Forget the polls: Kevin Drum worries about Kerry's strategy

[lancdem]

I just saw this on Kevin Drum's blog http://www.washingtonmonthly.com and it caught my attention. He's a progressive like Josh Marshall but was disturbed to read that article saying Kerry's running all those ads on the economy. Here's what he wrote:

It's fine to hammer away on domestic issues with specific target groups. It's fine for John Edwards to focus on the two Americas. But anyone who thinks the primary message of Kerry's campaign should be anything other than national security is just deluding themselves. To paraphrase James Carville, "It's 9/11, stupid."
In fact, it's a no-brainer: somehow Kerry has to convince people that he can be trusted with national security and Bush can't — and if he doesn't, he's going to lose. But I guess he still doesn't get that.
I'm finally beginning to think Mickey Kaus might be right: Kerry has spent too much time inside the liberal cocoon. It's going to cost him the election if he keeps it up.

Any thoughts?

[kstewart33]

1. Drum's absolutely right

It's 9/11 stupid. And Kerry seems to be ignoring that fact. It's unbelievable what a lame campaign he has run. And I've given more money to him than I've ever given to a candidate.

The campaign has no single, easily understood message. Kerry refuses to attack Bush on his perceived greatest strength--as an effective leader in the war on terror. And Kerry has so much to work with.

If he can't run an effective campaign, he doesn't deserve to win.

[lancdem]

7. That last line is something I've been thinking

and I have to admit it's true. I'd also love to see a single message, too.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. He has to offer an alternative to Bush.

So far, he insists on playing it safe so he can appear to be "tough". He has to distance himself from Bush's foreign policy instead of pussyfooting. A good start would be for him to finally renounce his IWR vote and his support for the occupation.

The "not as bad" strategy is a flop.

[stray cat]

3. Kerry has to be more credible than Bush on real national security.

Kerry must attack Bush on what he has failed to do on national security in concrete details. How Bush's economic policys, large tax cuts, deficit, misappropriation of funds for Afganistan, have made us less prepared. If he doesn't come across as having a better concrete strategy for national security I don't think he can win even if people are mad about Bush's economic failures.

[WiseMen]

4. Absolutely on point. At this juncture ISSUES are Irrelevant. It's

Character to Lead in a time of war. Noting else matters until that battle is fought and won.

[Blue_Roses]

10. very well said!

sad to say, but it's true.

[vademocrat]

11. Let's not forget that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch

I've mentioned that to a knee-jerk bushy at work who only "knows that bush has kept this country safe". I said "no he hasn't - he was pres when the planes hit". NO response - just confusion & a look like "that's right, he WAS already president" - seems some people have VERY short term memories! :)

[Vincardog]

29. Character to lead?

What the hell gives BU$H the right to claim success on the leadership front? Because when he got a briefing on Osama wanting to use Planes to attack symbols of America INSIDE THE USA he left it unread on his desk while he went on vacation? How can he claim to making us more secure when he has helped recruit and fund more terrorists than Osama? How does Condalesa insisting on having names and ternaries make us feel more secure? Just because the Bu$h propaganda machine linked Strong leadership with the junta does not make it so. When are the facts going to influence anyone? Why don't we link Coward and Deserter with the Coward and Thief?

[asjr]

5. Obviously Kerry can't please everyone. This campaign has just

started. I focus on domestic issues but that does not mean I don't care about homeland security (which under Bush is a false sense of security), but Social Security and Medicare issues are the things that concern me. This war on terrorism was started by Bush by his invading illegally Iraq. Any voter who can't see that is going to vote for Bush anyway. I don't hear about any Repubs questioning him about not getting Osama bin Laden. Repubs will vote against their own interests, but that does not seem to bother them. Kerry could make us safer I think, but it is going to be a hell of a job no matter who wins this election.

[Kierkegaard]

6. Yeah

Crapola armchair campaign managing.

'Somehow," Kerry is going to have to find a way to adopt several hundred different and often conflicting ideas into his campaign, or he is going to lose. This is just another speculative addition to the pile.

:eyes:

[Gloria]

8. He and Wes Clark have to hammer the fact that we are NOT safer

that is the key point to all this....Bush will exploit Russia's problems as proof there's a danger....Kerry has to turn it around to show that terror is UP since Bush has been in office....

It's simple, stupid.

Insecurity at home (domestic) \Insecurity in the world (terror)

[KC21304]

17. Better yet he should tie them together.

Bush's dreadful response to 9/11 has not only made the world and our nation more dangerous, but that has contributed to the bad state of our economy.

[flpoljunkie]

25. Kerry has very recently reminded folk that the $200B spent in Iraq could

have been used here in this country for many of our pressing needs, and reminding folks that Bush said the Iraq War would cost only $1 billion with a B! When people hear this, it pisses them off--as well it should.

[IndianaGreen]

22. But Dean was badgered when he said we weren't safer

so in a way, we have become victims of the rhetoric used during the primaries. You can't say today we aren't safer when you were arguing the opposite when Saddam was captured.

[DeepModem Mom]

9. I think that view might have validity -- nt

[Paradise]

12. IT'S 9/11, STUPID!!! n/t

[sampsonblk]

13. Ditto, although domestic issues do matter in my opinion

Kerry can win over everyone on domestic issues and lose handily to Bush if he doesn't deal head-on with national security.

Hammer Bush constantly, tout Kerry constantly. That's what its about.

[depakid]

14. This view reflects just how big a blunder that statement

was several weeks ago, where Kerry essentially said that knowing what we know know, he'd have still voted to give Bush the authorit to go to war with Iraq.

I know that's not what he said, but that's the way it inevitably would be interpreted and repeated and Kerry is a seasoned enough politician to have understood that before he said it. He ceded a LOT of ground that day- and missed a huge opportunity to put the wisdom of going into Iraq (and the negative consequences to our national security) into play- those kind of personal tete a tetes between candidates are juicy and make news.

Instead, what ended up in the popular discussion was a validaion for Bush's lies- and as history will record- the worst decision of his pResidency.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. You're right. He has to renounce that vote if he wants to win.

This continual defense of a bad vote robs him of attacking Bush where he's weakest. The quagmire that Iraq has predictably become.

"But, he voted for it." trumps any complaints he has about the way it was (predictably) carried out.

[jefferson_dem]

19. ahh...that Grand Canyon moment

presents a sticky wicket. To backtrack now will play into that stupid-ass "flip flopper" caricature the Reps have painted. But to offer a real alternative to Chimp's failed alternatives, he has to reconsider. Shit! In hindsight, i'm sure he wishes he said "fuck no i would not vote that way now that i know the president was working with bad intelligence and he was going to screw things the way he did." Best now to swallow the "flip flopper" pill and go for it!

[flpoljunkie]

15. Must admit was concerned after reading this in today's NYT...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/04/politics/campaign/04kerry.html?hp

Mr. Kerry's focus on jobs, health care and other domestic issues came as a strategic change in a campaign in which he has devoted more attention to foreign policy than any other single issue. His advisers say that for all the damage done by the unsubstantiated attacks on Mr. Kerry's military record, they believe he has passed the threshold test of "does he have the strength, does he have the resoluteness to be commander in chief," as Joe Lockhart, a senior communications adviser, put it.

"We have established the credentials we need to," Mr. Lockhart said in a conference call with reporters Friday morning, "and the campaign will turn now in a different direction and go to the economy."

As one indication, the Kerry campaign began running six new advertisements in cities that President Bush planned to visit this weekend - Cleveland; Milwaukee; Scranton and Erie, Pa.; Cedar Rapids, Iowa; and Parkersburg, W.Va. - highlighting promises he made in 2000 on health insurance and the economy.

"Now, Bush is back," the spots say. "But around here, we remember Bush's broken promises."
_____________

Halbfinger has screwed Kerry before in his columns. Surely the campaign does not intend to quit talking about Bush's failed war in Iraq. This is what happened in 2002 when the Dems talked exclusively about the economy and ran from discussion about national security and got their asses handed to them. I cannot believe the Kerry campaign would stop talking about Iraq or that Joe Lockhart would concede the national security issue.

[WiseMen]

21. Agreed. Its 9-11 and Iraq Stupid! Have to undercut Bush on that ground.

[lancdem]

23. He may have passed that threshold a month ago

but the RNC more than erased that.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

28. oh no, they must be joking?

His advisers say that for all the damage done by the unsubstantiated attacks on Mr. Kerry's military record, they believe he has passed the threshold test of "does he have the strength, does he have the resoluteness to be commander in chief," as Joe Lockhart, a senior communications adviser, put it.

..the GOP hard-hitting focus was on Kerrys qualifications to lead, front & center...the Kerry campaign havn't established shit!

Are they that out of touch?

[jefferson_dem]

16. Chimpy and his henchmen effectively sold the bill of goods

by blurring the line between the war on terror and Iraq. Their worst fear is if the distinguishable truth catches on. And we know that's the truth. As goes the public perception regarding Iraq, so goes the chimp's presidency. Notice how there's no more honest media coverage of the real situation on the ground? Deaths. Coalition (i.e. US) retreats. Turmoil. Political instability. Sadly, it may take that 1000th death to wake up the media, and the public.

Really, Iraq and the war on terror are linked, insofar as former has created less winable conditions for the latter. Kerry MUST present a coherent and clear "bumper sticker-able" message on how Chimpy fucked up Iraq and in doing so fucked up the war on terror.

[mzmolly]

20. I've been saying this for a week now. I am flattered to find Carville

agrees.

Carville is right, Drum is right .. Kerry needs to re-assess. I think he's doing that now?

[a new day]

24. The strategy of the RNC convention has been known for a year

How does the Kerry campaign delude itself into thinking it can just say "me too"?

[sandersadu]

26. Hit em where he's "strong"

Economy should be in backdrop, but Nat'l Security/War on Terror = #1.

What about HOMELAND SECURITY!! You know the agency that was the Democrats' idea, that * at first threatened to veto, only to turn aroudn and embrace it and use it as a club to beat Max Cleland in 2002.

Homeland Security was a DEMOCRATIC idea!! Why not run commercials about Port Security, Nuclear facility security and First Responders. The firefighters endorsed Kerry for crying out loud. Make HOMELAND SECURITY our issue, say it's been underfunded b/c of Bush's reckless tax cuts, and then use that as a springboard for War on Terror = "Stronger America begins at home with REAL HOMELAND SECURITY.

If someone from the Kerry campaign is reading this, go ahead and plagiarize, I won't be offended!!

And also where is WES CLARK! He should be out on the campaign trail every week. He's one of our brightest stars and is being woefully underutilized.

[Rageneau]

27. Smirk's "Leadership" in the WOT has been abominable!

Usurper Boy is running on his "leadership" in the WOT. But the truth is, aside from the dubious benefit of deposing Saddam, there isn't a single success he can point to, objectively, that supports that notion. On the other hand, there is much to criticize about it.

So much, in fact, that all Kerry has to do is tell the truth -- the already well-established truth -- about Smirk's handling of the WOT -- in order to completely knock the props out from under Karl Rove's cynical re-election scheme.

Starting with the August PDB that warned about aircraft highjackings, continuing on through Ashcroft's disdain for anti-terrorism funding, on through Bunnypant's 7-minute presidential 'time out' in that Florida classroom, on to the disappearing act he pulled post 9/11, on to the many bloody screw-ups of the war in Afghanistan -- including the fact that the Taliban and opium-growers are already back in business -- on to the sloppy way his leadership kept us from catching Osama, first at Tora Bora and for now for over three years since, on to his unconscionable, unilateral, unjustified military incursion into Iraq and the awful consequences we've suffered every day since, and on to and on to and on to.

Truth is, the one thing Bush is running on is actually where he is most vulnerable -- the never-ending, wasteful, poorly run, liberty-draining WOT.

IMO, Kerry should attack Bush in his weakest spot -- the Achilles Heel that he thinks is his strong right arm -- his mishanding of every aspect of the WOT.