It is a tale told by a candidate, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
By trevino Posted in Elections — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Kerry's speech at NYU this morning was apparently the opening salvo in his aforementioned plan to refocus his campaign on the war in Iraq. To which Republicans should respond: bring it on.
Read on.
The speech itself was incoherent almost to the point of irrelevancy: Kerry's "four point plan" for Iraq is a mixture of the impossible (his call for greater foreign involvement was DOA months ago); the meaninglessly vague (what concrete steps do providing "better training" and "benefits" mean?); and the fait accompli (the Bush Administration is already set on doing the one cardinal thing necessary to ensure that elections are held). It may serve as excellent rhetoric for the base, but in terms of reaching out to the greater mass of Americans who have been peeling away from Kerry since the end of July, it will accomplish nothing.
Indeed, the speech highlights not just the continuing Kerry incoherence on Iraq, but the continuing bad decisionmaking in his very campaign. No candidate facing a steady erosion of poll numbers ought to be calling attention to his opponent's strength. It's a Hail-Mary ploy for a desperate candidate, not a man still within striking distance. And, for all his missteps, Kerry is. He's still in this game. And he's doing everything he can to shove himself out.
Take, for example, two major states: one that Kerry is contesting, and one that Kerry ought to have. Say, Ohio and Pennsylvania. When a candidate mentions Iraq, what do Ohioans and Pennsylvanians think? Apparently, Ohioans think Bush is the man for that job, 54-40. Apparently, Pennsylvanians think Bush is the more trusted on the war, 54-39. Broaden the questions beyond Iraq, to the greater war on terror, and the margins widen.
Think a focus on these issues will help Kerry? Think they'll cut into the Bush lead in either state? Or nationwide? Me neither.
And if you do -- well, welcome to Red State, Mr Shrum.
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | Resign — Comments (15) »
It is a tale told by a candidate, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. 9 Comments (0 topical, 9 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Attacking the opponent's strengths is a page from Rove's playbook, which is why he went after Kerry's Vietnam record. Clinton's pals are trying to get Kerry to do the same. (Even Safire is telling Kerry to do that, as in today's NYT.) Whether it will work is another question. Kerry has to come up with a credible plan for Iraq, as the piece indicates, and that could be difficult since no one may be able to rescue the U.S. from this Bush-induced disaster.
You actually think Vietnam is Kerry's strength!
Actually, as I'm not sure he has any strength (no matter how strongly he intends to strengthen our strong, but not strong enough, country), maybe you're right.
If you are, it's kinda sad, really. It's like saying tank driving was Dukakis's strength, or taxes, Mondale's.
attempt to imitate the Rovian tactic of attacking perceived strengths in the opposition. What is revealing is the fact that with all the high-profile people in the Kerry camp, including all the new guys like Begala and the Ragin' Cajun, they are so bereft of ideas that they must start using their opposition as a guide for their own behavior.
Their campaign has gone bankrupt in terms of ideas, the Kerry message isn't selling well, and now they try this unbelievable approach. Better training? Oil for Iran? Contracts for Syria? Looks like they aren't even going to bother with Chapter 11. They're going straight into liquidation.
Kerry promises to strengthen international cooperation.
Diana Kerry, part of Kerry's compaign, speaks in Madrid promising the same focusing on Spain.
Zapatero says that if more countries followed Spain and dropped out of the coalition the U.S. would be pressured to follow the international line on Iraq.
A week later, Diana Kerry goes to Australia and fearmongers, err, explains her view of reality to Australians claiming that Aussie support for us in Iraq is "endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multilateral channels."
Hrmmm.......
Republicans should respond: bring it on.
"Bring it on" is ... somewhat in poor taste, don't you think? (Even if Dems use it, there's no reason to stoop to those levels...)
Maybe in the Martian logic so favored by the DNC. His befuddlement with 4 1/2 months of his life has always left me scratching my head in disbelief.
--Who did he think his 130 days of Vietnam service was going to appeal to? Veterans?
--If so, did he think said veterans who served 13 month tours were going to give him a pass on his VVAW activities?
So far from being a strength, his Vietnam service is like the glass jaw on a third rate pugilist.
Too bad no one is saying anything about John Kerry's ties to the mafia and red China. Stephen Bing is known for organized crime ties and he's donated $16 million to the Democrat party. Judicial Watch is investigating Kerry's ties to CHinese front firms in exchange for campaign money in 1996. We've all heard that CHina is stocking up on oil. If America leaves Iraq, will CHina step in like they have in South America? You can read all the links and help expose Kerry here: http://donkerry.blogspot.com
Four identical comments on four different threads plugging your tinfoil-hat site?
Don't let the door hit you, etc.
...but does anyone else think that Kerry is planning on a major terrorist attack in the U.S. before the elections?
It's the only reason that I can think of why the Kerry campaign would continue to attack Bush's strengths. Either that or they made a backroom deal to throw the election, and I'm not that much of a conspiracy theorist.