John Kerry is a waffler and other tired GOP retreads

[robertpaulsen]

Wow, the GOP finally has come up with a plan of attack to defeat the Democratic nominee come November. Apparently, get this, his primary method of attack will be to paint him as a waffler! Yeah, he votes one way and then later on he changes his mind. Oh, but thats not all! He'll also raise taxes and weaken the military. And did you hear those nasty stories about his sexual affairs?

As Billy Crystal astutely pointed out at the Oscars, history really is repeating itself. But at least the elected Bush ended his war in Iraq. U.S. troops are still dying on Dubya's watch. I'm pretty confident after seeing the GOP's opening salvos in this campaign that if Kerry just stays on the attack, we'll have the White House in November.

[papau]

1. Where the hell is the Kerry rapid response speech!

Where the hell is the Kerry rapid response speech!


Where is Kerry rapid response - yesterday was all Bush all the time


A dozen broadcasts yesterday of "been in Washington long enough to take both sides on just about every issue", "Washington insider who wants to raise your taxes and hasn't offered strategies to keep you safer", "flip-flopping and not supporting the invasion to remove Saddam Hussein", and "President Bush's steady leadership in times of change, as we look at the reality of 911 (what does that mean?), and how it forever changed our nation's public policy - we must look at how the two candidates will approach the war against terror (is it a war or a police action that is being allowed to destroy our civil liberties)"

And of course the story line that Kerry lacks "message clarity" and Bush's directness is being developed quickly, as is the storyline Bush positive - country is getting back on its feet under the leadership of Mr. Bush after he inherited the problems - a rewrite of history that the media does not seem to want to correct.

Granted I wanted a Clinton Team rapid response - but some response would have been nice - or is Kerry making a response, and not just getting airtime?

Then there were the commentators that wondered if Kerry would let the Jewish vote stew for a few months - and possibly lose a part of it - before he says the required by US Politics statement that "He has no fundamental disagreement with Bush on Israel, that there can be no peace without a Palestinian partner who wants peace."

Having Donna saying the response "The Bush campaign will do anything to rewrite the reality that they've lost jobs, that they have not been good at keeping their campaign promises to grow the economy. It's a sign of desperation that this president is already using images of September 11." is not enough - Kerry has to say it!

Kerry has to fight the Bush "I am one of you and we must remember all we've been through together in the last three years - remember my great leadership and strength after 911", and point out the Bush non-denial that after 3 years the US is less well off than when he took office, and inherited tough times and 911 are untrue, and that the America 'safer, stronger' than last year is a just a way of saying it could be worse - but if he's so good at protecting us, why aren't we safe!

Besides where are the Bush proposals for a second Bush term - there is no plan under Bush to do better. Bush is trying to change the words used to “empathetic to the jobless and forceful on the economy” from the truth of Bush being indifferent and ineffective -so

Where the hell is the Kerry rapid response speech!

[sangh0]

6. Did you even try to check Kerry's website?

If you really wanted an answer to your question, don't you think that's where you should look first?

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0303b.html

Statement from Kerry Spokesperson Stephanie Cutter on Bush’s Unsteady Leadership


March 03, 2004

For Immediate Release
Washington, DC –

Kerry Campaign Spokesperson Stephanie Cutter issued the following statement on George Bush’s unsteady leadership.

“George Bush talks about steady leadership in his new multi-million dollar, revisionist history ad campaign, but unfortunately you can’t provide ‘steady leadership’ without credibility. And George Bush has lost credibility with the American people. He said he would create 3.9 million jobs, but 3 million more people have lost their jobs. He said he would make health care more affordable, but 2.8 million more have lost their health insurance. He said he would cut the federal debt by $1 trillion, but his policies have added $1 trillion more, leaving the federal debt at over $7 trillion. Most astonishing, George Bush’s ad features a shot of the wreckage of that tragic September day almost 3 years ago, and the firefighters who so bravely worked to save lives. What he doesn’t tell you is that only 10 percent of fire departments across the nation have personnel and equipment to respond to a building collapse, only enough radios to equip half the firefighters on a shift, and breathing apparatus for only one-third. The only thing steady about this President is his steadily leading our country in the wrong direction. It’s time for a change in America, and time to get things back on track.”

BUSH’S CREDIBILITY GAP: “UNSTEADY LEADERSHIP”

Bush says the economic conditions are out of his control. But since he took office, he and his administration have PROMISED millions of new jobs and better lives for working Americans. Instead 3 million more people have lost jobs, millions have lost health insurance, and Bush continues to only provide empty rhetoric.

“They had their moment. They have not led. We will. Now they come asking for another chance, another shot. Our answer? Not this time. Not this year. This is not a time for third chances; it is a time for new beginnings." – George W. Bush running in 2000.

BUSH PROMISED MILLIONS OF NEW JOBS

Bush promised his 2001 tax cut would create 800,000 new jobs. Then he said his 2003 tax cut would create 1 million new jobs. This year he said he would create 2.6 million jobs by the end of this year, but took it back after his economic advisors said that was an impossible claim. Instead, under Bush:

Nationally, 2.9 Million Jobs Lost; Unemployment Rate Up 33 Percent. The national unemployment rate in January 2004 was 5.6 percent, up from 4.2 percent when Bush took office in January 2001 - a 33 percent increase. Nationally, the economy has lost 2.9 million private sector jobs under Bush. http://www.bls.gov>

Nationally, Nearly 2.8 Million Manufacturing Jobs Lost Under Bush. The manufacturing industry has lost 2,787,000 jobs nationwide since Bush took office in January 2001. Employment for this key sector of the American economy is at its lowest level since October 1958. Of the 2.9 million private sector jobs lost under Bush, manufacturing losses account for 95 percent. http://www.bls.gov>

Nationally, Workers’ Wages and Salaries Are Stagnant. In the third quarter of 2003, America's gross domestic product surged at a rate of 8.2 percent and corporate profits grew at an annual rate above 40 percent. But during this same period, wages and salaries grew by less than 1 percent. Furthermore, in the six months that ended in November 2003, income from wages rose just 0.65 percent after inflation.

Nationally, 3.5 Million More Americans Have Fallen Into Poverty Under Bush. In 2002, the number of Americans living in poverty increased to 34.6 million. Three-and-a-half million more Americans live in poverty under Bush. For 2002, a family with two parents and two children lives in poverty if their total household income is below $18,244. http://www.bls.gov>

White House Report Celebrated Loss of U.S. Jobs to Outsourcing. Under the headline “Bush Supports Shift of U.S. Jobs Overseas” the LA Times reported that the Bush Administration “embraced foreign outsourcing, an accelerating trend that has contributed to U.S. job losses in recent years.” The Administration made the announcement even as analysts predict “as many as 2 million more U.S. white-collar jobs” will be exported at a time when eight million are already out of work. When asked whether the White House’s top economic advisor who touted outsourcing should resign, the Administration said the mere suggestion was “laughable.”

BUSH SAID THE DEFICIT WOULD BE SMALL AND SHORT TERM

CBPP Uses CBO Data To Show Ten Deficits of More Than $400 Billion a Year. “The new CBO report projects deficits totaling $1.9 trillion over the ten-year period from 2005 through 2014. A more realistic assessment — one that uses CBO estimates but incorporates likely or inevitable costs, following the same methodology that was used in the September 2003 report by the Committee on Economic Development, Concord Coalition, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities — shows a ten-year deficit of $5.2 trillion. … Under the more realistic assessment, the deficit exceeds $400 billion in every year and stands at about $477 billion in 2009, the year in which the President has said that the deficit would be cut in half. The $477 billion figure is essentially identical to the projected 2004 deficit, indicating little progress toward the Administration’s goal of halving the deficit. Furthermore, by 2014, under these more realistic assumptions, the deficit reaches $708 billion.”

BUSH SAID HE WOULD MAKE HEALTH CARE MORE AFFORDABLE AND AVAILABLE

3.8 Million More Uninsured Under Bush. According to Table H1 on the census web page, in 2000, there were 39.8 million uninsured Americans. By 2002, that number had increased to 43.6 million.

Rising Health Care Costs Prohibit Coverage For Many Families. President Bush has no plan to deal with runaway health care costs that “soared at double-digit rates in 2002 for the third straight year” and are considered the primary cause for the lack of insurance today. The average cost of employer-based health care costs increased $1,100 (14 percent) to $9,068 last year. “Affordability remains the number one reason people lack health coverage today,” said Dr. Donald Young, president of the Health Insurance Association of America.

BUSH SAID HE WOULD PROTECT OUR CITIES

Bush’s FY05 budget slashes $1 billion in funding for homeland security and bioterrorism grants. The Bush budget cuts $937 million from homeland security formula grants nationwide. These grants provide police, firefighters and emergency management teams with the training and equipment they need to keep communities safe. It also cuts $105 million from the Centers on Disease Control’s state and local capacity bioterrorism grants, which fund needed improvements in public health and medical infrastructure statewide.

Bush is Letting Many Homeland Security Needs Fall Through the Cracks. More than two years after the 9/11 attacks, serious gaps exist in the Bush administration’s attempts to defend America against terrorism:

· Emergency Response to Public Health Threats: The Department of Homeland Security is cutting by 80 percent ($40 million) funds for its program to ready local emergency responses to public health crises. The program, the Metropolitan Medical Response System run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, plays a “significant role in mass casualty planning.”
· Cargo Containers: Only 2% of the 7 million cargo containers arriving at the nation’s 361 commercial ports each year are screened.

· Airline Screeners: The Transportation Security Administration’s airport screening force will be cut by 6,000 screeners, about 11%, because GOP says TSA “over hired.”

· Chemical Plants: The Government Accounting Office report found that even though US chemical facilities were “attractive targets for terrorists,” there was no government oversight to assure that plants are safe from terrorist attack. In addition, Bush has declined to push for accountability from chemical companies. According to the Richmond Times Dispatch, the EPA “backed down” from using its regulatory power to oversee plant security “after the industry balked.”

· Police Equipment: The non-partisan Council on Foreign Relations criticized homeland security preparedness in a 2003 report, stating, “Many police departments lack adequate detection and personal protective equipment and training for responding to chemical, biological, or radiological incidents.”

[Carolina]

8. a website is crap

when the political battle is waged on TV! Most people don't friggin read position papers and would get lost in the mountain of words they include.

You must have rapid response soundbites. And as I said in another post, since the DNC wanted to wrap up the primary process and anoint a nominee prematurely so they could take the fight early to Bush and since they knew Bush was going to be releasing ads when he did, where the hell was a Democrat ad yesterday? Or a Kerry ad?

The Dems and Kerry have to be pre-emptive and offensive to keep the message out there and to have Kerry come across as the strong, electable fighter he and they allege he is.

After yesterday, we're back on the friggin defensive ... AGAIN.

[sangh0]

13. Your argument is crap

Kerry doesn't control what gets on TV.

You must have rapid response soundbites

Kerry has those. I just posted them.

since the DNC wanted to wrap up the primary process and anoint a nominee prematurely so they could take the fight early to Bush

You have completely distorted the purpose for a quick primary. It had nothing to do with getting an early start to fighting Bush*. It was to avoid the intra-party fratricide that often accompanies long, drawn out, hard-fought primaries.

[papau]

15. My point is that the media is ignoring these handouts - and Kerry has to

scream so as to get them off their ass and get a Dem soundbite on Air as they replay the Bush soundbite 24/7/365

[sangh0]

21. I agree with the 1st part

but screaming is EXACTLY what the media would love to see. They would eat him up alive. What needs to be done is for a Kerry-proxy (and here's where Dean could prove he really does support the nominee) to scream something over the top. This will motivate Kerry to comment on the issue, at which time he can say something more temperate, but still harshly critical of Bush*

Study the Moore->Clark->McAuliffe->Kerry AWOL comments. It kept the story in the papers for about 2 weeks.

[papau]

22. Good point - I agree - process and appearance are key

:-)

I just want John to start the process.

[trotsky]

2. I share your optimism, but...

never underestimate a Bush campaign. Poppy was way behind to Dukakis in '88 and so he & Atwater pulled out all the dirty tricks. Who knows what Rove has in store - it will be a tough battle for sure.

[robertpaulsen]

12. I have no doubt it will be tough

Only because so many people are still too scared to think rationally if Dubya continually pushes the post September 11 fear button. But the GOP hasn't won an election since Atwater's day and most Americans see through Willie Horton dirty tricks. They have no original attacks on Kerry as far as I can see, but who knows what they'll make up for their October Surprise. Kerry must remember -attack, attack, ATTACK! As long as he does, they can't Dukakisize him.

[yardwork]

3. Bush can't run on his record.

The only weapon he has is mud to dig up and throw around. If this is the best mud W can find, he'll have to manufacture some.

Look out for much worse to come from the Bush camp.

We need to keep saying: Bush lied about Iraq.
Simple. Easy to remember. No fuzzy details.

Bush lied about Iraq.

[quinnox]

4. Tired is right, the GOP is pitiful these days

Kerry a waffler isn't going to go anywhere. Too complicated of an argument and boring too for most people in this society.

And the raise taxes won't help, when Kerry makes it clear he is only going to raise them on the TOP 5% or so. He isn't going to raise taxes on middle America, so GOP is barking up wrong tree as usual.

And the weak defense is totally refuted by Kerry's war hero image that will be carefully cultivated in commercials and in his stump speech.

People will think, "Wow, he won all those medals in Vietnam, what a patriot!"

And Bush will again face questions about his own service which will continue to hurt him as the contrast is made clear.

Bush is finished.

[flpoljunkie]

10. Latest figures are from 2001 when top 5% began at $127,904

In 2001, taxpayers reporting adjusted gross income of  $127,904 ranked among the nation's top 5 percent of earners, and $292,913 was necessary to break into the top 1 percent. A year earlier in 2000, the income threshold for the top 5 percent had been $128,336, and the threshold for the top 1 percent had been more than $20,000 higher, $313,469.

I think Kerry's threshold of $200,000 is closer to the top 2% today--people whose adjusted gross income falls within the top two tax brackets.

[papau]

16. Over 200,000 where top 1% begins around 290,000

It is way less than top 5-

a guess would be top 2%

[Gman]

5. OMG! Did they think these attacks up all by theirselves?

They're just so sneakily original. Who would have thought of this?!

Why even have an election in November if this is what we're up against??! (sarcasm!)

[Redleg]

7. The problem is many of the GOP simpletons believe that crap.

They like simple messages repeated ad nauseum. Screw 'em all and the horses they rode in on!

[napsi]

9. Kerry hasn't got a prayer

Of beating Bush. The Bush gestapo will make mince meat of this guy. It is sad but true. The only person who could give Bush a run for him money was Edwards. He would have carried the South (needed to beat Bush). Kerry's record of being weak on defense (even though his "no" vote on certain weapons systems was right) is going to kill him. His Vietnam "protests" will be front and center. The drooling GOP will define him as a hippie protester who was a traitor. The same way they defined Jane Fonda. I hate to be so negative but I see no sunshine at the end of the rainbow on this one. I wish I did.

Not to mention our jobless recovery will eventually turn around to a real recovery. Economies are cyclical and this one shows small signs of life. Jobs are always last to come back after a recession. While Bush should get no credit for any economic recovery....he will. I'm sickened by it all......

[Redleg]

11. What a negative commentary.

I see you are buying into the conventional wisdom that we have to win the South to win the Whitehouse. You are attributing much more power to the Rethugs than they deserve. Kerry will be able to compete with Bush in spite of all the crap they will throw at him.

[napsi]

17. This is what I was talking about:

This is how the gutless bastards are going to go after Kerry. You might think Morris is a "whack job". I would agree but he's usually on target about this stuff. Kerry had better get his machine going FAST!


How Bush can destroy Kerry fast

The Democratic Party chose a nominee Tuesday who probably cannot win the White House in November.

In opting for Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and turning down Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, Democrats have broken from the pragmatism and moderation that dominated their party’s profile under Bill Clinton and Al Gore in the 1990s.

Their party has now moved back to the liberal extremism of Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis that characterized the 1980s — with the same predictable result.

It is now up to President Bush to take advantage of this by implementing a three-part strategy in the coming campaign.

First, his paid media must attack Kerry’s voting record to define him as an ultraliberal. There are likely those in the White House who are urging Bush to run positive ads. That won’t work. Even if positive ads produce a small, short-term bounce for Bush, events soon will come to dominate, and the impact of those ads likely will evaporate.

But if Bush uses the next eight months to educate voters on Kerry’s opposition to the death penalty, his vote against the 1991 Iraq war, his poor attendance record in the past year and his opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act, he could put this election away by defining Kerry right now.

Kerry has not been tested. He was nominated by running in the shadow of Howard Dean. Throughout the fall, all eyes were on the former Vermont governor. When he crashed and burned in late January, Kerry, as the liberal heir apparent, inherited his disappointed voters.

Meanwhile, Edwards never got the money or the momentum to run a decent race against Kerry because Gen. Wesley Clark — remember him? — crowded the field. By the time Edwards got Kerry one on one, the number of primary states stretched his resources to the point where he could not afford it.

But now, Kerry is a fair and inviting target. Bush has to zero in on him and push him to the left right now. Whether Kerry ever consorted with Jane Fonda is beside the point, but Kerry’s voting record is not.

Second, while his anti-Kerry ads are running, the president himself needs to make Americans understand that the war on terror is still atop our national agenda. He needs to elevate the sense of threat so that his advantage as a war president begins to count.

Kerry has also made a big mistake in backing the criminal-justice approach to terrorism, seeking to transform the war on terror into a series of DEA-style busts. Voters recognize that Bush is right when he says that this is a war against nation-states that sponsor terror, not a hunt for criminal bands in the mountains.

Pundits say that Kerry’s admirable war record makes national security irrelevant as a campaign issue. They couldn’t be more wrong. His efforts to defund the CIA and his opposition to the funding of the Iraq war are all key targets for Bush.

Some of those who have Bush’s ear may urge him to speak more about the economy and less about terror. This would be a big mistake. Bush must use his profile as president to make Americans understand how crucial staying the course in the war on terror is to our safety. Bush has lost a lot of support among women with the war in Iraq. But he can restore that support by stressing the need to make America safe from terror attacks and to stress how important it is to stick to this task.

Finally, Bush must begin to pull American troops out of Iraq after the handover in June. He should leave a sufficient number there, in safe, secluded bases, to intervene if the bad guys try to come back in power. But the daily drip of casualties must end.

President Johnson kept the troops in Vietnam and lost. President Nixon was withdrawing them, and he won.

If Bush’s ads and surrogates savage Kerry while the president raises the profile of the war on terror and his foreign-policy team brings the troops home, this race could be over long before either Bush or Kerry is officially designated as the standard bearers of his respective party.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dick Morris is the author of Off With Their Heads: Traitors, Crooks, and Obstructionists in American Politics, Media, and Business.



http://www.hillnews.com/morris/030404.aspx










--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Nicholas_J]

14. No facts to base that one up.

In fact Republican strategists have stated that they beleive that Kerry will be in the lead until after the Republican convention in Septemeber. In fact, Kerry is pulling 50 percent more Republicans to cross over and vote Democrats that Bush is pulling Democrats over into the Republican camp. The Rove maching is no meat grinder. They are in fear of Kerry's nomination. They had been planning for Dean who they could blow over with a yawn. They knew it. Fortunately, the voting public also knew it and wisely chose another candidate before it was too late to do otherwise.

[Mick Knox]

19. um, since when do they need facts btw ? nt

[Mick Knox]

18. Reagan CRUSHED with this tactic... all but one state..

News is all B*$h ... It is time to fight back..

Today:
bush ads
punditry on bush ads
bush sound bites bashing kerry...


Its gonna be a long election if Kerry dont get busy..

This is just my general frustration at whats been going on since Super Tue.

[gulliver]

20. What chutzpah! Bush is the (boy) king of the 180.

I posted these earlier in a thread in GD.

Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.
Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.
Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.
Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.
Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.
Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.
Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian state.


Other posters put in a bunch more:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1191276

[robertpaulsen]

23. Great ammo!

There's a lot of relatives I have that are on the fence this election. Stuff like this should persuade them to make the right choice.