bush ISN'T defending them.

I still say there's no reason to leave Bush with a perceived strong suit.

Attack the strengths.

[mzmolly]

23. Hell yes. Kerry needs to do both!

:toast:

Expose Bush's weakness, and show how HE can do better.

[JI7]

25. i never said he didn't need to do that

he has done it and will continue to.

[mondo joe]

30. He has? I must have missed something then.

I keep waiting for JK to hit Bush HARD on his abilities and record as a "leader".

[JI7]

31. many people don't pay attention to the campaign

[mondo joe]

32. I've paid attention. Where are the hits on Bush?

I've seen and heard and read about economy and jobs.

I'm waiting for the hard hits on Bush's "leadership".

[JI7]

35. i have heard it many times

from their speeches and other appearances.

[ima_sinnic]

2. absolutely

there are so many unanswered questions--and WHY was the f**ing idiot so reluctant to appear before the commission, why did he have to appear with Cheney, why did he wash out 28 pages, etc. etc.

He made no pretense that he really wanted to "get to the bottom" of anything but only appeared more than usual that he wanted to hide something.

[Democat]

3. It's not a question of should he, but how soon!

The clock is ticking.

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. Ready and waiting. n/t

[NightOwwl]

14. Exactly. Attack the strength, not the weakness.

I just said almost the exact same thing in another thread. Do you think Rove would be holding back if it had been Gore frozen in that chair for 7 minutes?

NYTimes has article saying some Dems want Kerry to attack Bush for his Natl Guard Service. But this would still keep the focus on Kerry's service also, and he needs to get out from under that cloud.

We have enough ammunition using one day alone, to bring Bush down.

Play the Pet Goat video. Show him frozen and in shock.

Walk through the time-line of events, from when he arrived at the school through the photo op. Talk about what he could have done in that length of time had he decided to act like a leader instead of letting the clock tick by.

Show him for what he truly is, an incompetent, coward who panicked on the most important day in our history.

[Connie_Corleone]

24. To steal Carville's line...

It's the National Security, Stupid!

If this election was about the economy and other domestic issues, Kerry would win in a landslide. It's not about that. It's about national security, war on terror, Iraq!

Those of us who supported Kerry or Clark during the primaries knew this, that's why we chose our candidates the way we did.

Now, it's time to go after Bush on this. The repugs went after Kerry's military service after the dem convention, so now we go after Bush's horrible job of preventing 9/11 and his failed catastrophe in Iraq and his failed leadership.

[mzmolly]

29. That's right! Bush opened himself up to criticism by running his campaign

on this issue. Sound familiar?

Swift boat talking point, coming back to haunt!

[kentuck]

27. You have to attack your opponents strengths....

don't you?? :shrug:

[NightOwwl]

33. I think it's perfectly valid to attack Bush on his "strengths."

I want people to know the coward behind the mask before they pull the lever on November 2.

[mzmolly]

37. I love the Wizard of OZ analogy!? We should go with this!

:toast:

[mzmolly]

38. The YES'S have it! If you vote yes, contact the campaign here:

http://www.johnkerry.com/contact/

Contact National Headquarters
Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc.
P.O. Box 34640
Washington, DC 20043
202-712-3000
202-712-3001 (fax)
202-336-6950 (TTY)