Things That Are Irrelevant

[scott]

-Being a former cokehead and drunk
-Supposedly lying to earn a medal
-Failing at every business venture involved in
-Throwing your medals away and being proud of them later
-Supposedly paying for your "girlfriend" to get an abortion



THINGS THAT ARE RELEVANT:

-Flip flopping more times than a beach sandal
-Running the worst fiscal policy in American history
-Having a long history of voting to cut military spending
-Misleading the American public into supporting a war
-Having an even longer history of voting to raise taxes
-Leading the largest push in Presidential history to convert the government to Christianity
-Being a political chameleon with no real stance on any particular issue
-Being a political yes-man without the balls to say no
-Running for the chance to become one of the worst President in history
-Already having the title of being one of the worst Presidents in history

We can do better than this.

[exstatic]

Amen.

[Tommy Duncan]

I will say part of the problem is that Kerry has run a lousy campaign and I say this as an observer of campaigns, not just because I want him to lose.

From day one he has not been clear on what is wrong with Bush and what is right with him. He did not have his message honed down to 3 issues connected by a clear theme. I thought Clinton's speech at the DNC was very good because he found a way to tie the Democrat position on taxes with one of Bush's best issues which is the war on terrorism (tax cuts meaning cuts in homeland security). Instead Kerry's brilliant argument now is that the government has less money to spend on social programs because of the war. Every day Kerry seems to struggle to figure out why he is running for president.

In addition to not knowing what he wants there is the lack of a consistent attack on Bush. This is the beauty behind having a few major issues is that you can hammer at those every day and the general public has a better idea of what you stand for and why you think the sitting president is wrong.

Another problem is that the man is far too calculating. He has not been bold in this election. He should've come out against the war at the beginning of the campaign, not now. Now it seems too insincere. You don't knock off a sitting president with Bush's ratings who is at war and with an economy that isn't exactly that bad. You are the challenger. You have to make the case why the Pres is bad and why you are good. You have to indict him and you also have to introduce yourself.

Which leads me to...

The DNC and Kerry's Vietnam orgy. WTF was that? You don't proclaim yourself a hero. You let other people do that. People have already made up their minds about Bush's life history. I mean you leave your Vietnam service in the background. It's part of who you are. Don't worry, people know you served. Kerry should have used the convention more forcefully to indict Bush and also lay out his agenda.

Finally, Kerry had an opportunity early in the campaign to apologize for some of his anti-war activities. He should have done that. Americans can forgive. That was Clinton's bet a few years back and he was right. If Kerry apologized and the Swift Vets showed up well he's done all he could do and if those guys want to continue to attack him then they are just embittered old men.

Let us not forget that over the last 25 years there have been two sitting presidents who have lost re-election. Both were weak (approval ratings in the 30s), unpopular (even within their own parties), the economy was lousy, both faced significant 3rd party candidates who were making the case for change and both faced tremendous political talents who were bold, clear in what was wrong with the current president and clear in where they wanted to lead the country.

Bush43 is a much stronger president than Carter or Bush41 were in their campaigns and Kerry is clearly not a Clinton or a Reagan when it comes to political talent. This is not to say that Bush43 is invincible.

But I suppose this is what you get when your entire party is about hating the other candidate. You hate him so much you loathe him personally. When you reach that stage then you find yourself wanting to prove how horrible of a person he is and you do that by nominating a candidate who is simply the better man, instead of the better candidate.

At this point I think Edwards would have been a better candidate than Kerry.

As of right now the Demos are still on a mission to prove that Kerry is the better man than Bush. Which is why the prospects for Kerry at this moment look rather bleak. Bush and Rove are more than happy to see the DNC waste its time attacking Bush on his National Guard service. That dominates the news cycle. None of the allegations are new. People already have their mind made up about Bush. And this drowns out whatever Kerry is saying every day, thereby reducing the chances Kerry has to get airtime. At this point, Bush is just running out the clock.

OK, I know I ripped the Kerry campaign but he is the challenger. He is the one who has to drive the debate in the campaign. Up to this point he's done about as poor of a job that Rove could have ever dreamed for.

[Yonivore]

"At this point I think Edwards would have been a better candidate than Kerry."
By the way, where is that scheister? Off in the "other" America campaigning?

[Nbadan]

Bush43 is a much stronger president than Carter or Bush41 were in their campaigns and Kerry is clearly not a Clinton or a Reagan when it comes to political talent. This is not to say that Bush43 is invincible.

Except for the constant scare tactics, the up and down terror warnings, the be-ready commercials on T.V., I see very little real difference between Bush41 and Bush43. In fact, some people think that Bush41 is really calling the shots behind the scenes, along with Cheney, and Karl Rove.

[Tommy Duncan]

Exhibit A.

I rest my case.

[Mark in Austin]

TD, you hit the nail right on the head.

It astounds me that with all the possible flaws/weaknessess that Bush43 has, Kerry hasn't been able to latch onto a couple and drive them home.

Kerry had a shot, but the phenominal political miscalculations he and his strategists continue to make are just too much of an anchor dragging him down.

Much like Gore, he comes across as too eager to give us exactly what he thinks we want to hear, or what the focus groups tell him to talk about.

Edwards would have been stronger against Bush. He is almost Clinton-esque in his speaking style, and would absolutely destroy Bush43 in the debates much like Clinton did to Bush41.

[Tommy Duncan]

Bush definitely has weaknesses. The problem for the Demos is that they believe he is a flawed man and thus a flawed candidate. It doesn't work like that. What did the GOP think about Clinton?

In the last 25 years only two sitting presidents were defeated and both of them were much weaker than Bush today. They were also facing the two top political talents to run for the office in the last 25 years.

This election reminds me so much of 1996. The underlying premise of the challenging party was that the sitting president was a flawed man (who everyone hates) and the public wanted him removed. A flawed man does not necessarily make for a flawed candidate...and I mean that both in terms of the candidate's skill as well as what the voting public thought of him.

If someone was going to beat Bush in this election they would definitely have to bring their A+ game. On the Demo side Clinton is the name that comes to mind. Bush's strength has been what? His leadership and convinction on the war on terror. You don't beat him unless you can undermine that. How do you do that? By explaining clearly and consistently why his approach is wrong. You also tie in some of his administration's policies in other areas to do this. Clinton, again, was on the right track at the convention. You make the case that the tax cuts Bush pushed for were bad because they limited the resources needed to defend the country against terrorism. Basically, you have to run to the right of the president on the issue of defending the homeland while at the same time making the case that he was reckless in invading Iraq. Kerry's been all over the place on that. Kerry originally should have come out and said that yes, he voted for the war but then he was disillusioned and here is specifically why it did not fit the war on terrorism. I mean security is the issue in this election. I don't know why Kerry thought just playing up his military service was enough.

And again, had he apologized early on for the more egregious of his Vietnam anti-war activities then that would have diffused the Swift Vets episode. Also, there is an interesting rhetorical parallel between Kerry fighting in 'nam and then turning against the war and now with Iraq. At least it is consistent.

Maybe he can salvage out a position now but the more he has to change and/or redefine his positions then the less sincere he looks.

Basically, Kerry should have put Bush on the defensive about how Iraq fit into the war on terror. He's failed to do that and that's most likely why he will fail to win this election.

[scott]

Good talk, I wish I had more than 10 minutes a week to participate in the forum.

Here is as much of a contribution as I can make:

The fact that Kerry hasn't managed to run away with this election is evidence that he is a terrible candidate running a bad campaign... after all, he only has to beat Bush.

The fact that Bush hasn't managed to run away with this is election is evidence that he really is one of the most disliked and worst Presidents in history... after all, he only has to beat Kerry.

[LandSharkII]

The fact that Bush hasn't managed to run away with this is election is evidence that he really is one of the most disliked and worst Presidents in history...

What evidence do you use to support the assertion that Bush is one of the most disliked Presidents in history? Keep in mind that some presidents who were considered quite dreadful in their own time (Lincoln for example, his 1864 re-election was no certainty and Southerners hated him for obvious reasons) came to be thought of differently as time passed.

As for rating Bush on a scale of best-to-worst Presidents, it will be some time before the Bush presidency can be properly historicized and compared with its predecessors (and successors).

[Guru of Nothing]

What evidence do you use to support the assertion that Bush is one of the most disliked Presidents in history?

Reading is fundamental, or at least it should be.

[LandSharkII]

Reading is fundamental, or at least it should be.
Well pardon me all to hell. What I meant was what evidence beyond Bush's inability to run away with the election. :rolleyes

[Guru of Nothing]

Well pardon me all to hell. What I meant was what evidence beyond Bush's inability to run away with the election.

Would you rather I make assumptions about what you meant to say?

[LandSharkII]

Would you rather I make assumptions about what you meant to say?
Make whatever assumptions you please. I was simply asking Scott to clarify his assertion that Bush is one of the most disliked and worst Presidents in history. That is all.

[Guru of Nothing]

I was simply asking Scott to clarify his assertion that Bush is one of the most disliked and worst Presidents in history.

His assertion was quite clear. You were really asking him to expound (not clarify) his position, well after he stated he has less than 10 minutes per week (less than 90 seconds per day) to contribute to this forum.

Sheesh!

[LandSharkII]

:sleepy

[Yonivore]

scott, I would argue that Bush is running away with this campaign.

[Guru of Nothing]

Aptly enough, you win the prize with a "yawn" emoticon in a thread initiated upon irrelevancy.

I have one hundred dollars wagered that you will reply to me soley to get in the last word.

dummysaywhat

[Nbadan]

:lol


http://us.ent4.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/paramount_pictures/pootie_tang/_group_photos/chris_rock4.jpg

"Ill sa yah pitty on deh runny kind"

[Joe Chalupa]

Nice post Scott.