"Kerry's Lingering Insecurity" - Passing the national security threshold

[Skwmom]

According to the Post: "Friends say Kerry believes he has passed a national security threshold with voters that has freed him to tap a vice presidential candidate who complements him in other ways."

If these "friends" of Kerry were really his friends, they would inform him that, sadly, this is not the case. In fact, the only thing keeping George W. Bush in this race is that John Kerry has not yet met this "national security threshold" with the electorate. Voters still give the President a commanding lead on the questions of who can best protect the nation from terrorists and who is a stronger, more patriotic leader. Fortunately for Kerry, these sentiments say more about the Democratic party -- and voters' lingering doubts about Democrats and defense -- than they do about the candidate. Kerry has enough time to close this national security gap -- and must close it if he hopes to beat Bush this fall.

Among swing voters, the NDN poll found, the security gap is even larger: Bush leads 59 percent to 27 percent on terrorism and 49 percent to 36 percent on Iraq. Indeed, even among female swing voters -- voters traditionally not as concerned with this issue -- security is keeping them from becoming a solid Democratic vote.

Who he picks is important; if he picks someone who can be a credible commander-in-chief, it will reflect well on Kerry. (If he doesn't the Republicans and corporate media will hammer this point home on a daily basis and slam Kerry for not fulfilling his promise to appoint someone who could step right into the role of president. Of course, Kerry may never have made this statement (the press just wants to set him up) but then again who would ever admit to this not being a concern in appointing a running mate?)

Right now, Kerry has the opportunity through his vice-presidential selection and in the coming weeks of campaigning to define himself as a strong leader who will keep the nation safe and secure. When he does, Kerry truly will have passed the national security threshold and put himself steps away from the White House.)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/23/opinion/main625622.shtml

[joeybee12]

1. Whoever wrote this should do his homework--Kerry is now neck & neck 48-47%

with Bush on the issue of who can best defend against terrorism. In fact, Kerry is the 48%. The trickling of the last few months have paid off.

[spooky3]

21. Here's a link to support you.

Neck and neck it is on terrorism, from a polling source that tends to be generous to *.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58293-2004Jun21.html

"Exactly half the country now approves of the way Bush is managing the U.S. war on terrorism, down 13 percentage points since April, according to the poll. Barely two months ago, Bush comfortably led Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, by 21 points when voters were asked which man they trusted to deal with the terrorist threat. Today the country is evenly divided, with 48 percent preferring Kerry and 47 percent favoring Bush."

[displacedtexan]

2. Where was Baer in 2000?

(The American Prospect) This column from The American Prospect was written by Kenneth S. Baer

Bush* had no experience whatsoever, except as a failed business joke. He picked an evil bastard* to "be a credible commander-in-chief."

What a crock! They can't find anything negative to write about JK; hence, they make crap up.

Another story on www.americanprospect.com is "Big Foot Bubba," which actually claims that Clinton won't hurt JK... but that title? Come on!

[Skwmom]

5. So the Republicans nominating an unqualified commander-in-chief

makes it okay for the Democrats to appoint an unqualified VP? No wonder this country is in a mess.

[BootinUp]

3. *raises hand*

General Wesley Clark?

[Gloria]

4. This is a very important article....to see a very liberal publication

focussing on this aspect of the campaign....

Kerry is a fool if he thinks he has passed any test on national security, because the tests haven't started yet....

Clark is the only one who really gets to the nuts and bolts and is effective in communicating clearly to the public. His competence and command of the issues engenders a comfort and reassurance along with the knowledge and experience that the public is aching for.

If Kerry is blind and caves into the party hacks....well, there are a lot of people hanging back to see how he operates on this....

He will have swallowed his own Kool-Aid.

[cosmokramer]

6. If Kerry chooses a non-FP Nat Sec running mate,

...he, and the democrats, are toast. Period.

[Skwmom]

9. When is the Democratic party ever going to get that

national security matters (and that we can no longer afford to have the VP slot filled by someone like Quayle)?

If the Democratic leadership is so keen on having a motivational speaker (and that's their opinion not mine) rally their base, then why don't they just hire a few motivational speakers for god sakes and have them tour the country. I'd be happy to chip in on the cost.

In America we have dumbed down everything. Do we have to dumb down the VP position (when the guy is sitting a heartbeat away from becoming president)?

[cosmokramer]

23. Agree. VP is a 'security' position...not 'on the job training'.

[MoonRiver]

19. I don't think I'd go that far, but we won't achieve the landslide we need

and could definitely get if we have, for instance ;), Clark on the ticket. And with so much bbv rightwing shenanigans going on we need a landslide.

[AP]

7. This cuts both ways. Why shore up a weakness where the effort

produces diminishing returns when you could keep padding your strengths with something that has a much greater return on the investment?

[Gloria]

8. National security isn't any ordinary weakness...it's so important that

Bush has been manipulating the American psyche on this for the last 3 years!!

Kerry cannot fudge this. He has to win strong, he can't play to win around the fringes or cut it too close. You can't count on Bush being weak from here thru Nov. Heck, he got a bounce from Reagan's death....what if Osama suddenly appears, or the Saddam trial is going on?? (Both questions already mentioned by Clark as being political moves). If Bush is so weak, why is it so close at this point??

Kerry is a list of Senate votes that can be picked apart like crazy. He has no real executive experience, he's a product of the Senate. He can be pretty darned "muddled". Clark = clarity. Kerry needs a strong person on the ticket to talk nuts and bolts, to explain things to people.

And, I have yet to hear John Edwards utter one convincing discussion on security on any shows. Or Gephardt, either. Or, anybody else. The only one speaking as strongly and clearly as Clark on anything is Dean.

[Padraig18]

10. The Repugs are going to win on 'national security' for some time to come..

That's historically how they are viewed, so it's frankly a question of the law of diminishing returns: how much effort do we put into closing the gap here, and could the effort be better expended elsewhere in areas where WE are perceived as being stronger?

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. That is the right question.

During a time of literal warfare I think we have to narrow the national security gap enough so that our domestic issue oriented voters are within striking distance to put us over the top. We own the social justice vote hands down in either case. People who really have worried about their own jobs through 4 years of Bush will vote for Kerry no matter who his VP is. The Republicans of course have their own solid base. That leaves a mushier small middle slice of people who may lean toward us on domestic issues but who worry about the state of the World. I think we win more of them by reassuring them that the Dems are up for handling the World during a time of War than we do by hitting even harder on our domestic advantages. Of course we all see this election through our own prism, and that's mine. I acknowledge a coherent opposing argument. If we were more in a time of cold rather than hot war, I would be more swayed by it.

[Skwmom]

14. If the Democratic ticket includes a VP with ZERO

national security credentials, they haven't even met a basic threshold where they can consider the law of diminishing returns. In addition, they'd better learn how to win on the national security issue if they expect to remain a viable party because this issue isn't gong away anytime soon.

If you're referring to the personal injury attorney, I really can't imagine in what area he could help Kerry. He does expose populist rhetoric (it's just too bad that his record won't hold up to scrutiny). Trying to run on a populist message when your opponent can expose you as anything but is really not the smartest political move I could think of. Maybe Edwards has some "Rove" advisers on his team. (I always thought Dean must have or he never would have started the whole Moonie like "you have the power" thing).

The Kerry campaign should really have done a few focus groups on Edwards as VP. Once the participants were informed that Edwards spent his life being a personal injury attorney and of the allegations Rove is going to hit him with (and facts that can be used to back them up), I think it would have become obvious that a John/John ticket would flush the Democratic chances to win this election right down the toilet.

[Padraig18]

15. We'll always have a default threshold of support on national security.

As Tom so correctly points out, only the 'mushy middle' (20%, + or -) are likely to even take national security into consideration when casting their vote, and what weight they give it is anyone's guess. If Bush continues to make a hash of things, as he has so far, it is quite likely that the middle will just toss us the national security 'bone' and ask us, instead, what are the Democrats going to do about jobs/schools/crime, etc. .

We cannot foretell the future, and therefore we must trust Sen. Kerry's heretofore excellent judgment in deciding who HE THINKS will best help him win an election, because if he doesn't get more votes than *, FP experience of no FP experience will mean piss all. If Kerry's doesn't get more EVs, what difference will any of it have made?

:shrug:

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. Actually it's a far higher percentage of voters than 20%.

Maybe 20% is the percentage who care a lot about national security, who aren't already strong Democrats, who theoretically can still be persuaded to vote Democratic in this election. The Republican Party for now how locked up the bulk of voters who rate national security as a high concern. But that can change in time. The south was once solidly Democratic. Blacks used to vote Republican because of Lincoln. The fact that Bush has messed up in foreign affairs AND the economy is shaky gives us an opening to make inroads this time around. If we don't start now turning around those soft on defense perceptions now, we may lock ourselves into minority party status for a long time as the world becomes increasingly dangerous.

[Padraig18]

17. But again, Tom, it al, comes down to resources and the EVs

A vote is a vote is a vote, and I frankly don't see any way we are likely to make any significant inroads into the Republicans' virtual stranglehold on this issue THIS year; next time, maybe, but not this time. I just see no evidence that the ability TO move them is there. At best, the effort is likely to produce minimal returns...

:shrug:

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. It's an honorable dance that we are doing

but a dance just the same. I think we present a strong case for winning all of the traditional Democratic and most of the Democratic leaning and Independent votes already, with Kerry as our nominee, given the state of the Economy and growing fears of a judgmental far right imposed stranglehold on perceived public morality. I think it is only potential concerns that Democrats give insufficient attention to national security that could stand in the way of us reaping those votes this year.

Additionally I think this is the best possible year for the Democratic party to break free of the perception of it being unskilled and inattentive to foreign affairs. If not now, after Bush has taken such an extreme position vis a vis the World community, when? This is our best shot, this year. OK, maybe 2008 would be our best shot IF Bush is reelected because 4 more years would lead to a living Hell, but I don't want to go there...

[Skwmom]

24. But the Republicans are making inroads into the Democratic base.

I know black voters(a voting block that has been extremely faithful to the Democratic party) who are thinking about voting for Bush because they don't think Kerry can cut it on national security. In addition, they are getting fed up with receiving only "lip service" from the Democrats.

[flaminbats]

18. Even as they open up our nation to attacks and sell weapons to terrorists?

How badly can the Republicans be allowed to screw up before voters will no longer trust them on national security? :nopity:

[filterfish]

11. Let's hear the love for Clark!

Clark would be the logical choice for Kerry, as there'snow a decent chance Cheney will drop out for a Bush-McCain ticket. Still I'd rather have someone that could balance the patrician element already there at the top...Al Sharpton. He'd wipe the floor with Cheney.

[sparrowhawk]

12. Which Post?

Washington Post? Sounds more like the New York Post. What if--God forbid--something happens to Kerry early in his administration and his VP has to assume the Presidency. I hope he (or she) has some foreign policy credentials.

[Gloria]

20. Kerry said early on, and Johnson repeated recently that foreign policy

credential/ability to step into the job of President without on the job training is of critical importance.

IF this is down to Edwards, then Kerry has backed off this statement, which does not bode well for Kerry. What would suddenly convince him that security is not the critical issue it was a couple of months ago or that he has gained a really meaningful advantage over Bush on this???
Right now, the public still doesn't really know Kerry--how sure are we that they'll even like him and what he says when they see a lot more of him??

IF it's Edwards or Gep....then you have to wonder about Kerry's judgment and ability to stand up for his own analyses. If that Senate/debate mode has kicked in, it puts into question his leadership abilities in terms of making executive decisions.

[Skwmom]

25. No it does not bode well for Kerry because the press and

Rove are going to hammer Kerry for being weak on national defense.