If the Kerry campaign was focused...

[lookout123]

If they were focused on winning they would pay more attention to what is going on today than what happened 35 years ago. If Kerry had gone into the DNC talking about Iran and Korea, he would have gotten the bounce he hoped for. If the Kerry camp had a focused plan to deal with Iran and Korea, and spoke of that plan clearly, publicly, positively, and often the middle of the road types would flock to him. unfortunately, Kerry wanted to focus on the Vietnam war and the Bush camp has been more than willing to oblige. Bush can deflect criticism of his ANG service without losing too many votes.
If Kerry wants the presidency he will have to go into the debates with a clear plan for dealing with Iran and Korea. Even debating Iraq won't win him too many votes, because most Americans agree, at some level, that the war effort in Iraq is SNAFU.
Unfortunately, the debates will just be more showmanship and little substance.

Anyway- here is a link about the mounting tensions in Iran.
Link

[iamthewalrus109]

Lookout, your completely right on this count. On the Sept. 7th I wrote a similiar diatribe and condemnation of Kerry's tactics:

"Kerry should be smart to make a mockery out of Bush's so called war on terror by sinking into Bush's admission that a war on terror could never be won, he's right, it's a tactic, not a an enemy, notice Scott McClellan's fancy foot work on that one. Kerry should outline a vision beyond the threat of terror, one that outlines who are real enemies are, existing and emerging, including Bush's "axis of evil", notice he has mentioned these folks in a long time, and set a vision on controlling the proliferation on weapons while neutralizing beds of terroist activity as best we can, simply talking about how bad of an idea it was to go to Iraq is doing Kerry more harm then good, why he keeps walking into an issue that he's been posed as weak on over and over again is beyond me, Iraq should really be part of a larger framework, I think this charge, countercharge environment has limited the scope of what's discussed. This should be his foriegn policy board, and shore up his domestic issue board, which really should discuss outrageous government spending and the 17% medicare price increase, as well as lost manufacturing jobs. He's doing that somewhat well..."

I think this stands as point for what is wrong here. lookout's comments also add to what should be done. I think the amount of leftovers and Dem. losers like Joe Shrum, need to be deep sixed, get them out of there, I can't believe their still allowed to be involved. People like Joe Shrum are something like 4 time losers in pres. races, it's unfathomable. Like I said in my 9/7 post, Kerry's actions are those of a buffudled Washington insider whose best flailings are to call in fringe Clintonistas to try to do the dirty work. Good luck Mr. Kerry.

- Walrus

[lookout123]

don't get me wrong. Bush isn't the best choice for america, but i still believe he is a better choice than Kerry. This is another reason that (not so much that bush is better) kerry is unequal to the task of potus - he can't even pull together a campaign in such a target rich environment.

[iamthewalrus109]

Stands to reason if a man can't run a clear pres. election, how the hell is going to run his admin. once in office (like that's going to happen). As one of the few vocal moderate republicans left, I think it's important to keep Bush to a small margin win in November, in order to at least keep him less confident and more pliant to moderate efforts by centrist Republicans and moderate Democrats. Any big win for Bush would be too much of a mandate, especially with the fear factor in play.

-Walrus

[Happy Monkey]

Um.. a smaller margin than 2000? This is him when he's not confident?

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

If they were focused on winning they would pay more attention to what is going on today than what happened 35 years ago. If Kerry had gone into the DNC talking about Iran and Korea, he would have gotten the bounce he hoped for.

That Kerry has run a poor campaign - we agree. At this point, Kerry should have some message. Clinton discovered and then promoted a message later summarized as "Its the economy stupid".

Kerry has so many obvious points to pick on. Up front, he should be asking why we make no effort to get bin Laden. Why George Jr opposed world trade (which is actually not popular among right and left wing Americans). The perversion of science - especially stem cell research. That is has become so unfriendly to be an American overseas. Record budget deficits (unfortunatley Cheney is right - Americans don't care about massive debts until they jobs are lost ten years later). The destruction of Hubble and a pathetic, stupid Man on Mars program.

These are not easy things to promote in sound bytes. But Kerry does not have a sound byte to rally his people. Neither did Gore. It means a low voter turnout except among right wing extremists who are so good at getting their people to vote.

[Undertoad]

The Dem convention was exactly what it needed to be: positive, on message, focused. And just after Labor Day, the new message rolled out is "'W' Stands For 'Wrong'". There's your sound bite: negativity and name-calling in one package. Ugh.

A positive message is simply not in the DNA of the Democratic Party in 2004. They are too pissed right now. The problem is that it's inward-focused, self-indulgent, and unproductive. Wouldn't you think that every single drop of anti-Bush sentiment would have been wrung out by now? Aren't the people desperate for a strong positive message reflecting a stable position, demonstrating strong leadership?

[iamthewalrus109]

I agree about the 2000 election and Bush's confidence. But as we know 9/11 is what made this man, period, it was the cornerstone of the entire Republican convention and furthermore is what is what has kept him alive from the voting debacle of 2000 and his inability at domestic governance. Do I agree with Michael Moore, or a litany of conspiracy theorists that this disaster was encouraged, I'm not sure, there really isn't enough data, nor a smoking gun, but I think it's important, especially now with the spectre of 9/11 and the "terror threat" to make sure he doesn't get a big win. I think this would just embolden the man even more, he truly would think of it as a mandate from God, and if not believe it than pose it that way to his loyal legion of bible thumpers and zealots. This is it I'm afraid, is the best we can hope for: a slight win by GWB in 2004 to dampen his swagger.

-Walrus

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

A positive message is simply not in the DNA of the Democratic Party in 2004. They are too pissed right now. The problem is that it's inward-focused, self-indulgent, and unproductive.

The Democratic Party is poorly lead in most quarters. Sen Tom Daschle and Congressman Gebhart are classic examples of what is wrong. They don't even have an agenda or perform strategic analysis for the party. Furthermore, when even their expert on intelligence - Sen Graham - said that intelligence on Iraq did not agree with the president, still, these two pathetic leaders marched right in and agreeed completely with George Jr. Leadership is severely lacking in the Democratic party.

Furthermore, the Democratic party has nothing equivalent to the propaganda machine operated by the Republican Party.