Post #177,545
10/3/04 1:47:43 PM
|
Bush vs. Kerry - How they should be judged
It seems to me that Bush has to be judged based on what he's done as president. What he did or didn't do 30+ years ago gives little predictive information about what he'll face in the future. Do people support his decisions about Iraq and homeland security? His budget priorities? His judicial appointments? His handling of the economy, foreign affairs and treaties?
Kerry, it seems to me, has to run on what he believes and concrete things that illustrate that he means what he says. He obviously can't point to accomplishments as president. He could point to accomplishments as senator, but since being a senator is very different from being president it does not carry much weight except to the extent that it supports or diminishes his words. I think these are the reasons why criticism of Kerry as a flip-flopper seems to resonate with so many. We can't look at what he's done as president, just at his words and votes. His actions 30+ years ago might be illustrative, but his recent actions and statements should be much more important.
I think Kerry will have a tough time defending many of his votes and subsequent statments about his beliefs. For example, Bush should try to question Kerry and try to get him to explain his [link|http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r102:17:./temp/~r102mTKZuE:e32360:|January 1991] and his [link|http://www.independentsforkerry.org/PRIVOXY-FORCE/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html|October 2002] votes WRT Iraq and whether he still believes his statements made in 1991. These days, he cites the actions of GHWB as a model for international cooperation in military conflicts. Then he was opposed to giving GHWB the authority because of inadequate consultation with the Congress.
Kerry saying "I'll do a better job because I'll have meetings and get other countries involved" puts too much of the responsibility on others. Talking is fine, but he needs to emphasize things that he can control as president. His budget priorities and how he'll pay for them. The kinds of people he'll appoint. His guiding principles. He needs to tell us, specifically, he'll do "better".
The president has to make decisions. He has to sign or veto bills, have meetings with rivals or not, take controversial decisions or not. Kerry too often wants to finess things, it seems to me. But choosing not to decide is a choice. Some things can't be finessed. Voters need to have an idea of how the candidate will act on coming issues. With Kerry, it's hard to know at the moment. How far is he willing to go to win in Iraq?
The burden is on Kerry to convincingly show that he could do better than Bush. If he can do so, he'll win. If not, Bush will win even though many or even a majority of people have misgivings about some of his decisions. "Better the devil you know ..." is the way many will look at it.
[link|http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm|Rasmussen] is saying that at the moment Kerry got a 1 point bounce from the first debate and Bush is still leading - 49% to 46% - in post-debate interviews with likely voters (very similar to previous Rasmussen results going back for many weeks). Kerry still has a lot of work to do.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #177,574
10/3/04 5:23:05 PM
|
The invisible elephant
The biggest thing that irritates me about what Kerry has been doing is that he hasn't called Bush on the huge elephant that nobody wants to talk about. The fact that prewar intelligence was not just wrong, it was obviously bogus. The intelligence was cooked at some point, either at the CIA or the White House, to justify the war.
But neither one wants to talk about that. Bush doesn't want to go down that road at all since the evidence suggests that the White House had a hand in cooking the evidence. Kerry doesn't want to talk about it because it brings his pro-war vote into question and his support for the war since.
At this point, the only hope that this issue will even come up is somebody calling them on it at the town hall debate.
Jay
|
Post #177,575
10/3/04 5:35:45 PM
|
As always, excellent point
-drl
|
Post #177,640
10/4/04 12:18:47 PM
|
Re: The invisible elephant
Do you really not understand why John Kerry doesn't want to take on that particular elephant? Take a gander here [link|http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_Kerry.htm|http://www.issues200...te/John_Kerry.htm]
Go here for the condensed version [link|http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0421103|http://www.vote-smar...p?can_id=S0421103]
Back to that "elephant". Bush can look him in the eye and say, "sir, you saw the same intelligence and did nothing different. Did you just turn stupid and forget or are you shamelessly pandering?" See, the problem is, they are yin and yan... Yaley's... Frat brothers. It would be the pot calling the kettle black.
I have a feeling that the Repos are really going to turn on the heat in the next two Pres debates, given that it will be extremely easy to paint him as a "tax and spend" liberal... His voting record in the senate is easy fodder for the next few debates. It's kind of funny, but the Dems were "most worried" about Kerry appearing "tough on terrorists, etc..." They've assumed that he will carry the Midwest middle class with the same tired rhetoric from the '50's. Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, et al are not the union strongholds that they once were. It's going to be interesting in the next few weeks. It will be great entertainment to watch Cheney intellectually "bend over" Edwards and have his way with him.
I still got 2 - 1 odds on the incumbent...
Just a few thoughts,
Danno
|
Post #177,645
10/4/04 12:37:26 PM
|
Not quite...
[link|http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/04/politics/trail/04TRAIL-TUBES.html?oref=login|http://www.nytimes.c...S.html?oref=login] ``Kerry did not have access to the same intelligence,'' former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke, a foreign policy adviser to the Democrat, said on ABC's ``This Week'' program. Mr. Holbrooke said the president had the advantage of `unique intelligence,` which he said was significant since the Congress was not made fully aware that all administration experts did not believe the tubes were intended to produce a nuclear weapon. Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #177,666
10/4/04 1:28:43 PM
|
Kerry should not be focusing on the war at all...
...at least according to [link|http://www.hillnews.com/morris/092904.aspx|Dick Morris:] Decades from now, teachers of political science and campaign management will not have to look any further than the John Kerry campaign of 2004 to understand all the fundamental mistakes a candidate can make. The strategy, tactics, issues, and execution of the Kerry campaign are so flawed as to offer a model of what not to do.
Begin with Kerry\ufffds decision to focus on the war in Iraq as his key issue. In the most recent ABC News poll, voters say, 53-38, that President Bush is better than Kerry at handling the problems in Iraq. So why would the Massachusetts Democrat choose to focus his case on an area where Bush has a lead? Why not go after issues where the Democrat has an innate advantage instead? And Bush\ufffds lead on Iraq is nothing compared to his almost 40-point lead on fighting terror.
Winston Churchill once compared engaging Japan in a land war in Asia to \ufffdgoing into the water to fight the shark,\ufffd yet that is precisely what Kerry is doing by engaging Bush on his strongest suit.
Since most of Kerry\ufffds support comes from his supposed superiority on domestic issues, his base is sharply divided on the war in Iraq, with slightly more than half taking an antiwar position while about one-third back the engagement and think it is integral to the war on terror (Scott Rasmussen\ufffds data). By coming down on the left side of the issue, Kerry will drive his voters into Bush\ufffds arms.
Kerry has been maneuvered into this no-win positioning by the pressure from Bush attacking him as weak and vacillating. The windsurfing ad, devastatingly effective, forces Kerry to take strong positions just for the sake of showing he is not weak.
But he doesn\ufffdt have to take the wrong ones! He could use domestic policy to show his strength. By charging into the middle of the Iraq war, predicating his campaign on it, he is making an error of almost unbelievable proportions.
|
Post #177,722
10/4/04 4:07:25 PM
|
Morris is wrong
Kerry can't avoid the Iraq war issue, it is simply too big. And since it is Bush's sole strength you know Bush was going to bring it up again and again anyway. If Kerry didn't take a visible posistion on Iraq, Bush would hammer him over ignoring our soldiers. Kerry might not like it, but the Iraq war had to be central to the campaign.
Jay
|
