Why not Kerry?

[Skwmom]

BUSH'S WEAKEST POINT: He spends money like a drunken sailor. Rove's strategy:

1. Blame Democrats for the overspending. Today on CSPAN a caller said Bush was forced to agree to some of the spending bills because we are a divided nation (so he has to concede some ground). In addition, he does not have a FILIBUSTER PROOF CONGRESS so he has to let the Democrats put their pork in bills to get their votes (or something along those lines). Sounds like a new GOP talking point to me.

2. A Democratic nominee who can be painted a BIGGER spender than Bush. Kerry is rated a bigger liberal than Ted Kennedy. In the minds of many liberal = big spender. Plus I'm sure with Kerry's long record there is plenty of info that they can use to make people view Kerry as a big time tax and spend liberal democrat. (Question: Have you ever seen a spending bill a liberal doesn't like? Answer: Only a defense spending bill. I heard this yesterday in the checkout line.)

BUSH'S STRONGEST POINT: National security. Yeah I know it's a joke but that's the perception. Rove's strategy:

1. Have a nominee who has zero national security defense experience. I think this is why they are still pushing Edwards for the top of the ticket (since they've probably killed Dean) but Kerry will do since he can be painted as a spendaholic liberal and maybe he's not so strong on defense as some would think which brings us to point #2.

2. Have a nominee that you can paint as weak on defense. Kerry is a war hero but is a war hero enough to make the voters change their perception of Democrats as weak on defense? The answer is NO (just ask Max Cleland). The most recent RNC talking point is that Kerry voted against funding the military equipment which has been critical to the success in Afghanistan (and stay tuned because I'm sure there is much more to come).

[displacedtexan]

1. If people still had jobs and retirement savings

you might have a point (re Rove strategy).
The economy is so bad that even repukes are jumping ship and voting for JK.

[jobycom]

4. I agree

All these strategies fail when people are afraid. They are more afraid of being unemployed than of terrorism.

[mikehiggins]

8. Most people in the real world still believe its their own fault

that they aren't succeeding. The macroeconomic argument that large impersonal forces are manipulating economies in such a way as to ruin the American middle class is an analysis still light years beyond a guy who isn't able to keep a job that doesn't include the phrase "super-size that?"

There is little more than nine months until the election. We are facing a well financed Republican ready, willing and able to do just about anything (the FEC is considering shutting down operations like MoveOn, etc, using loopholes in the law) to win reelection.

Is Kerry going to hammer away at the economy? People are afraid, yes. But people don't change things because they are afraid. They are more afraid of rocking the boat. Better the devil we know, in other words, than a tax-and-spend Yankee who's more liberal than Ted Kennedy.

Kerry's own record will kill us in the general election, no matter what the media tells you. I've been doing this stuff for a long time and Kerry will prove an electoral disaster in November.

And it sure as hell won't do us any good to be able to say "I told you so" as Bush gets sworn in after the first election he really will have won.

[x-g.o.p.er]

2. To counter Bush's strong point....

He must be hammered on his spending. Look, I supported Bush in 2000, so did my wife. Not this year. The only way you will get ex-repub's like me to vote Democrat is to convince us that the Dem nominee won't outspend Kerry. Like it or not, Bush wins on National Security. I disagree with that, but that is the perception. And perception is reality. He has the best chance to change that perception. I am active duty, and I personally admire Kerry's record. And the fact that he served in combat tells me he will be more thoughtful and deliberative before he sends me off to kill people. And as far as him disagreeing with Vietnam when he came home I say this: He who served is a better judge of what went on over there than he who didn't, hawk or dove. And voting against some equipment can be shown as fiscal responsibility, if done right.

What is infuriating (and I mean REALLY infuriating) Bush's so called core supporters is his spending. Get a nominee who will toe the line on spending, or at least offer to spend less than uber-spender and you have the next president.

[THUNDER HANDS]

3. welcome to the fold

I'm glad you saw the light. :D :hi:

[returnable]

5. Welcome to DU!

Thoughtful post :toast:

[mikehiggins]

6. Fair enough, X, but that candidate isn't John Kerry n/t

[jobycom]

10. You also have the last president

As far as spending, the last president reduced the deficit, the two before him expanded it through the roof.

Maybe you can help, with your background. Why is there the perception that Republicans are fiscally responsible and the Democrats are wasteful? Obviously, history suggests the opposite. Logic also suggests the opposite-- when spending goes to job training, or subsidies for unemployment, health, education, even welfare, the money gets spent 100% in our economy, stimulating it and creating a better, healthier, more educated working class. It grows the economy from the bottom, which is the only legite way to grow it. When our money is given to big business through "tax cuts" (a tax cut without an equal spending cut is simply a loan), or spent through the military, it is far less efficient, since the "tax cuts" have to be paid back with interest, and since the military does not stimulate genuine production. (What I mean is that even though building military weapons does create production for itself, it is not self-sustaining. It does not create industry beyond itself. Thus, the government has to pump money into it, and when they stop, the production jobs go away.) I don't believe in "soaking the rich," (though more often what happens under Republicans is soaking the poor, since tax cuts are targetted to the wealthy, yet the amounts of government money spent to sustain big business does not go down), and of course we need a strong military, but there are responsible ways to do it. The last three Republican presidents did it poorly, and it resulted in the largest deficits in human history. The last Democrat did it wisely, and we had growth, peace, respect, and a budget surplus.

I'm way out of touch on this. I can't even figure out why people like Survivor or Jerry Springer. So maybe you can explain it better. Why do people see black as white when it comes to government spending? What fools them? I'm not being rhetorical or asking loaded questions, I really don't understand, and until I do, I'm not going to know how to change anyone's mind.

[x-g.o.p.er]

13. Probably can't, but I'll try

I don't think parties are fiscally responsible, people within those parties are. Now, put cultural issues aside and hear me out on this.

Clinton was a fiscal conservative. However, he had a congress that was willing to curtail (somewhat) spending. Reagan had no such luxury. I think budgets under Reagan would have been closer to balanced if he had a congress that was willing to work with him on spending issues. As much as most people on the left side of the aisle despise Newt Gingrich, he was also a fiscal conservative; and Clinton and Gingrich started the ball rolling to a balanced budget. As much as both left and right hate to admit this, the two respective anti-christs for the opposition actually got a lot done for our country, and they both need to be given credit where credit is due.

I think people look through the prism of partisanship and decide on their guy. I used to. I won't anymore.

ABB in '04

PS--I don't get the appeal of reality tv, either. And Jerry Springer? Only because of the first amendment, lol

[Skwmom]

15. X you are right the nominee must be perceived as

someone who won't outspend Bush (I don't think you meant Kerry). Sorry but that man is not John Kerry.

[Wetzelbill]

7. I love John Kerry....

Excellent candidate in a field of excellent candidates.

[mikehiggins]

9. Kerry is an excellent man. He is a terrible candidate in this cycle.

Kerry represents every stereotype the general public has of Democrats. He's a Yankee, a "limousine liberal", left of Ted Kennedy, weak on national defense (being a hero in Viet Nam forty years ago means he was a hero in Viet Nam forty years ago) who voted against rearming America, etc., etc., etc.

His campaign has to respond to the attacks against him, not to mention the phone calls in the night, and he cannot spend all of his time defending himself while Bush flies from photo op to fund raiser to photo op, doing the Presidential thing.

And if Bush drops Cheney from the ticket (because of his health, of course) and taps Giuliani or a general of his own, what then?

Kerry's time was 2000 and the party didn't want him. This time around the party may want him, but he will prove another NE liberal disaster.

What is so hard to understand about that?

[IowaBiker]

11. Just doesn't wash.

First, let's put this Max Clelland stuff to bed. Yes, Max was painted as a traitor and yes that was wrong. But the people who voted against Max were the Confederates out voting for their precious flag that night. Most analysts agree that if the flag issue wasn't on the Georgia ballot this would not have happened. Pro-rebel flag bubbas don't constitute the swing voters who will win the election for the Democratic party.

The act of heroism for which John Kerry was awarded is one that strikes a strong emotional chord in all Americans -- he went back to help a fallen brother. That metaphor is not lost on people in this nation. Even when the right plays their "he threw back his medals" issue it reflects poorly on their leader, because at least John Kerry had medals to throw back. It underscores the fact that John Kerry did something because it was the right thing to do, not simply because it looks good on a resume.

I'm not even concerned about perceived inconsistancies in his voting record. After all, here is a fellow who volunteered for two tours of duty in 'Nam -- he went back, for crying out loud. Yet came around to protest the war because he knew it was wrong. So here is a fellow who isn't too big to change his mind in the face of new facts. Imagine that right now, coming from Bush*.

As for liberal big spender. Bush* has run up the largest deficit in the history of the nation. He condemned predictions of this deficit as fuzzy math. Any arguments by him to defend this record is excuse making. Most Americans want action not excuses. The deficit is bothering right and left alike. For the right to bandy the "L word" around now, will weaken the effect the word has among their ranks as an epithet.

Bush has dug himself into a spider hole on the issue of credibility. He's hiding under the protection of a Republican held congress to hide his lies on Iraq and what he knew before 9/11. No matter which way you look at it, he's been in charge of two massive intellegence failures -- the second of which he actively acted upon to put American lives in jeopardy. That's wrong. Fool me once ...

The election between Bush and Kerry will come down to credibility. Bush is the one who lied when he promised to leave no child behind. Kerry is the one who faced death and left no brother behind.

America will be looking for a leader come November. Not an excuse maker.

--Brian

[jobycom]

12. All the more reason for John Kerry (though this applies to any candidate)

Let Karl Rove bring up spending. His main strategy will be to kill all talk of deficits. Notice how he has the media silent on the matter? It won't matter how he spins it, the economy is still bad, and the deficit is a big part of the problem, and the same issue defeated his father. Rove does not want that to become the issue.

If he attacks Kerry on spending, it turns back on him.

Rove's attacks on any candidate will be personal, and will be bent on destroying that person's character, as he did with Gore, and Ann Richards and Garry Mauro in Texas. Any issues he raises will be at the level of bumper sticker slogans, since Bush's understanding of them is superficial, at best. I've watched Rove and the Bushes a long time in Texas, and their strategies don't vary. Think Bush versus Dukakis, Perot, Clinton, even Reagan and Carter. Texans who are older than me might remember Bush against Yarborough, twice. The family is filthy, they have only one trick.

The issues won't matter in the upcoming election. It will be appearance over substance, personality over issues, and slander over truth. Like last time. Kerry is no more disadvantaged in that race than anyone else. He might be better, since he has experience with national politics, and since he was close to Dukakis during that candidate's run against the other Bush. That's a reason against Dean-- he got attacked by his own party and (so far) couldn't handle it. Bush won't attack based on facts. He will rely on outrageous slander, just as he has relied on outrageous lies to get everything he has wanted. WMD, Gore is delusional, I never knew Ken Lay (or James Bath, George W Hinckley, or the president of SCI), etc.

This election happens in the gutter. We need a street fighter to win it. Issues don't matter, we'll be playing catchup if we try to stick to them. We bring up an issue, Bush creates a scandal accusing Kerry of being insane and marrying rich widows for money (or something as sick), and no one will hear our issues.

[Hep]

14. Because he's a walking lobotomy.

He will be portrayed as the uppity school marm, wagging his finger all over the place. Meanwhile, we can't see whare he has really stood up to Bush over the last three years, except when he's TALKING.