Should Kerry tone down his attacks on Bush?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

Poll question: Should Kerry tone down his attacks on Bush?

This week alone, Kerry has criticized Bush personally in speeches for lying, professional laziness, waiting until right before the election to indict Enron Corp.'s Ken Lay, lacking values and even having worse hair than the two Democrats. Some advisers are privately counseling Kerry to tone down his attacks on Bush.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41190-2004Jul10.html

[qazplm]

1. yes

but what should happen is democratic surrogates need to step UP their attacks, allowing Kerry to look presidential and positive while still making all the points.

The problem is, democratic surrogates are not stepping up as much as they should and so Kerry has to do some of it...he shouldn't have to.

[calico1]

2. I agreee and I'd like for him to concentrate on

giving a positive message. When they talk about things like winning back the respect of the world, they are saying, without saying it that we have lost respect. I think its more effective. Besides, Bush's campaign is all about terror, fear and negativity. I think people are sick of it and would respond better to an uplifting message.

[flaminbats]

7. good point!

I was watching Senator Schumer respond to Tom Ridge on C-Span. Whenever he criticized the Republican Congress for delaying a Democratic Homeland Security funding bill, he asked "why do we in the Senate have to put partisan wrangling above the American people?"

Senator Schumer should remember that many Americans still mistakenly believe that the Democrats, not the Republicans, are now in control of Congress.

When asked about a serious charge Senator Hatch leveled directly at Democrats, Senator Schumer responded indirectly that the minority and the majority do have their differences in how they can handle legislation. Was that statement suppose to win us votes? If not for the appearance of Hillary at that press event, most common people would have been clueless that Schumer was even speaking for the Democratic party! Being a Democrat is something to be proud of, not ashamed of..

[RC]

3. You need another category,

Hell NO!
He should be talking about indictments for war crimes and crimes against humanity for the bu$h administration.

[finecraft]

8. Those were the first words out of my mouth!

And I was pissed when someone released that statement yesterday from their campaign saying something like, "Senators Kerry and Edwards just want everyone to know that they don't necessarily agree with everything that was said last night at their fundraiser". Bull*&^#! Who cares if they agree or not.....stop being so apologetic and tell the Pukes to mind their own business, or we'll find some Jack Ryan videos for Family Values Night At The Movies!:evilgrin:

[TA]

4. No

Bush will lie, cheat, steal and slander to win ..... I could go on and on, we all know what he he capable of. Kerry has got to call Bush on all his crap and not give him an inch. Our media won't report on the Bush lies, Kerry is in a position to do so and must say it.

[DFLforever]

5. No!! If Kerry doesn't think Bush is so bad, why should the voter and why

should s/he even consider replacing W with Kerry.

[fujiyama]

6. He's gotta tell those advisors

to go to hell!

First these "advisors" are telling Dean and Kennedy to keep quiet, now they're telling Kerry?

Hmmm, Gore also listened to his advisors an awful lot. He ended up regretting it.

I trust Kerry has better political skills than the hacks he has on board. I hope he listens to his instincts and keeps whacking!

[AntiCoup2K4]

9. Kerry needs to tell the DLC to go Cheney themselves

..and take a fucking stand. I haven't had the TV on much this week, but it looks though he's improving. If so, that's a good thing. Tell the truth about these unelected shitheads.

[Tweed]

10. Other: What horrible attacks?

Most of the work is being done by the MoveOn.org groups.

[nightperson]

11. I voted no,

but Kerry should go with his gut. Speaking of "tone" though, he might want to check out Michael Savage's current page for a reminder of how a successful, well-educated conservative uplifts the masses: beheadings, "sexy pictures", and more beheadings. I mean, come on.

[Lefty Pragmatist]

12. Yes

Kerry should high road it and let Edwards, Congressional leaders, and our dittheads (we have them too) twist Bush on the spit.

It's important to remain "presidential" in the eyes of the electorate. That means you can allude to others' attacks (Reagan's classic and successful "there you go again" strategy), but you can't act all nasty or upset with the challenger. Dole and Gore both came off as bitter toads (and sore losers) when they directly criticized their opponents.

We eat it up when Bush is roasted by Kerry, but we are not the entire group Kerry needs to win -- we're not even a fraction of it. Yes, it's important to hold Bush's feet to the fire, but Kerry needs to appear "positive," "above the fray," and with his head towards the future rather than Bush's benighted past. There are plenty of foot soldiers to rake up the record every night on CNN.

[union_maid]

13. No. He should be fair and balanced

By which I mean he should have a balance of mainly positive campaigning about what he's going to do right, but what Bush has done wrong is not only the issue, it's the most important issue that this country has faced..maybe ever. It's something that has to be hammered home and Kerry should be one of the people to do it. To sort of quote Arlo Guthrie, "You have to have a dark to shine a light in." Bush is the dark. If there were no dark, we wouldn't need the light (kerry/Edwards) so badly.

[gulliver]

14. Kerry should increase attacks. Edwards should "go medieval".

Edwards is the one really in a position to attack Bush, IMO. He can sing the praises of Kerry (something Kerry can't do for himself). From the first day, Edwards has been showing how effective he is at comparing the microscopic Bush to Kerry. And who do they have to defend Bush? Cheney? Don't make me laugh.

[IrishBloodEngHeart]

15. No

but he needs to tie in Bush as a fear monger and a pessamist.

Kerry needs to offer a hopeful, prosperous, optomistic vision of the future and point out the fear mongering the bush people do, tying people into a vision of perpetual war, perpetual falling wages, and perpetual greater class distinctions.

Kerry needs to incorporate Edwards message from the primaries on one optomistic America, and keep pointing out Bush's fear driven two americas.