Why is Kerry still so "civil " About Bush?

[saracat]

"Kerry spokeswoman April Boyd said: ``Senator Kerry understands the demands on Bush's schedule but hopes he will take time to meet with Mrs. Sheehan"
I am getting tired of this. I prefer Teddy's blunt demand that Bush meet with Cindy. What demands are there on Bush's scheduale? The doofus is always and onece again on "vacation" ! Ireally like Kery but he irrittes me sometimes with this tolerance of the SOB. He needs to behave more like Major Hackett!

[MH1]

1. Hidden sarcasm perhaps?

A subtle dig with the irony of claiming to have a "demanding schedule" while supposedly on vacation?

All I know is, when I first read that sentence ("demands on Bush's schedule") I about spit out my coffee, trying not to laugh. So it worked for me.

[Noisy Democrat]

2. Ah you're right

Bush is on vacation. What demanding schedule could he possibly have? It's sarcasm. But it *is* subtle.

[jillan]

3. me too - I thought that was a very clever thing to say

and I applauded him for that line:toast:

[saracat]

4. I am sorry, but most of America won't "get it" that way. This is the

problem with the Kerry statements.It is really too bad that Kery isn't taking a page from the Paul Hackett school of public speaking. He really needs to be blunt and he needs to grab the opportunity now and KEEP doing it throught the next election!
He doesn't need to convince me, he needs to convince all those that don't relate to this mode of speech!

[fedupinBushcountry]

5. I disagree

Most Americans don't even know that this statement was made. I don't want John Kerry to be Paul Hackett, I like who he is for himself, he doesn't have to parrot anyone.

All his statements have been very blunt, and many with hidden sarcasm, and those are the statements that are going to his 5 million e-mail list, and I think people understand them just fine. Blunt and to the point.

[politicasista]

8. I think saracat is thinking long-term

if Kerry decides to run again. I remember some professor that was interviewed during the 2nd debate (in St. Louis) talking about how "folksy" Bush was and "wordy" Kerry was. I think what she is saying that people pay attention to soundbites rather than the actual statement. :shrug:

[fedupinBushcountry]

9. Well

I could care less about how folksy Bush is, he is a lying, cunniving bullshitter, that's what his folksy is.

:shrug: is right.

I'm tired of Americans being dumbed down, whats wrong with being smartened up. :shrug:

[politicasista]

10. Nothing's wrong with intelligence

I like intelligent people. :)

[karynnj]

19. I remember the NYT op-ed written by the professor

seeing just this article, my judgment is that he is a lousy professor. Unfair comment - yes. But having designed valid statistic studies, I am appalled that this professor doesn't realize that he simply used his class to "prove" something he already believed.

The reason is that his "study" is based on the reaction of his class to a sample of a Kerry speech and a sample of a Bush speech. Who chose the samples - he did. Thus, who controlled the result - he did. This is not a valid study by any measure. Using the 3 debates as source material - as both were speaking with no help or prompting :) . If an algorithm were devised to pick 3 questions, who would win on clarity or directness? There were answers where it would be a challenge to diagram Bush's ex uses for sentences.

He does concede that Kerry was better in the debates than otherwise due to the time constraint so try the same technique on other examples of their speaking:
We all heard Kerry's rallies and we heard a few of Bush's. If you were to take RANDOM pieces of theirs - I think Kerry would still win.
Bush has an advantage here as he repeated scripts given to him and said almost the same thing everywhere to screened crowds. Kerry had un-screened crowds and other chose to concentrate on one issue in depth as well as other issues at a higher level. I never ever had any trouble understanding any of Kerry's sentences.

So, pick another test, both were on MTP - again take random samples of their responses. Bush bordered on incoherent. Kerry came out pretty much unscathed.

[politicasista]

6. I agree

Bush is an evil, dangerous man. No need to be cautious. But after reading it again, it looks like it's a sarcastic comment.

[jillan]

7. I don't know Saracat, on this topic anyway.

This is Bush's problem. Bush needs to deal with the people.
This is about Bush, and the families that are protesting him.

I for one want the politicians to stay in the background. Yes, make it known that they support Cindy. But this one is being delivered to Bush by the "power of the people".

Kerry is not Hackett. I love Hackett, support him 100%, and hopes he runs for the senate, but I also would have been appalled if Kerry called Bush a chickenhawk. (Even tho we all secretly wished he would have.) There has to be a certain level of professionalism in the government. While it's fine for Hackett to talk that way, I don't see that type of talk coming from Kerry. Do I think Kerry needs to sometimes be more concise and commanding in his answers? Yes. I can listen to Kerry for hours. I love the way he talks, the way he thinks. But I also know that at times he needs to find a way to communicate to the average citizen.

But this time - this story is all about Cindy. Let Bush do whatever Bush wants to do about it. Let the moron show the people his true colors - without being prompted by anyone else.

Off topic - Bush's true colors? Green and Gold! (from Randi Rhodes)
:7

[saracat]

11. I would be thrilled if Kerry called Bush an SOB the way Hackett did!

It would get him elected. I am NOT in favor of dumbing down, but I am in favor of saying what you mean. Diplomacy and sarcasm don't win elections. The worst gaffe Kerry ever made was " I voted for it before I voted against it" . That just doesn't resonate. I' ll bet most of us understood but no one else did. And what is this level of "professionalism to which you refer? The only level of "professionalism for a politico is to be elected!

I love the way Kerry speaks as well, but then I am not an idiot.BTW, the dumbing down has already taken place. Talk to anyone on the streets and it is obvious.Americans are poorly educated and downright stupid.Why do you suppose so many liked Shrub? This is a fact we just have to deal with. It certainly wasn't the intellectuals who supported Bush.The problem is we don't have enough of them!

[jillan]

12. About the election

Yes - I totally agree. I wish Kerry would have done a little more
"Hackett talk" then. But that was then. And it was an unforgettable election. The lessons learned, will not be forgotten, imho.
Not only to the politicians, but to the dem party as a whole.

But, I don't want the Hackett talk NOW from Kerry. About the Supreme Ct, yes. About saving Social Security - yes. About Sheehan - no.

I have heard Kerry using more assertive language recently. For example when he came out and said "Rove needs to be fired".

I hope that all of the democratic leaders (Janet included;) ) are going to take a lesson from Paul Hackett.

[TayTay]

13. I agree with the folks who said this was Cindy's fight

The pols should just say something about agreeing that Bush needs to met with her and the other family members who have lost people in Iraq. Beyond that, they should stay out of it. (And speak up in Congress against the war. I thought Kerry's speech and NYTimes article in June were clear as a bell.)

I have seen an intensely angry Kerry on the Senate floor this year and he got in some good shots. I have seen him speak to different groups and I thought he had no problem communicating clearly and articulately what he meant. (Overtly and with the subtle jabs as well.)

What part of the Bolton hearings were nicey-nicey? What part of the floor speech about the end of the filibuster was nicey-nicey? And that last speech on the energy bill seemed to me to have been delivered by one pissed off guy. Even in just reading it off the record, without benefit of a visual recording, it seemed like one passionate statement.

Kerry is never going to act like a disappointed Sawx fan at a Yankees game. (Or vice versa.) It's just not in 'em. (In public. I bet in private it's an entirely 'nother story. I'm pretty sure there are people who have seen the 'pissed off Sawx fan side of him there, complete with swearing, red-in-the-face arguing and so forth. But not in public.)

[karynnj]

20. It would turn off more people than it wins

Also, Kerry was polite and well mannered as a 27 year old ant-war protestor. This did not in anyway diminish the anger that he focused on Nixon.

Hackett, who fought in Iraq, called Bush a chickenhawk while criticiising Bush. The support for the war is down significantly since Nov and so is Bush's approval, but there are 2 other differences not noted: first, the Hackett vote was not a regular election so the vote counts were much lower - so it may mean that Hackett rallied his base better than the Republican did her bigger base, second, people could use this vote to signal dissatisfaction with Iraq, but they did not have to picture Hackett as President.

In November, Democratic surrogates could have used harsher language, but for Kerry to use it would have undermined both his image as Presidential and his likablity. The Republicans would have loved any name calling because they could have used it to reinforce a false link between Kerry protesting in the 70s with the far less likable protesters.

My perpective might reflect those people older than I am. I still believe that my parents were right when they told us, in the 60s, that name calling was wrong, not just because it was rude, but because it shows that you have no valid coherent arguments to make.

[saracat]

25. Odd. I have no trouble picturing Hackett as President and neither do many

others! I still think polite and well mannered has been overdone. This is an administration that has slaughtered thousands of people, lied to the nation and tortured prisoners of war. This administration has locked up American citizens without due process and denied them representation.And some think we should be "polite" ? Do you think we should also be polite to sexual predators ,child molesters, and murderers? This administration ought not to be dignified with "respect".
I think we have to deal with the public we have and not the one we wish we had. Bush's lack of intelligence and blunt language didn't diminish his image as "Presidential or his "likability" . Kerry didn't and doesn't have anything to lose. The average American never did like him. And that is sad but true. I still think he won but not because they liked him. They didn't. He wasn't the one they wanted to "have a beer with". I would love to have a beer with Kerry but then none of us in this group are idiots.
Kerry does not gain in likability by being diplomatic. He only makes himself look noncommittal. He should go back to being the way he was during the Vietnam era and lose the diplomacy of the Senate. It really doesn't play well.

[karynnj]

26. Agree to disagree

I no of no one who even considered Hackett for President and the threshold is lower for House of Representatives.

There also is a difference in strong focused opposition that calling a President who over half the population were polled as liking an "SOB". Most of us here see Bush as a murderer - but that is definately not Mainstream.

It works even less well when you already are deemed not likable. Since the election Kerry has been nore direct, but not rude which would have been more effective last year. I think the unlikability was signalled by the press - they did nothing to introduce Kerry and help people understand his background and in some cases they signalled that they really disliked him. That is still the thing I worry the most about if he runs again - Can he these people over?

[saracat]

27. Many many callers to AAR mentioned that they thought Hackett would

be a great presidential candidate. I have talked to numerous people who think his direct outspokenness is what we need. As far as half the population"liking " Bush that is no longer the case, as over half the population now believe Bush is a liar.This is why now is the moment to jump on the bandwagon and eviscerate him. I think that is the real reason Hackett came so close.I agree with you about worrying if Kerry could win over these people, but he will never win them over with a diplomacy and subtlety they can't understand!
And as far as the press goes, Kerry had a responsibility to hire great people to buff his image, and he didn't do it. I had a long talk with Mike McCurry during the last debate and he agreed that Kerry needed to go on the attack and to be direct. He said he should have begun that way and NOT indulged in innuendo. They brought Mike on at the very end . It was too bad really as they might have been able to pull it out despite election fraud if Mike had controlled the spin! But I guess we must agree to disagree! :)

[karynnj]

28. But in FALL of last year, Bush was still liked by too many people

The press he got was great -even in the NYT, Bumiller who covered Bush always tried to show him in a good light. I know people who are not to the right of the spectrum who really reacted negatively to Michael Moore.

I think the Kerry campaign made mistakes, but I think the Clinton people were far too quick to criticize when the campaign was on. They had not supported Kerry in the primaries, but their egos were such that they obviously felt they should run the general election campaign. Part of the problem of the Kerry campaign was there were too many people pushing in different directions.

Part of this was Kerry's fault; he should have had more control. But part of the problem was that Clinton people such as Carvelle and Begala after Kerry did not chose to have them run the campaign, publicly ridiculed the people running the campaign and gave Kerry very little support, although they blasted Bush. Their advice was not necessarily right - they argued for emphasizing the domestic agenda, but Kerry's numbers went up when he talked about Iraq and terror. Lockwood with his Clinton ethics was a negative. McCurry was one of the rare Clinton positives.

In fact of all the people who were running the campaign, the ones who most consistently appeared to give Kerry the best advice were people like his brother, David Thorne and other people who knew Kerry and loved him. The Kennedy people seemed to have designed a campaign that would fit a "Ted Kennedy clone" while the Clinton people argued for a "Clinton" campaign - with an economy, stupid platform, poll driven ideas, and even last minute advice for blatant political reasons to endorse nasty anti-gay propositions worse than DOMA - an act that would also be startlingly out of line with Kerry's 20 year record. Kerry's biggest problem may have been that he allowed the DNC to convince him that his own people's lack of national experience was more important than how well they "fit" the candidate.

I think the times needed a candidate like Kerry, but he really is an extremely atypical candidate. His intelligence, creativity, diplomacy and pragmatic approaches to problems were standard qualities. But Kerry has the moral compass, the willingness to take on tough issues even if it meant fighting the entire government and the idealism that were also needed to pull the country back to what we always thought America was. I think as Kerry's numbers were close, the campaign was unwilling to take the risk needed to really explain how Kerry has fought to keep America true to its own laws and values. There was a hugh risk as some of what Kerry did exposed a very seedy side of both parties. Rather than believe it, some people would reject the messenger. (I think these thoughts are, for me, why the loss was hardest - Hillary winning in 2008, was not the same except having 4 more years of destruction. This is something I never felt about any other winning or losing candidate.)

[saracat]

35. I agree but I am not talking about last fall. I am talking about NOW!

And Kerry doesn't need to literally call Bush an SOB but he could do it in his own way and forcefully. I believe he should take advantage of the current situation and call BNush on his behavior NOW! And he should definately speak at the Anti -War Rally!

[Mass]

29. McCurry was asked to join the campaign a long time before he did

but refused because he was making a lot more money where he was (this has been repeated in the media a lot and not contradicted, so I assume it is true).

So, I doubt that the criticism is well placed at this point.

As for what you ask, this is clearly not Kerry's style, so may be we should accept that and stop ranting about how he does not do what we want. This is an absolute loss of time and energy.

You can be effective without calling somebody SOB. If people think we cant, this is only a sad idea of where this country is.

Namecalling is fine for the Republicans because they want to change the subject (and we can understand why). Democrats are RIGHT on the issues, so they should say so. Namecalling is a loss of time for the Democrats. It changes the subject from the issue to what the people say (see Durbin and the Nazis. Durbin was right to criticize what was done, but the subject stopped being what was done and began being what Durbin said).

[TayTay]

30. I agree with you Mass, it's just not him

and it's not going to happen. HOWEVER, this is also a false argument.

I do not agree with the initial premise. There is not just one way to talk in opposition to the Rethugs. Just because Hackett almost won (but didn't) with his way doesn't mean that it is the only way.

And, I saw a pissed off candidate many times last year. (See the NYU speech. This was great!) The concession speech was relatively quiet (as befitted the occasion) but there were a great many speeches last year that were really fired up and emotional.

It would be a more effective strategy if the Sen. would attempt something that is in character for him; giving an address at the Sept. Anti-War protest. Gawd knows, he did it once before to rather good effect. LOL!

[fedupinBushcountry]

33. I agree with you and Mass

I also think it would be great if he spoke at the protest, as many Congress people did in '71. I can see him doing that, it puts him in a position to answer the calls of so many, as the Congress answered his calls in '71.

I think the Washington protest, will be very interesting.

I still remember a very pissed off Kerry at midnight in Ohio, the night the Repub hate convention ended. I wish C-Span had archived that but they didn't.

[karynnj]

34. I think a Sept anti-war protest address would be interesting

Assuming the Sept event is a war protest - not a protest for every LW cause of the century event.

It would be very risky - as the bulk of the people act as if you can just leave today or tommorrow. Kerry would need to be able to speak to the far reaches of the party in a way that lets them know he truly understands the pain of this war, while leading them to understand how his plan does lead to that goal - possibly emphasizing that had these things been done in January - some men would be starting to come home now and the ones there would be in better shape. The real question is would the far left respect him enough for coming to even give him a chance to speak.

It oddly would show a lot of guts for Kerry to argue his view to that population. If he could impress them as sincere and re-frame the issue such these people might see that he is on their side when compared to the "empire" people. Kerry would need to appear consistent with earlier stands. (Also his pleas to care for the soldiers and their families need to be made.)

[saracat]

37. According to McCurry, he was attempting to help from the sidelines but he

wasn't being listened to. They were doing their own thing.

[ginnyinWI]

39. yeah, the center doesn't like "red meat"

They get turned off by too much yelling and name-calling, then say "they're all alike" and refuse to vote. The ones on the clear left and clear right are the ones with the strong opinions and who join in on the yelling with gusto.

I think Kerry does best as a "reasonable" person--a smart, observant problem-solver and leader--because that is who he is.

[LittleClarkie]

31. Actually, and sadly, most Americans won't see the damn thing

just us wonks.

And I wondered about dripping sarcasm myself.

But then again, our John is something of a gentleman. That's just the way the cookie bounces here in Camp Kerry.

[TayTay]

32. I agree with you LC, but only up to a point

I think the Sen has a high boiling point, but I think it's definitiely there. (The acceptance speech last year at the DNC was a very harsh indictment of the * Admin. One columnist in Chicaog said Kerry had pulled out a 'whacking stick' and had beaten the Thuggie in Chief with it. I concur.)

I think Kerry is a nice guy, but I also think he has an inner rat-bastard who does come out to play sometimes. (You can't get elected to high office without this.) I think he's a nice guy, but within human reason and will get pissed off plenty, given the right cause.

[saracat]

36. This is actually what I am talking about Tay Tay. This is the time for

Kerry to let the inner Rat Bastard out! I was just at a luncheon where a friend of mine ,who believe it or not, is a founding member of the DLC, (cough, cough! Not my favorite organization, but he is one of the progressive and intelligent ones!) gave a speech about what to do now as a party. He emphasized message and giving people hope. Yes, he is an obvious former Clintonista, but the point is, after the speech, a very old man approached him, a World War 11 vet, who said "You know what the problem with the Democrats is? You are afraid to play dirty. And you have to with this crowd. You will never win if you keep above the fray." And he went on from there.
I had to say, I agree with him. I think it is high time we listened to some of our elders and grew some ca jones. We should stop being afraid to call these people out. That was what was so refreshing about Hackett, and that was what more of our Politico's need to do. They all need to release the "inner Rat Bastard!"

[TayTay]

38. Indugle me if I break this out into a full thread of it's own

I think the 'rat-bastard' phase (hey, do I have a way with words or what?) has already begun. It's just that half of it is under the rdar. I have been writing about this since the MA Dem convention in May, but have been evasive and coy. Maybe I should be less so.

[wisteria]

14. I think there is something to be said for being civil.

While I agree with you that John kerry needs to articulate his messages and speeches so that he is clear or even a bit blunt like you have mentioned,(I have noticed a great effort in this direction)I see no gains for politicians seeking higher office to use the type of talk and wording that Mr Hackett used. It suited Mr Hackett and it got some attention, but I don't think it was his blunt talk that got him his votes. I think it was a carefully crafted message whose time had come. Eight months ago, criticizing Bush's policies in the way Mr. Hackett has done, would have gotten him more scorn and less votes.
I also think you should consider our Governors, Senators and Presidents are generally suppose to act with a certain amount of decorum. They represent our states and our government at home and over seas. Imagine what you would have thought if Bush had called John Kerry an SOB publicly for attacking him so throughly during the first Presidential debate. Also, consider the negative attention Chaney's Fu*k you comment received when he anger ly said it on the senate floor to Senator Leahy.
Finally, Democrats won't be running against Bush in 2008,so what exactly, does Kerry gain with blunt insulting messages to Bush. IMO, Kerry risks insulting people and setting himself up as a sore loser.

[rox63]

15. It would be out of character for Kerry

Kerry is an intelligent, well-mannered, poised gentleman. He can be brutally honest when the need arises. But this is not one of those times. Cindy's protest needs to remain a grass-roots effort. Too much involvement from politicians will detract from her credibility.

Besides, Kerry and Kennedy often play good-cop/bad-cop on issues they agree about. Teddy doesn't have presidential ambitions, so he can be as nasty to * as he wants. If Kerry runs for president again in 2008, everything he's said between 2004 and 2008 will be scoured by the repukes for ammunition to use against him.

[europegirl4jfk]

16. Do you think Kerry will go and see the protesters at the mall...

... when they take their fight to Washington on September 24th? I was thinking about that lately. Back in 1971 when Kerry was the protester, Kennedy and other senators and congressmen came to meet with him and the VVAW people. I think this time Kerry should be the one to meet with the protesters.

[rox63]

17. I don't know if he will

It would be wonderful if he did. But I think all the politicians will make sure to be far away from DC that weekend. :(

[Mass]

18. April Boyd - I noticed that each time she puts out a statement for kerry,

it always seems to be very soft (may be too subtle, I do not know). It seems that David Wade is a lot more effective.

[karynnj]

21. Alternative reaction

I think the Democrats should take it easy with this. It is a nightmare PR situation for Bush - unless it appears to be backed by the Democrats. It's a nightmare because it keeps the real cost of war in the press.

Bush has already lost the best way to handle this - which would have been to take a few "captive" press core people with him (with video) and drive up to where Cindy was. He could then use his position to offer condolances (saying things much as he always that he grieves etc.). He could easily dominate the situation - at least in the editted version. Bush win - he was "compassionate", He made a gesture, he is doing what he thinks is right. Then what could Cindy do? Nothing - the story is defused and it would be over.

Even now, Bush's point of view is that he already met with Cindy. Many reasonable people might say that there is nothing that can or will be accomplished by a meeting now. Is there anything Bush could say that would allow Cindy to go away happy?

I know that people were pushing Democrats to issue statements. Kerry's tone almost gently implies Bush could simply show some compassion to this woman without going far from his ranch. Because Bush already met with her and because she has spoken against him for at least a year people may not feel he is being unreasonable - only that compassion for her due to lose of her son should make Bush do more.

[TayTay]

22. I agree with you on this reaction

Intentionally or not, Cindy Sheehan has played this out beautifully. We saw last year at a press conference that Bush is unable to admit that he has made mistakes. This is a flaw of his personality. (I have read some profiles of him that indicate that he is an arrogant man who is not really close to anyone and never allows underlings to relax in his Royal Presence and or even so much as to sit down when they are meeting with him. He is a pompous, insecure bastard.)

Ms. Sheehan's protest is brilliant (again, whether planned for this or not) because Bush will never give in and met with her. He is psychologically incapable of this action. He doesn't make mistakes, other people make mistakes. For him to meet with Cindy would indicate that he made a mistake and he just can't do that. (Kerry had some good psy-ops on Bush when they debated last year. That's why he hit him with the remarks about Bush's Daddy. He is psychologically unable to just shake that kind of thing off and we got the smirking and obvious irritation. It's too bad that someone on the Kerry team leaked this strategy to the press, it could have worked again in the next debate.)

Bush is arrogant, uninformed, snooty and stubborn. These are all traits that can be turned against him and used to exp0lore and exploit weakness. I hope the Dems are watching this, because Ms. Sheehan has shown how you can use this bastards own PR against him.

[rox63]

23. Sheehan's protest has put the war in a new perspective

The Dems should take note of this, and realize that they have a lot to learn when it comes to framing the issues.

Frameshop: The 'Grieving Mom' Frame

In broad terms, the success of the 'grieving mom' phrase indicates that Americans are now thinking about the War in Iraq through the frame of the family, rather than thinking about Iraq through the frame of 'terrorism' or 'ideology.'

If Democrats want to build on Cindy Sheehan's success, we must accept that last week's media storm was less about Cindy's demand to meet or her accusation against the President, than about her image as a 'grieving mother.'

Of the 122,000 pages that result from a Google search of grieving mom, almost all of them are stories about Cindy Sheehan. Clearly, 'grieving mom' was the magic phrase at the heart Cindy Sheehan's success.

Read the rest here: http://jeffrey-feldman.typepad.com/frameshop/2005/08/frameshop_the_g.html

[karynnj]

24. I doubt the Bush "daddy problem" had to be leaked

I watched with neighbors and at least 2 people mentioned the weird very obvious reaction when Kerry quoted the father.

I hope years from now, when emotions have cooled someone will explain how the man with a pretty large group of fearcely loyal friends from his college years and two crews of incredibly devoted men was described, without embarrasment by a NYT reporter, as a "social loner" and the other was other who really seems as isolated as you described was the man everyone would want to have a beer with.