It's NOT the economy, stupid

[Snellius]

What's upsetting to so many is not just that Bush is a bully, or that Republicans are liars, or that Americans are sheep, but a more basic matter of judgment in not learning the lessons of the midterms in 2002 or what happened before to Al Gore. The current focus on domestic issues by the Kerry campaign is like trying to teach math to a herd of stampeding cows. It's not that these are not important issues, but right now in the current climate of fear and hysteria, they are beside the point.

Krugman's column today hits it on the head: "It's NOT the economy, stupid". And he's an economist.

Step by step, the fight against Al Qaeda became a universal "war on terror," then a confrontation with the "axis of evil," then a war against all evil everywhere. Nobody knows where it all ends.

What is clear is that whenever political debate turns to Mr. Bush's actual record in office, his popularity sinks. Only by doing whatever it takes to change the subject to the war on terror - not to what he's actually doing about terrorist threats, but to his "leadership," whatever that means - can he get a bump in the polls.

Last week's convention made it clear that Mr. Bush intends to use what's left of his heroic image to win the election, and early polls suggest that the strategy may be working. What can John Kerry do?

Campaigning exclusively on domestic issues won't work. Mr. Bush must be held to account for his dismal record on jobs, health care and the environment. But as Mr. Hedges writes, when war psychology makes a public yearn to believe in its leaders, "there is little that logic or fact or truth can do to alter the experience."

To win, the Kerry campaign has to convince a significant number of voters that the self-proclaimed "war president" isn't an effective war leader - he only plays one on TV.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/07/opinion/07krugman.html?hp

As Flubadubya has also pointed out, we should read this sobering post from "abrock":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=756291

[klook]

1. "It's not ONLY the economy, stupid"

is a more accurate depiction of Krugman's column. He does say, as you quote, that Bush must "be held to account for his dismal record on jobs, health care and the environment," but that the Kerry campaign must attack Bush on his claim of being an effective wartime leader.

I like this from Krugman's column:

"If I were running the Kerry campaign, I'd remind people frequently about Mr. Bush's flight-suit photo-op, when he declared the end of major combat. In fact, the war goes on unabated. News coverage of Iraq dropped off sharply after the supposed transfer of sovereignty on June 28, but as many American soldiers have died since the transfer as in the original invasion.

And I'd point out that while Mr. Bush spared no effort preparing for his carrier landing - he even received underwater survival training in the White House pool - he didn't prepare for things that actually mattered, like securing and rebuilding Iraq after Baghdad fell."

I agree. Take a page from the Rove playbook. Attack Bush on his supposed strength.

[sangh0]

2. Now there's someone who thinks

It's not one or the other. It's both

[lunarboy13]

3. I agree

And don't forget that the cost of the Iraq war is directly tied to our economy. That 87 billion dollar package that Kerry voted against was a grant -- Kerry supported the version that made it a loan to Iraq. This war will cost hundreds of billions of dollars -- at tax payer expense.