Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The crossroads, or confession of a spineless wimp.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Julien Sorel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 08:17 AM
Original message
The crossroads, or confession of a spineless wimp.
Edited on Fri Sep-03-04 08:27 AM by BillyBunter
I wonder how many DUers, and other members of the Democratic base, would have looked at an anti-Bush speech analogous to Zell Miller's anti-Kerry speech, as a rousing success, as an example of Democrats being "tough." My guess is, a lot. Yet we know what kind of reaction Miller's speech has received among the media, and most people will only "see" the speech through the filter of that very same media. There are two faces that will probably be remembered out of the RNC: one of them is Miller's, of course, and the other is the woman with the purple heart bandage on one of her chins. Both of them thought they were being clever, no doubt, but it turns out they hurt the cause they were there in support of.

Miller's speech, then, can safely be called a disaster. The Republicans are running from it, the media are lambasting it, and people across the internet are making Photoshopped images of Miller as Emperor Palpatine, Jerry Van Dyke, and so on: the man has become a joke, not one day after his speech.
Yet, there are still many people who urge Kerry to behave more like Miller, and less like a statesman.

His speech last night in Ohio has already received negative attention from the press: Time magazine criticizes him for doing his own "hatchet work," whereas Bush left that to others; Jeff Greenfield has described it as looking backwards instead of forward. He spoke to an American Legion audience the day after Bush did; whereas his comments promising them better funding drew applause, his comments criticizing Bush's handling of the Iraqi war were met with silence. That's the American Legion in a live setting with the candidate, not some focus group locked in a room with a moderator asking them hypothetical questions.

So you, have two key audiences: the media and the public, who seem to react poorly to negative campaigning from Kerry. Focus groups, recently maligned by James Carville as not really representing peoples' attitudes, also react poorly to negativity -- of course, the American Legion can hardly be considered a focus group. Yet we still have many people here who demand "red meat" attacks from Kerry, and attack him for being spineless and running a Gore-cum-Dukakis-cum-McGovern campaign whenever he doesn't attack.

It is also clear at this point that the Republicans are girding for a campaign so dirty that voter turnout will be low enough for them to win with their base alone. In that sense, they are trying to goad Kerry into sinking to their level where they will, as the saying goes, beat him with experience. Undecideds generally break for the challenger in an election, but they are also the people who are most likely to be discouraged by a nasty campaign.

So the dynamics of the race, along with a lot of data, suggest Kerry runs as positive a campaign as he can, while Kerry's supporters chafe at what they see as a passive campaign approach, and demand action, an eye for an eye, a Miller for a Miller, as it were.

Something's got to give.

We're the base. We're the people who are pulling the lever for Kerry no matter what; the people who man the phone banks, proudly display the bumper stickers, send out the literature, walk the neighborhoods, talk to co-workers about our candidate, write the checks, get angry over every slight, wince over every drop in the polls, and exult when the poll numbers tick in our favor. Some of us have done impressive research that ended up appearing in national media outlets. But the most important thing we can give to Kerry is our understanding, our appreciation of just how complex a task it is to run a national campaign.

On paper, Zell Miller looked like a slam dunk: a prominent, lifelong Democrat, and the guy who had, 12 years ago, nominated Bill Clinton in his successful campaign. Every angry attack that came out of Miller's mouth was met with a roar of approval from the Republican audience, who mirrored the rage in Miller's red eyes and popping veins; I saw Bush's father, perhaps the most experienced politician in America, sitting in a sky box smiling his approval of Miller's attacks. But the Republicans, after looking at poll data, listening to the media and yes, in all probability, listening to focus groups, dropped Miller like a monkey would a hot penny. Karl Rove a genius? Maybe. But even a genius makes a lot of miscalculations in this game. I haven't heard anyone calling for Rove's head.

Let's let the experience the Republicans had with Miller guide us at least some. I'm not expecting Kerry to run a "high road" campaign, and I never did. I do expect him to understand the terms of the battle laid out in front of him, the challenges he faces in trying to fend off the attacks from the saner versions of Zell Miller the Republicans have hired, while keeping the undecided vote clearly in mind. And while he does this, he needs us to cut him some slack. He's going to make some mistakes, and not everything is going to break his way. Keep giving him your support, your efforts, your ideas -- but your understanding as well when his campaign, after carefully weighing a variety of factors, some of which we never see, chooses to go down a road we would rather it didn't.


Politics is personal. We tend to identify with our candidates and our causes, and attacks on them become an attack on us, by extension. It is, then, only natural that we would like to see Kerry out there slugging away in response to every attack -- he is, in some ways, our champion, and champions should fight. Unfortunately, no one can fight every battle. Let's remember that --let's allow our candidate to take, not the high road, but the smart road, let's let him choose the battles he fights while we, his base, have the discipline and the toughness to wait for November 3 for satisfaction. And above all, let's make sure that Kerry doesn't lose because we helped the Republicans along in their mission to goad Kerry into sinking to their level, perhaps creating a Democratic version of Zell Miller or the bandaged lady in the process. Those two images belong squarely to the Republicans, and no one needs another one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
chiburb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 08:23 AM
Response to Original message
1. Beautifully written, BB...
Agreed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enigmatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 08:27 AM
Response to Original message
2. Excellent post...
For some it'll fall on deaf ears, but for most it says the right words.

We (and Kerry) have a fight on our hands; let's help Kerry win by standing beside him, not standing on the sidelines while the GOP fights with both barrels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
3. Kerry doesn't have to do his own dirty work....but he's gotta...
do at least a few things.

1.) Get somebody who will and get them to do it repetitively.
2.) Tighten up his speeches and quit rambling.
3.) Give less "information" in his speeches and more "emotional applause lines".
4.) Get his Democratic Party's ass in gear and get them to stop playing "cover my ass, aint gonna say anything controversial" politics.
5.) Stop bagging on people who are actually trying to get him elected (like M. Moore and Moveon.org)
6.) Realize he is just riding the crest of anti-Bush sentiment originally created by Dean, Clark, Sharpton, and the plethora of Dem candidates. He better get these people back on point, on the TV, and often. Kerry's numbers have basically slid since the nomination process ended, conversely Bush's has risen. The reason for this is that all the constant repetitive clamor of what an Asshole Bush is has went away.
7.) Stop talking so much about programs and start talking about what is really at stake - The return of the draft, repeal of Roe v Wade, further Constitutional erosion, further undermining of the wall between Church and State, our Government working in shadow, and the birth of the never-ending propaganda state. Jobs/economies come and go but this other stuff will have cross-generational impact. In other words "it's not the economy, stupid".

I appreciate the original poster's "positivity", BB is one of the best. However, Kerry needs to turn some things around. I saw Clark get Gored in the Primaries. The same exact thing, almost down to the letter, is happening to Kerry now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 08:37 AM
Response to Original message
4. Well said, but I beg to differ
Edited on Fri Sep-03-04 08:41 AM by Armstead
I don't like negative campaigns. But flaccid campaigns are worse -- especially in times like this.

Several points:

1)THIS IS A SCARY ELECTION. Thge stakes are high, and people know it. Kerry can't act like this is business as usual. He also has to excite the base. He can't just count on the ABB factor, because as you noted the average person does not realize what is really at stake. This is no longer about V-chip differences. Kerry has to spell out the REAL STAKES....We are talking about the future of democracy and survival of the middle and lower classes. He can't just talk about "the economy" without addressing the core issues and an alternative vision based on clear liberalism.

2)The primary season did show that there is a lot of passion for change. That means a change from Bush. But it also means a change from Tepid Democrats with Puny Messages. This IS about class warfare, civil liberties and freedom, endless military adventures, US Empire and all the rest....It's a tricky challenge to get that across to people in the middle, but we have to get the message out that this is not just another bipartisan horse race.


3)Kerry doesn't have to do it all himself. But he does neeed to lead a campaign this sends a lot more Democrats out on TV and elsewhere to make his case -- and make it more forcefully. The surrogates so far have been too scarce and too lame. Get more people with honest righteous passion out there attacking Bush and defending Kerry's record....Enough of these lame Democratic strategists.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
5. the American Legion Speech
i thought was one of his best appearances during the campaign. considering the audience is mostly conservative, they not only applauded politely at some points, but cheered him when he talked about veterans benefits type issues. you could sense that kerry understood what they were going through and where they had problems and they could sense that kerry understood them on those points also.

his criticism of bush's foreign policy was good in that he got his side across, but he didn't come off as some zell miller type. the long standing ovation in the end of the speech was the type where they have respect for him and could vote for him. they may not agree with some of his criticisms of bush on the war, but deep down they may feel he does have a point but they don't want to admit it. but even more important is they know he understands what they are going through and that he could make their lives better for them with better benefits in health, jobs, education etc. so they may vote for him.

but if he gave a zell miller type speech against bush they would just be too turned off to pay attention to the positive things he could do for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
6. I agree we don't need to pull a Miller
But we have to keep Bush's approval numbers down. And we have to take down his credibility in the war on terror. A mixture of positive and negative is definitely called for. But more than that Kerry needs to set the record straight on his voting record, and reduce that as an issue for the repukes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
7. I have not seen a single person on here
advocate going Zell Miller on the Republicans. If there are any posts advocating it, I would like to see a link. I have seen many people advocating getting tough and fighting back. I personally don't see any way that can be construed as advocating going Zell.

Some people on this board seem to see things only in black and white. Either you go Tom Daschle or you go Zell Miller, with absolutely nothing in between. I personally think the Democrats can and should get tough with Bush. I do not think they should behave in any way like Zell. I guess I'm just one of those out of touch people who are able to see shades of grey.

By the way, Wes Clark has been very harsh in his criticism of the Bushies. Do you still like him, or do you think he is now hurting the Democratic cause by being so outspoken?

By the way, I cannot, in my wildest dreams, imagine any scenario in which Kerry would sink to the level of Zell. Certainly not in response to any goading on an internet discussion board. I think you're being very unfair to him to even suggest this as a possibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Julien Sorel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. I have a huge problem with the extremes you chose.
Edited on Fri Sep-03-04 09:57 AM by BillyBunter
Some people on this board seem to see things only in black and white. Either you go Tom Daschle or you go Zell Miller, with absolutely nothing in between.


How did Tom Daschle become the polar opposite of Zell Miller? It is this kind of thinking that I'm referring to. Miller himself, in his conversation with Chris Matthews after his RNC debacle, said "You can't vote 85% of the time with Tom Daschle and expect to win elections. Not in Georgia." In other words, Daschle is too liberal by Miller's standards -- he opposes Bush too often. Yet for someone like yourself, Daschle is the poster boy for political appeasement. One of you is wrong here, and I don't think it's Zell on this one.

How can Daschle be seen as too accommodating by one side, and too obstructionist by the other? In reality, the person in the middle --the person whose vote we need -- would probably see Daschle as what he is: a pragmatic politician who does what he can to advance his party's agenda while making sure he holds his seat in the senate. Daschle is a successful politician at doing what Kerry needs to do: picking his battles. That doesn't make him weak, it makes him smart.

And I have zero doubt that if a Democrat, including Kerry, made a Zell Miller-like attack, there would be a substantial base of people here who would say, "Finally! That's how to give it to them!" just as there was a roomful of Republicans who couldn't get enough of ole Zell on Wednesday. The regret came later, when it was too late. The media, not their common sense, had to tell them Zell was over the line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. It's not Daschle's voting record
that I have a problem with, it's his appearance of being a spineless wimp. Those are two very different issues.

Do you think the Republicans would be where they are today if their party was made up of Tom Daschle's? I doubt it very much.

Again, I would like to see documentation in the form of a link to a post that there is someone here advocating Zell-like behavior on the part of Kerry. Not just your speculation but real evidence to back up your assertion.

I would like to see Kerry be more forceful and take more of the offensive against Bush. That does not mean that I want to see him behave like Zell Miller.

This is the extent of my willingness to argue this with you. I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Julien Sorel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. I'm confused.
Edited on Fri Sep-03-04 05:32 PM by BillyBunter
It's not Daschle's voting record I have a problem with, it's his appearance of being a spineless wimp. Those are two very different issues.

Exactly what gives Daschle the "appearance of being a spinless wimp?" If he is voting Democratic, what more should he do? Should he be out there giving Democratic versions of Zell Miller speeches? What should he do to shed this image?

Again, I would like to see documentation in the form of a link to a post that there is someone here advocating Zell-like behavior on the part of Kerry. Not just your speculation but real evidence to back up your assertion.



What do you think This person's response to a Zell Miller-esque attack would be? Think he'd be unhappy about it? that's just from the front page of GD04. I could go back and cull the posts demanding Kerry attack over LIHOP and MIHOP, or the ones urging Kerry to promise to put Bush in the dock at the Hague if he wins, and so on. We must have been reading different message boards over the past year. If you really think Kerry making a Zell-like attack would not be met with approval here, well, let's just say we disagree on that point.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. I doubt that I could say anything
that would effectively transmit to you what I'm trying to communicate, but I'll try.

Somebody upthread laid things out much more effectively than I could, and mentioned "tepid Democrats with puny messages". There has been a recent thread which talked about Daschle's running a reelection add showing Bush hugging him. To me, that makes him look like a wimp.

That's the sort of thing I'm talking about, not voting records. Can you imagine a Republican running a similar sort of add during Clinton's presidency? Since apparently it's such a good tactic, if Republicans didn't do that sort of thing during a popular Democratic Presidency, than how have they managed to end up in control of all the branches of government?

As for the person linked to in your post, I think he's somewhat given to hyperbole, and would like to see some red meat from Kerry, but I don't interpret that as meaning a Zell-like psychotic episode, although I can't speak for him. Maybe you could ask him directly. As I've said, there are shades of gray between the two extremes.

I haven't seen the other posts that your referring to, but then, maybe I haven't really been looking. In a message board this size, there are bound to be a few people who are over the edge, but I don't see it as a dominant theme.

We may be reading different things into the same messages, rather than reading different message boards. That may just be an indication that we have fundamentally different worldviews, in which case, there is no way either of us will convince the other and this debate is probably pointless. As I said before, we may simply have to agree to disagree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Julien Sorel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-04 06:39 AM
Response to Reply #18
26. I've discussed Daschle's situation elsewhere.
Somebody upthread laid things out much more effectively than I could, and mentioned "tepid Democrats with puny messages". There has been a recent thread which talked about Daschle's running a reelection add showing Bush hugging him. To me, that makes him look like a wimp.

But here goes again. Daschle serves in a state where Bush won 63% of the vote in 2000. He is running against a Republican challenger who lost against South Dakota's other senator by 500 votes in 2002. Daschle will do what Daschle needs to do to get re-elected, and that's his responsibility to the party, as far as I'm concerned. If running ads of him hugging Bush is what it takes, then he needs to run them. Because nothing looks wimpier than losing an election, and Daschle losing this year would hurt -- bad. Again, it's a question of taking the smart road, and Daschle is playing this very smart.

Daschle's co-senator, Tim Johnson, would have lost in 2002 without Daschle's support. South Dakota's lone Representative, Stephanie Herseth, is a Democrat in an overwhelmingly Republican state, and she won with a lot of help from Daschle. So, in large part because of Daschle, a Republican state has two Democratic senators and a Democratic Representative. If that's wimpy, give me wimpy. I want more of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #7
21. not your typical poster child
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrFunkenstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
10. Nicely Done
Kudos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. I agree. Billy Bunter is doing an excellent job here
I'm just gonna stand on the sidelines and watch
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
A_Possum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
11. Kerry warned Bush
Edited on Fri Sep-03-04 11:50 AM by A_Possum
He warned Bush, Edwards warned Bush, that if they didn't call off their dogs, the gloves would be off.

I don't think many of us would have cheered a ham-handed speech like Miller's in favor of Kerry.

I'm one of the ones who gets very impatient with the gloom and doomers, but it's just a crock to say that the thing to do is allow the Pugs to bully Kerry.

They use bully tactics, pure and simple. They push somebody around, and then cry foul when that person pushes back. But even the experts who deal with schoolyard bullying say that the primary tactic to defuse it is to stand up and refuse to take it. You don't "sink to the level of the bully" when you give him one punch to stop him kicking you. You are telling him to lay off.

The American people do understand bullying, call them simple-minded or whatever. And they will understand clearly that Kerry had to stand up for himself. They called him "unfit" over and over to his face, so he hit back with their words, and with the strength of Bush's failures which the Republicans don't want us to notice. Nothing ugly about that.

There's NOTHING "Zell Miller" about that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
12. Kerry has a LONG way to go before he sounds like Miller.
Look, anger is not a bad thing, okay? Really, it isn't. Kerry has every right to be angry. There are different ways of *expressing* one's anger, true. Kerry, strong as his words were last night, still sounds eminently sane. And he was able to come out of that and smile and be easygoing with the crowd afterward. Miller looked like an Undead Preacher of Doom. He had springs coming out of his head. It's not the anger that's the problem; it's the whole "not being in touch with reality" bit that's making people back the hell away from him.

by the way: Miller seemed honestly surprised when Blitzer suggested that he was angry. I doubt Kerry would deny being angry if someone had asked him last night. Miller is scary because he's unconscious. That's what "crazy" means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. But people are also saying that Kerry has a long way to go
in attacking Bush* before they are happy with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. those people
tend to be the least informed. many times they ask why kerry hasn't done this or that when he HAS done it. and just like republicans if kerry is even 2 points behind in the polls they claim kerry is losing and going down. but if kerry is 5 points ahead they don't say the same thing about bush and they still make demands for kerry must do this or that.

is it smart to take advice from those who make the most demands and rant a lot yet make false claims , repeat right wing talking points, and are just uninformed ?

it's one thing to give advice taking into account the facts of what IS being done. it's another to give advice while making claims that are false.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hippiegranny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
13. this is a good post
I agree with most of it. I do think Kerry does need to get a bit more aggressive now, not wild eyed, just firm and consistent. August was very hard to watch because Kerry had to pull back and wait for the convention to happen, to get the funding thing on an even keel and to let the Pugs have their say. (Do I even need to remind that we are still fairly even in polls despite this?)

So now I AM expecting big things: the stops to be pulled, the challenges answered, and Kerry to look strong and presidential, all while staying away from negativity that doesn't play well in Peoria. In other words, I am looking for the Kerry we've been promised - The Closer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
17. Nice exposition of the conventional wisdom
Edited on Fri Sep-03-04 06:19 PM by depakote_kid
Unfortunately, it also reflects a proven losing strategy. Kerry is going to be criticised by the media NO MATTER WHAT he does- while bush will be treated with kid gloves LIKE HE ALWAYS IS. So arguing that he shouldn't forcefully attack Bush based on that analysis is pointless.

Perhaps Micheal Dukakis's campaign manager provides the best rebuttal to your essay:

"In 1988, in the days before the so-called independent groups, the candidate called the shots. To Michael Dukakis' credit, depending on how you look at it, he absolutely refused to get into the gutter, even to answer the charges. His theory, like that of some on the Kerry staff, was that answering such charges would only elevate them, give them more attention than they deserved. He thought the American people wanted to hear about issues, not watch a mud-wrestling match. In theory, he was right. In practice, the sad truth is that smears work -- that if you throw enough mud, some of it is bound to stick.

You can't just answer the charges. You can't just say it ain't so.

You have to fight fire with fire, mud with mud, dirt with dirt.

The trouble with Democrats, traditionally, is that we're not mean enough. Dukakis wasn't. I wasn't. I don't particularly like destroying people. I got into politics because of issues, not anger. But too much is at stake to play by Dukakis rules, and lose again."

http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=ses

Not hitting Bush hard from every concievable front- and in controversial ways that MAKE MEDIA PAY ATTENTION is just insane, unless you're goal is to lose. With all of the facts surrounding this most corrupt, inept and dishonest of administrations- exposing them for what they are in an emotionally compelling way could and should be child's play. We're not talking Zell Miller here- but cold hard scary facts (along with a dose of punchline ridicule here and there).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redstateblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. There is truth in what you both say
I think the gloves are coming off and I don't think attacking the evil Bush represents will be seen as the low road. I remain positive about our chances in Nov
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Julien Sorel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-04 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #17
27. Conventional wisdom?
Edited on Sat Sep-04-04 07:09 AM by BillyBunter
what "conventional wisdom" is that? The "conventional wisdom" being shrilly advocated here every day is that Kerry is losing because he is running a "Dukakis-style" campaign. A "conventional wisdom" you yourself are clearly a believer in.

Kerry has certainly attacked Bush. I believe he should continue to do it, but he also needs to maintain a positive campaign -- he has to campaign smart. I think he's been doing that. It's the constant demands and carping from people who are terrified of the specter of Dukakis that I'm criticizing, not the idea of attacking Bush. This isn't a binary world, contrary to the doom and gloomers and Dukakis-phobes.


John Sasso, not Susan Estrich, was Dukakis' campaign manager.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 11:57 PM
Response to Original message
22. I want to hear Kerry continue to tell the truth about Bush...
...like he did last night.

No one is saying Kerry should act like Zell- we are saying he should start telling the truth about Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntPatsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 11:59 PM
Response to Original message
23. Good post and worth the read...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-04 12:02 AM
Response to Original message
24. If a candidate isn't willing to defend himself, how is he going to defend.
..the country. That's how people see it. Screw the focus groups and all that other Republican controlled crap. We're slouching toward 1984 and this is the last opportunity in the foreseeable future to turn things around. Kerry must fight for himself and his party must fight for him. What's negative about criticizing your opponent? Get a grip and understand the fundamentals here: American's see themselves in danger and they want someone who will fight. If that someone presents himself as a fighter who is smarter and more skilled, they'll take him over Bush, the acknowledged village idiot. If, however, the Bush alternative is perceived as someone who won't fight for himself/America, it doesn't matter how smart he is. The focus groups, the networks, the pollsters are running dogs (how do you like that reference) for their corporate masters. Pierce the veil while you can, Kerry, and kick some Republican ass before people write you off as a wimp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-04 03:09 AM
Response to Original message
25. You do NOT have to get in the gutter--
--to immediately and firmly call your opponent on lies. You don't have to foam at the mouth--just never let a lie stand, period. Ever. Kerry in Ohio sounded NOTHING like Miller. He firmly, decisively and politely refused to take any more crap.

Kucinich was there and he loved it, and he has never, ever gone negative. At least on people--he has plenty of criticisms on the issues. When goaded by an interviewer to call Bush a liar, Dennis firmly and politely asserted that the war was based on lies. When (more recently, after the Dem convention) he was goaded into attacking Kerry for approving of the war, he firmly and politely kept asserting that the war was Bush's war, period.

I personally saw Kucinich handle a dozen Republican hecklers at UW who were chanting "Four more years, four more years." Dennis chanted right along with them for a minute or so. When, totally nonplussed, they stopped for breath, he said loud and clear DO YOU WANT FOUR MORE YEARS OF PEOPLE LOSING THEIR JOBS? His supporters hollered NO!!! Do you want four more years of more people sleeping in the street? NO!! Etc. In Florida, I've read, a couple of young Republicans who came to heckle left really sorry that it was too late to change their registrations to vote for him. It is possible to promptly defend against attacks without being negative. Really, it is. (Dennis should get an honorary black belt in verbal Aikido--harmonize with the direction of your attackers' energy, and then take it over.)

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/03/kerry/index.html

And for once, the Kerry campaign played it perfectly. The campaign distributed excerpts from the speech Thursday evening, just as the final session of the Republican Convention was about to begin. In an instant, the TV pundits' agenda for the night was changed. Happy talk about Bush's acceptance speech disappeared, trumped by Kerry's defense of himself and his attack on Bush's dishonest rush to war. "He's on the right path now," Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich told Salon just after Kerry finished speaking. Kucinich seemed thrilled with Kerry's new approach. "What you saw here was the beginning of his victory. Mark the date."

But for undecided voters who aren't paying attention to staff changes and ad strategies, Thursday night's televised rally in Ohio was a clear and visible sign of Kerry's rising. When the Democrats had their convention, Bush waited until the morning after to resume his campaign. Kerry waited just a few minutes. His plane landed in Dayton, Ohio, while Bush was still speaking at Madison Square Garden, and his motorcade pulled into Springfield just after the convention ended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-04 07:15 AM
Response to Original message
28. Rove used Zell Miller well
He got a Democrat to get up and give a performance that was full of the fire and brimstone, that the 'base' at the convention was dying to hear. Then after the speech, all the Repugs could shun Zell and by doing so make themselves look more reasonable and moderate.

And what will happen to Zell? Soon he's going to find out that he has no friends, on either side of the aisle. Rove & Co used him and will now abuse him, just like they do with every other idiot that thinks they've made it into the Bu$h inner circle. See ya sucker.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cthrumatrix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-04 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. Bush used "the hate speech as a keynote"...he knew it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 07:41 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC