How the Campaign's Shaping-Up, & How We Need to Frame Certain Arguments

[tedoll78]

First, the election will be close. The Right has the mainstream media, with its ever-dwindling ratings, and the Left has the power of the ever-growing Internet.

Next, to the good number of swing voters I've talked to, it looks like a they can only have one of the two following things:
1) Do they want to be safe?
or..
2) Do they want good economic times?

If #1 is priority, Bush has the lead supposedly.
If #2 is priority, Kerry has the lead definitely.

So far, it seems like the two are pretty even as far as weighing in a voter's decision. And I think we need to employ some good arguments to nullify Bush's percieved strengths on the Security Issue.

Argument #1: We have two great endorsements as far as security goes. Kerry needs to gather (maybe commission) some polls of the city of New York and the District of Columbia. Why these two? The people in these two cities are the ones with the biggest targets painted on their backs as far as terrorists are concerned. If Kerry can show that 70% of New Yorkers and 80% of D.C.ers are voting for him, he can spin this as an endorsement from the very populations who know the terrorist threat better than all other Americans.

(Imagine Kerry saying.. "73% of all New Yorkers - the people who have the most reason to fear terrorists - trust me over Bush to protect them from foreign terrorism. That's a ringing endorsement if I've ever heard one!")

---

Argument #2: What other people in the world think of us matters more than we may care to admit. We can't go on forever pissing others off with no consequence. Right now, other nations have leaders who will mostly cooperate with us. But if we continue to ridicule and alienate, those people are going to vote in leaders who are non-caring about or even downright hostile to our security issues. We need a leader who can work well with others; they're a vital part of the global security network.

---

Argument #3: Bush isn't doing everything he can to protect us. Firefighter gear. Incoming port shipments not being inspected. Nuclear, coal, water purification facilities not adequately funded for full security. Bang these issues like a drum, JK!

---

Argument #4: Aside from international cooperation and some policy decisions, the President can only do so much. (this argument requires a degree of bluntness with American voters). If Kerry wins, those guys and gals working at the CIA and DHS don't suddenly stop working to protect us. And they're the ones (okay.. the DoD and the FBI included) who do the real heavy lifting as far as stopping terrorists is concerned. Bush isn't the one tapping phones, translating conversations, plotting spyplane routes, etc. It's the people in our intelligence agencies who do so! The President - no matter who it is - can only do so much on his/her own!

-----

Overall Argument: This election is not an either-or proposition. The American people can have both security at home AND economic prosperity. But only one candidate on the ballot can deliver both. John F Kerry is that person.