It will be so easy to shoot Bush down in debates, Kerry better do it

[jpgray]

For one thing, the $87 billion to Iraq talking point on Kerry can be batted down with great harm to Bush in a nationally-viewed forum. All he has to say is:

"George Bush threatened to veto his own bill funding the troops. Why? Because he wanted the $20 billion of that which was earmarked for the contractors to have no strings attached, to be a blank check, to simply be added to the deficit and to the growing burden on your children and grandchildren. Our version paid for the $20 billion by rolling back some tax cuts on the richest 2% of Americans. I voted for the financially responsible bill, and I made a vote in protest over the blank check giveaway. As one of only one hundred senators, I could express my frustration with the deficit spending of this administration by voting no, without that vote threatening to deprive our troops of needed equipment. Bush, however, is the president. His threat to veto this bill would willingly deny the troops equipment they desperately need, for the purpose of enriching his CEO buddies, and to protect the tax cuts of the elite. Bush is so attached to the richest 2% of this country, he is prepared to sacrifice the lives of our soldiers in order to protect their massive tax cuts."

[vi5]

1. The thing is (and here's my prediction)...

Bush won't attack Kerry in the debates. Just as he didn't really attack Gore in the debates. He'll simply spew his normal talking points ad nauseum and try to come across as bumbling, yet charmingly affable.

If Kerry attacks him or looks like he's bullying him, it will hav the same impact that Gore doing the same thing did. Which is to solidify the democrat as the "tsk-tsk" scold trying to put down the popular kid with insults and those pesky facts.

I hate that this is the case but it just is. Even without the media spin people will take away that perception if that is what happens.

[jpgray]

2. I've also heard that optimism beats out negativity

Yet the media fawned over the RNC, and were noncommital and hostile to the DNC. It doesn't matter WHAT we do, it will be negatively spun by the mainstream news orgs. Kerry ought to hammer Bush with attacks that are impervious to heavy spin--I believe the above attack works. You threaten to veto your own troop funding bill so your elite pals don't have to give a little more back, you've given your opponent a weapon that should be used.

[Nordic]

19. very true. the RNC was one big HATE-FEST

yet nobody called them on it

[shrumbody]

5. I Agree

No way the media will ever say Kerry won the debates.

[newyawker99]

28. Hi shrumbody!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[fugue]

6. I'm afraid of that too

Someone on another board suggested that Kerry should remain unemotional when correcting Bush, but I'm afraid that will backfire much like it did with Dukakis.

It's a sorry day when people vote for someone because they feel sorry for him.

Am I the only one instantly turned off by candidates who want to be my "pal"? I'd rather someone who talks hard and cold about the issues. The instant a politician starts talking about how they "understand" me or gets touchy-feely, I get the creeps.

I've got a pal (he's my avatar). I don't need my president to be one.

[jpgray]

12. We have to stop being so afraid of what the media are going to do

And start concentrating on what we are going to do. The media will throw up roadblocks to Kerry no matter what direction he takes. If Kerry had followed to the letter what the media claimed to want, he would still be as excoriated and marginalized as he is now. The answer isn't then to constantly shift direction to avoid those roadblocks, but to take them on and refuse to be ruled by them.

[SeekingTruth]

3. And don't forget the missing...

almost ten billion bucks.....

[tjdee]

4. If I hear "the richest 2%" I will scream!

Please, PLEASE Mr. Kerry, TELL America what that is!

Is it people who make over 100K a year?
Over 300K?

No one knows what the hell it is. I talked to my mom yesterday, who used to make 70K a year and thinks she's a Republican (she's a conservative Democrat and voted for Clinton and Gore, sigh). She said she's glad she's making less now, because Kerry would be taking her tax cut away.

:eyes:

I hope Kerry gets on national television and sets the record straight.

[beyurslf]

13. THANK YOU! My dad "thinks" he might be in the richest 2%

because he makes 75K a year. He has NO idea what the richest 2% is.

[physaf]

16. lots of people are afraid of that

and many are concerned their employer will get hit and lay them off as a result, too.

[StClone]

7. Bush is primed for the toppling in a debate

One word -- predementia.

[Heyo]

8. When are the debates supposed to happen?

How many will there be?

Heyo

[jpgray]

9. I believe the first was scheduled for September 30th

But I don't believe James Baker has yet worked out a deal.

[seabeyond]

10. start with you know the facts yet misrepresent like so many things

then go on to explain the vote. letting nation hear it has always been perfectly clear what kerry position on 87b

[whistle]

11. BushCo better agree to three debates....

...they are scared shitless to let Bush have any uncontrolled exposure. Many of your are too young to remember seeing Nixon opposite John Kennedy in the 1960 televised debates. But there was tricky-Dickie, with the beads of sweat in the cleft of his chin, a 5:00 o'clock shadow and a wrinkled suit next to this polished great looking handsome god-like man Kennedy. After those televised images went into 60 or 80 million homes across the nation, it was never going to be a Republican victory. It was close, but historians will agree that the performance in those debates was what tipped the scales for the American voters. Nixon was the favorite all through the campaign as I recall, even after the debates, the pundits were still expecting Nixon to beat Kennedy.

Unfortunately, the debates were sometimes against the democratic candidate, the most apparent was Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter (movie star vs peanut farmer). I liked Charter, I voted for Carter, I never trusted Reagan and his 8 years validated my mistrust of that man, but the country went for Reagan's charm, big smile and perceived trustworthiness. Bush will fall flat on his face in the debates intellectually, but the phony Texan swagger will still get him votes. Kerry will have to win over undecideds in the debates with substance, he must not go over and stand beside Bush like Al Gore did, but look that little prick right square in the eyes, not blink and let the entire nation see that he served this country well and deserves to be president because he will not back-away from a puffed up nobody like Shrub.

[partygirl]

14. I have it on pretty

good authority that there will only be two debates (we will wait and see).

That means that Kerry will probably only get two opportunities (perhaps 3) to win over the voters and knock Bush down. He really has to come out swinging. I want to see him aggressive!

[physaf]

17. I don't think there is much chance at all

of having more than two debates. Kerry better really do well - it is probably going to be his only chance. He has a lot going for him as a debater though, so he'll probably really trim Bush.

[Mz Pip]

15. Bush's ability

to simplify an isse down to a soundbite is what is hurting us. He makes simple statements that are difficult to disagree with - like "Saddam Hussien was a brutal man and the world is better of without him in power."

It becomes difficult to come up with a simple retort to the statement without looking like you are defending Saddam. Not a good idea to be perceived as defending Saddam.

Like Kerry says, it's spin. IT's very effective spin. It's deceptive spin that does not address the complexities of geopolitics. But the vast majority of the voters do not pay any attention if an issue is complicated and will gravitate towards the simplist justifications. That's why "They hate us for our freedoms" works so musch better than "They hate us for our meddling in the Mid East and for our war on Iraq for our support of corrupt regimes..."

Bush likes to keep people ignorant. He does it well by giving them a soundbite that requires no serious thought. For a democracy to succeed we need an informed electorate and sorry to say we do not have one.

MzPip
:dem:

[senseandsensibility]

18. I agree with all

the points you made, but I think the response you gave (although well thought out and factual) is too wordy for the debates and for our "sound-bite" culture. I think Kerry will have lost half the moran Americans and swing voters before the third sentence. Unfortunately, he will will have to reduce it to something like, "I never voted against money for our troops. I voted against the twenty billion blank check to Halliburton. I believe in paying our bills, not handing them to our grandchildren." Or something like that. That might even be too wordy.

[jpgray]

20. It's pathetic that politicians have to speak like Tarzan these days

Listening to a Roosevelt speech or even a Kennedy speech, I don't believe our general public is wholesale dumber now than then. Most of the clamoring for soundbites I hear is from news organizations, not average voters.

[Mz Pip]

21. Exactly

Kerry sees the complexity of issues. Hard to soundbite complexities. Still I think he can do better in addressing Bush's failures. His "fansasy of spin" is a very good start. He needs to stay with that and not drop it after 1 week.

MzPip
:dem:

[CornField]

22. We do not need to assume that Kerry will mop the floor with Bush (m)

There is no way better to ensure that Kerry will lose than for all of us as Democrats to stand up and express how we feel he will win.

Never forget "the soft bigotry of low expectations." Don't allow this to become a factor in the debates. Let's not place our expectations for Kerry so high that they are never attainable.

"The debates will be a difficult task for both candidates. Although we welcome discourse on the issues of the day, we realize that each candidate will be well prepped and prepared."

[Morning Dew]

26. My debate expectations for shrub are very high -

gotta remember, NO ONE has ever bested him in a debate. He's an excellent debater, a true master of words.

lather, rinse, repeat - repeat - repeat.

Generally, if shrub shows up and doesn't piss himself, he wins - raise the bar. Bush* is a great debater. Repeat, repeat, repeat!

[Guaranteed]

23. He wanted it to be a GIFT to come out of our taxpayer's money, instead of

a loan to the Iraqis, so that his oil buddies could buy cheaper crude. Taxpayer subsidized oil, and they're still gouging us. That should be Kerry's point.

[K. F. Gibbons]

24. forget everything you know.

Kerry must come across as likable. This is a battle for image. He must appear tough and likable. Parsing issues will make him look weak. Debates have nothing to do with the truth, Americans don't care about that. Americans project themselves onto their presidents. Kerry needs to be a movie star president.

[PurityOfEssence]

25. Do you REALLY think that the American People are that STUPID?

That's what I want him to ask Junior?

"You're a rich kid from Connecticut who's dedicated his entire career to breaking unions, taking away services from the poor and giving government money to the rich. Your family's been richer longer than mine, and you never mention that. I've fought to help the weak and disadvantaged, and you've weakened and further disadvantaged them."

[partygirl]

27. we all know that

Bush is dumb as a post. Kerry is brilliant. When the voters see the two of them side by side--it is OVER.