Kerry urged to focus on economy and jobs

[bigtree]

Democratic officials and strategists have urged Sen. John Kerry not to allow himself to be pulled into a debate over Iraq, the war on terrorism and his Vietnam experiences, and focus his attention on the economy and jobs in the general election.

"Remember James Carville's line, 'It's the economy, stupid,' well, it's the economy again, stupid," says Mike Callaghan, the Democratic chairman of West Virginia, a battleground state that remains a tossup and where Mr. Kerry planned to campaign on Labor Day.

"I don't want to see him pulled into the national security debate, because that it is not the driving issue for voters here. The economic issues, that's what will drive the voters in this election," Mr. Callaghan said in an interview. "I think Kerry's lost some ground in West Virginia. The two conventions are done. Now it's time to focus on the economy, health care and education."

Other Democrats say President Bush and his party would like nothing better than to keep the focus on the war on terrorism and Mr. Kerry's defense record for the rest of the election, because polls show that is Mr. Bush's strongest issue with voters.

"He needs to focus more on domestic issues. That's where Bush is particularly vulnerable and where Kerry is particularly strong, and that is where swing and uncommitted votes are especially unhappy with Bush," says Harold Ickes, a senior party strategist who was deputy chief of staff in the Clinton White House.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040905-010414-1355r.htm

[MichiganVote]

1. For crying out loud, its all of these and Iraq

In the mid west swing states, the economy is a huge issue just as immigration is a big issue in Cal. No Iraq and our economy would at least be better, if not solid. Two wars, billions upon billions and the world is still dealing with terrorists. Badly.

[bigtree]

2. This is just the Democratic chairman of West Virginia doing the asking

But hey, I'm sure WE know better.

By the by, Kerry spokesman Tad Devine made your point on one of the Sunday talkies in his closing remarks. He said that the 200 billion we have spent has hindered these things. Good observation.

[MichiganVote]

23. Good. He the only smart one of the bunch that I've seen on TV

[volosong]

3. IRAQ, TERRORISM & HOMELAND "INSECURITY" SHOULD BE THE FOCUS

Jobs, economy, seniors, healthcare, etc. secondary

[Bad Thoughts]

16. If Kerry will spend most of his presidency on these issues ...

... then "Iraq, Terrorism, and Homeland Insecurity" should be the major focus of his campaign.

[liberal N proud]

17. Tell that to those who do not have jobs!

Tell that to the people who are in poverty!
Yes the war in Iraq is important, but what about life here at home. This is not WWII where there are all these sacrifices at home to help the war effort. This is a police action type of war that we are now mired in.
Still we have many issues at home that the republicans do not want to talk about because they are embarrassing to them.
Energy
Education
Employment
Economy
Health Care
A Stronger America begins at Home!

[Julien Sorel]

4. What does this guy know?

Besides, Karl Rove obviously wants to make Iraq and terror the centerpice of the campaign, so we must do the same, because Rove is a genius, and what he decides Bush should do, everyone else should do.

[bigtree]

5. He apparently knows about the needs of West Virginia,

a battleground state that we lost the last go round.

[DeepModem Mom]

6. This failed, badly, in 2002 -- I'm not saying it won't work this time...

especially in the Rust Belt, which is the swing area we need. But it scares me because the 2002 midterm -- fought on the manufactured issue of Iraq, as Dems determined to change the focus, even to the point of voting to authorize war in order to get the issue off the table -- resulted in a devastating defeat.

[Julien Sorel]

9. you are one of the brighter people I've heard advance this line.

So tell me, what do you think the Dems should have done differently in 2002? Do you think they would have done better or worse had they decided to make terrorism the center of their campaign strategy? Or is this a case of, "We lost in 2002, therefore the strategy was wrong," which assumes the playing field was even?

You see, I keep hearing about how the pink tu tu DNC screwed the party in 2002, and is responsible for the losses, but I've never yet seen a credible alternative strategy proposed. No, not one. I'd sure like to, though.

[BillZBubb]

19. Geez Louise!

The Democrats didn't need to make terrorism the center piece of the 2002 campaign. That's a straw man, bullshit point and you know it.

The Democrats needed to be an opposition party in 2002 and they weren't one. They were weak and craven. They caved on each issue one by one. The public was left with the choice of the Repugs who stood for something and were unified, versus the Dems who were disorganized and running an "everyman for himself" campaign. They let guys like Cleland get picked off one by one.

The Democrats should have stood up to the Repugs on Iraq as a unified party policy!!!!! If they went down to defeat (like they did anyway), then they would have the moral and factual basis to now be killing the Repugs on the Iraq disaster.

Given the choice between a Republican and a Republican lite, the public will take the Republican every time. Given a real choice between a Republican and a Democrat, I like our chances.

[Julien Sorel]

21. So what issues were they supposed to oppose?

They should have fought on Iraq? Why do you think Cleland lost? It's because he fought on the issue of the PATRIOT Act. Had he fought over Iraq, you think that would have helped him? In Georgia? If the entire Democratic Party had opposed the IWR, you think that would have helped Cleland? I say Cleland would have lost bigger, and we also would have lost the seat of Tim Johnson in South Dakota (won his race by 500 votes in a 60% Republican state), and Mary Landrieu in Louisiana. Those are right from the top of my head that were close races in Republican states. Actually, I suspect the carnage would have been worse, as Democrats were pasted as the weak on defense party.

Cynthia McKinney and Earl Hilliard were both oppositionist Democrats, who lost their primary races to more moderate Democrats. Can you name their opposites? Show me one competitive race, anywhere in the country in 2002, where an oppositionist candidate won either in the primary or general election. One?

[DeepModem Mom]

20. The playing field was uneven then, as it is now...

which was the reason we were unable to replace Iraq as the dominant issue of the 2002 campaign with domestic issues. We've now had two more years of Bush's economy, his approval numbers are not as high, and we're targeting Rust Belt states which have been hard hit, so things might be different this time. People who live in those areas who've posted here seem to think so.

I don't think we can assume, however, that the issue of "national security" will not dominate this campaign, given the collusion between the WH and the press.

[unfrigginreal]

7. 9 out of 10 Republican strategists agree...

otherwise it would never be printed in the Washinton Times.

[bigtree]

8. Nice try. The speakers are prominent Democrats.

Republicans don't want to talk about the issues so they run this campaign of smears and slander, hoping to draw our candidate off of what is Bush's greatest weakness, especially in the key states which have been most affected by Bush's failure to do one thing about the economy, jobs, or health care.

These Democrats are right. The public needs our candidates to focus on their needs, their concerns, their problems, and not obsess on compromised, media-driven mudslinging which only serves to distract and divert us from our candidate's positive message of hope and opportunity.

[gulfcoastliberal]

10. They sound like DLCers

which is the last group we need to be taking advice from. They are a cancer inside our party meant to turn it into a Vichy style opposition party.

[bigtree]

11. Ickes was/is close to Big Dog

We need West Virginia. But we know best from here, I suppose.

[Awsi Dooger]

12. Now there's a brainstorm

Among swing and independent voters, there is virtually zero chance Iraq or national security concerns will exit poll as more important than the economy on November 2.

[KC21304]

13. This strategy makes no sense to me.

Kerry didn't lose points because of his position on the economy so why would he think he would regain the lead going this route ? He lost ground because people believed the lies told about his ability to be strong on security and stick to a positon on something.

His first job is to show the REpublicans for the liars they are with ads and well known supporters telling it as it is. And a little ridicule and derision won't hurt either. Show Bush, Cheney, Guiliani, Pataki how immature their lying, taking out of context and school yard bullying was.

Then he can get on to tying together Bush's deplorable "miscalculating catastrophe" taking forces out of Afghanistan, invading Iraq, and the economy.

[gulliver]

14. He can't do both?

And toss Bush a few scandal bombs at the same time?

I can't believe that Bush can get us into an unnecessary war, lose it, and get away with it. I don't want to cede Iraq to Bush. If we do that and win, the Republicans will claim it is our fault when Iraq goes down the toilet. Bush must be blamed for the mess he made. Blamed not rewarded for it.

[John_H]

15. Some Democrats apparently have difficulty with that concept

in their world, you either have to play the now discreditied and abandoned game of judo chess or you have to run the campaign like it's run by Lee Atwater. Nope, no way to attack your opponent and push your own agenda at the same time.

[Julien Sorel]

22. Actually the game of "judo chess"

is doing both. You don't win chess games without being able to attack, and you don't win judo matches by defending the whole time.

[bigtree]

24. Sure he can

But he has to make certain that it isn't reported so that it is the only message coming out of our campaign. Red meat will always get the headlines. I want our campaign to attack on the issues first and foremost, not center our campaign on service records (I like the fight as much as anyone).

I just don't think it is smart or productive for our candidate to be seen as the attack dog on tangential issues, especially the ones that are lobbed out by the Bush campaign to divert and distract from their failed presidency. That's what surrogates are for.

[Catfight]

18. History proves, Republicans are bad for the economy, Democrats

know math! We can balance a budge AND reap profits. Hardly anything a Republican President could ever claim.