Kerry's new plan: Attack Bush on Iraq

[GrantDawg]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/images/MSNBC/msnbc_ban.gif MSNBC.com
Kerry's New Call to Arms
Battle Plan: Kerry was to spend the fall on the economy. Then came a new team of advisers—and a fresh focus for the homestretch

By Richard Wolffe and Susannah Meadows
Newsweek

Sept. 27 issue - Sitting in his black-leather swivel chair, with his trusty world atlas beside him, John Kerry huddled with his aides in the executive-style cabin at the front of his campaign jet. Kerry was preparing to accuse the president of failing to tell the truth about "the mess in Iraq"—part of an aggressive fall strategy to challenge George W. Bush on the war. But before he spoke to the National Guard convention in Las Vegas, Kerry sought the advice of yet another sounding board on his plane: former four-star general Wes Clark. Kerry knew from Vietnam what it felt like to face the bullets without the support of the folks back home. So how, one of his senior staff wanted to know, would Kerry's attacks go down now with the troops in Iraq? "Look, the soldiers are debating it themselves on the ground," Clark reassured Kerry's inner circle. "They're coming back and they're incredibly critical. You have to call it like it is."

After the summer's phony war over Vietnam medals and memos, the 2004 election has landed in the real-world battleground of Iraq. For Camp Kerry, it's a liberating feeling to engage in straight talk about Iraq, shaking off debate about the candidate's Senate votes. "I'm thrilled," said one of Kerry's longtime loyalists, "because it's the John Kerry I know and love." Kerry's gambit: to revive his campaign—trailing by anywhere between one and 13 points in new polls—by questioning Bush's credibility on the conflict, his management of postwar Iraq and the no-bid contracts won by his veep's old firm, Halliburton. Kerry is betting that the hard truths of Iraq will undercut Bush's soft-focus picture of a liberated nation, and ultimately the president's image as a war leader.

It's a bet that Kerry was unwilling to make until this month. Not so long ago, Kerry's strategists planned to spend the fall talking about the economy and health care, thinking they had proved their candidate's national-security credentials in Boston. They also planned to stay positive, shunning political attacks in the belief that slime could alienate swing voters. But that was before Kerry's August swoon, and an influx of fresh faces—a mix of Boston loyalists and Clintonites—at the top of the Democrat's team. Their main job is to keep Kerry on message and sharpen his attack on Bush. While Kerry will continue to hit at the Democrats' traditional pocketbook issues, his new strategists have embraced Clark's advice to tell it like it is. They also found a way to bring the war home, saying Bush's go-it-alone approach had cost billions of dollars that could have been spent on jobs, schools and health care. Kerry now intends to repeat and refine his critique through the rest of the campaign—spending, NEWSWEEK has learned, the closing week of the election on Bush's war.



The reaction from Camp Bush was gleeful. "Good," said one senior Bush aide. "We're glad he's talking about Iraq." It remains Exhibit A in the flip-flopping case against Kerry, built around his prewar nuances and his postwar votes. Moreover, the Bush campaign sees Kerry's attacks as a sign of weakness and as an attempt to shore up his base—a leftward tilt that could alienate "persuadables" in battleground states. Bush's advisers are confident that their candidate can win any contest of straight talk, pointing to a series of polls that give him a big lead on questions of honesty and consistency. And Bush is certainly bullish on the subject on the stump. "We'll help them get their elections, we'll get them on the path to stability and democracy as quickly as possible, and then our troops will return home with the honor they have earned," he told one rally in St. Cloud, Minn., last week. Yet back in Washington, Bush quietly receives considerably less glossy weekly national-security briefings on Iraq. In their candid moments, the president's aides concede they have struggled to convince voters about the mission in Iraq now that Saddam Hussein is sitting in jail. "Well, no, I don't think they know what it is," said one senior Bush strategist.

Kerry argues that only a new president can change the dynamic in the region, bringing in new international troops as well as the support of Arab nations. But the candidate is rarely succinct about his plans. Bush and Cheney pounced on Kerry's long-winded response to Don Imus last week, suggesting that even the popular radio host, who likes Kerry, was unpersuaded by his policy. The president's surrogates went one step further, accusing Kerry of adopting a "defeatist" position that was weakening American resolve in the war. Kerry's aides counter that such Bush attacks have run their course. "The flip-flop tag has already been priced into the market," one senior staffer said. "Bush's failure in Iraq hasn't."

[GrantDawg]

Thought on the strategy? I would have thought the economy was a good path, but this is a good gamble. Much better than continuing the NG attacks.

[Joe]

I would've gone with the economy as well. With this direction he's taking, he really has to spell out what his plan in Iraq will be, which he hasnt done. Maybe we'll find out at the debates?

[GrantDawg]

I would've gone with the economy as well. With this direction he's taking, he really has to spell out what his plan in Iraq will be, which he hasnt done. Maybe we'll find out at the debates?
I agree. It is riskier, but does have a chance. It will all depend if people are dis-illusioned or can be made more dis-illusioned with the war. There are enough facts out there to do it. The problem is the adminstration is going to play the "anti-American/hurting the troops" cards to try and trump it. When you have to depend on Kerry's charisma versus Bush's charisma, this could backfire huge.

I'm just glad they are moving toward actual issues.

[sterlingice]

I think this is just too risky. Doing my electoral math, Kerry only really needs to take Pennsylvania and Ohio, which are slightly Bush, right now and hold serve with what he has and he wins. And the message that will play best there is the economy since the rust belt has seen 20% of their manufacturing jobs dry up in the last 4 years. C'mon! Unless you manage to divorce Iraq from the War on Terror, there are no votes to be had here. And even then, there aren't enough to do anything. Are they just trying to hand away the election?!?

EDIT: It's not even risky. It's just stupid. Are they actually trying to win the election or just screw around?

SI

[Swaggs]

Kerry taking any position in a strong manner is a step in the right direction. The flip-flop label was a very effective attack on him that has stuck, but I still think there is plenty of time for Kerry to define his positions before the election, and the war in Iraq is an issue that people feel very strongly about. It is the issue that got Howard Dean from unknown to near nominee and I think if Kerry effectively illustrates his position, it will energize the base to get out and vote.

The most interesting thing about this election is that it seems like, purposely or not, the race has become about Kerry (his war record, his flip-flops, his wife) rather than about the sitting president.

[GrantDawg]

I think this is just too risky. Doing my electoral math, Kerry only really needs to take Pennsylvania and Ohio, which are slightly Bush, right now and hold serve with what he has and he wins. And the message that will play best there is the economy since the rust belt has seen 20% of their manufacturing jobs dry up in the last 4 years. C'mon! Unless you manage to divorce Iraq from the War on Terror, there are no votes to be had here. And even then, there aren't enough to do anything. Are they just trying to hand away the election?!?

EDIT: It's not even risky. It's just stupid. Are they actually trying to win the election or just screw around?

SI

Maybe you're right. I might just be thinking that because Iraq is the reason I'm voting for Kerry that others will come around also.

[GrantDawg]

Kerry taking any position in a strong manner is a step in the right direction. The flip-flop label was a very effective attack on him that has stuck, but I still think there is plenty of time for Kerry to define his positions before the election, and the war in Iraq is an issue that people feel very strongly about. It is the issue that got Howard Dean from unknown to near nominee and I think if Kerry effectively illustrates his position, it will energize the base to get out and vote.

The most interesting thing about this election is that it seems like, purposely or not, the race has become about Kerry (his war record, his flip-flops, his wife) rather than about the sitting president.
To be fair on Dean, though, he was playing to the choir. The Left really wanted an anti-war canidate, and Dean was the only one until Kerry saw he couldn't win the nomination without changing his position. Dean wasn't winning/needing crossover votes with his stance. Kerry is going to have to convince the middle that the War cannot be won with Bush in the Whitehouse. If he can do it, he'll be a genius. If he doesn't, he is a dead duck.

[mgadfly]

Nah it is a good move. Those in the rust belt affected by the 20% unemployment are already voting democrat. And that message doesn't help in most of the rest of the country or in the larger election momentum.

An economy message allows Bush to maintain his huge advantage in the "security" issue which is being shown by more women planning to vote for him and his recent surge in the polls. If Kerry goes economy he has a chance of picking up a couple states, but he is basically conceding those battle ground states where he has fallen behind. Which in turn, allows the Republicans to put all their energy/money into the couple of states still in play (which in turn makes them very risky).

It is best to go negative on Bush's security record (especially since there is so much ammo) and try to get some more states back in play allowing a more tailored message to be delivered by Edwards to the rust belt states.

And Kerry doesn't have to have a plan, what he needs to do is shift the burden to Bush to show that he has a plan. That way if he does come out with one Kerry can play the you've had a year and a half and haven't implemented that plan card, and if he doesn't come out with a plan Kerry can just continue the negative "he has no plan" to fight terrorism because [all the reasons stated in the article above]. Either way, for Kerry, the security issue is costing him the election now, so he needs something to undermine Bush, he can't just ignore it.

[mgadfly]

Kerry is going to have to convince the middle that the War cannot be won with Bush in the Whitehouse.

I think this assumes that the middle is predisposed to vote for Bush. Which they aren't as they usually favor dems on almost every issue except character and security. What Kerry has to do is just convince the middle that he isn't worse than Bush and get a wash on the issue. And he needs to do this by questioning why we are still in Iraq (without allowing the international community to take on some of the costs) instead of focusing on protecting ourselves from terrorism at home.

[GrantDawg]

And Kerry doesn't have to have a plan, what he needs to do is shift the burden to Bush to show that he has a plan.
Wrong. He needs a plan while showing Bush has no plan/a bad plan. Bush is in the driver's seat on this issue. People aren't going to shift to Kerry unless he does have a plan. It goes back to the flip-flop thing. He needs to be a leader and show he has a plan to move forward. He can't just attack Bush.

[GrantDawg]

I think this assumes that the middle is predisposed to vote for Bush. Which they aren't as they usually favor dems on almost every issue except character and security. What Kerry has to do is just convince the middle that he isn't worse than Bush and get a wash on the issue. And he needs to do this by questioning why we are still in Iraq (without allowing the international community to take on some of the costs) instead of focusing on protecting ourselves from terrorism at home.
The fact Bush has a lead shows they are leaning toward Bush right now. Security is probably the biggest factor in that. Kerry needs to show a plan while tearing down Bush's record in Iraq.

[mgadfly]

Yes he can. I'm glad you mentioned the flip-flop. This has been one of the biggest boosts (and probably the main talking point for Bush) and it isn't even policy related. All Kerry needs is sound bites like I'm going to shift costs by allowing international participation. Saddams been arrested. We need to shift resources to our domestic terror protection. Even if he makes a plan, no one is going to read. Especially swing voters who tend to be busy with working/taking care of their families.

You have a very positive view of what voters base their selection on.

[GrantDawg]

Yes he can. I'm glad you mentioned the flip-flop. This has been one of the biggest boosts (and probably the main talking point for Bush) and it isn't even policy related. All Kerry needs is sound bites like I'm going to shift costs by allowing international participation. Saddams been arrested. We need to shift resources to our domestic terror protection. Even if he makes a plan, no one is going to read. Especially swing voters who tend to be busy with working/taking care of their families.

You have a very positive view of what voters base their selection on.
Dude, that is a "plan." Not a very complete one, though. I think he'll need more than that, but he doesn't need a 150 page paper. Just a pretty solid (and sound-bytable) outline of what he is going to do and why it is better than what is happening now. He just can't attack. He has to show he has a real idea for the alternative.

[Solecismic]

One Kerry criticism I've heard from the middle class is that every time he opens his mouth about entitlements, people start checking their wallets, because removing the tax cuts for those making over $200k isn't going to come close to paying for them.

The middle class doesn't want new entitlements, they want someone to step in and reverse the incredible recent increases in the cost of health care. That's going to take insurance reform AND tort reform. Neither party will do both, unfortunately.

I know I'm not voting for Bush. But Kerry has done nothing to gain my vote. I think his campaign stalled when people realized that both his Iraq policy and his domestic policy are "I'm not Bush."

[GrantDawg]

One Kerry criticism I've heard from the middle class is that every time he opens his mouth about entitlements, people start checking their wallets, because removing the tax cuts for those making over $200k isn't going to come close to paying for them.

The middle class doesn't want new entitlements, they want someone to step in and reverse the incredible recent increases in the cost of health care. That's going to take insurance reform AND tort reform. Neither party will do both, unfortunately.

I know I'm not voting for Bush. But Kerry has done nothing to gain my vote. I think his campaign stalled when people realized that both his Iraq policy and his domestic policy are "I'm not Bush."
Which is exactly what I'm saying about presenting a real plan. So, do you think that shifting to the Iraq War will be a better plan than concentrating on the economy, Jim?

[Sharpieman]

One Kerry criticism I've heard from the middle class is that every time he opens his mouth about entitlements, people start checking their wallets, because removing the tax cuts for those making over $200k isn't going to come close to paying for them.

The middle class doesn't want new entitlements, they want someone to step in and reverse the incredible recent increases in the cost of health care. That's going to take insurance reform AND tort reform. Neither party will do both, unfortunately.

I know I'm not voting for Bush. But Kerry has done nothing to gain my vote. I think his campaign stalled when people realized that both his Iraq policy and his domestic policy are "I'm not Bush."
So I guess this means that its going to be FOF2005 :)

[sterlingice]

No, it's "Front Office Insurance and Tort Reform" :D

SI

[Solecismic]

Which is exactly what I'm saying about presenting a real plan. So, do you think that shifting to the Iraq War will be a better plan than concentrating on the economy, Jim?

No, I don't. Bush lost millions of votes when he decided to go into Iraq. We're there now. Of the people who still believe a leader can make a difference in the resolution, there's an automatic trust of the Republicans. And it's perhaps in this one area where Kerry's behavior when he came home from Vietnam makes a difference.

If Kerry wants to win, he has to present an economic plan that's more than an expansion of entitlements.


EDIT: Okay, funny once. But I think it's time to dispense with the hijacking of every topic I post in with this Front Office Somethingorother junk. I like posting here, and it would be a shame to refrain from it simply out of reluctance to having someone else's topic hijacked.

[GrantDawg]

No, I don't. Bush lost millions of votes when he decided to go into Iraq. We're there now. Of the people who still believe a leader can make a difference in the resolution, there's an automatic trust of the Republicans. And it's perhaps in this one area where Kerry's behavior when he came home from Vietnam makes a difference.

If Kerry wants to win, he has to present an economic plan that's more than an expansion of entitlements.
Fair enough. Sounds about right, but I hope you're wrong at this point.

[GrantDawg]

EDIT: Okay, funny once. But I think it's time to dispense with the hijacking of every topic I post in with this Front Office Somethingorother junk. I like posting here, and it would be a shame to refrain from it simply out of reluctance to having someone else's topic hijacked.
I was about to ask you about that. I could see how that could get annoying.

[Buccaneer]

No, I don't. Bush lost millions of votes when he decided to go into Iraq. We're there now. Of the people who still believe a leader can make a difference in the resolution, there's an automatic trust of the Republicans. And it's perhaps in this one area where Kerry's behavior when he came home from Vietnam makes a difference.

If Kerry wants to win, he has to present an economic plan that's more than an expansion of entitlements.


The way I see it Kerry wants to keep troops there for 4 more years so that issue ends up being a wash unless Kerry "changes his mind" again. It takes a decisive leader to go into Iraq and it would take one to get out. Even Hillary admitted that Bush has been consistent in keeping the pressure on. Kerry would just be too indesicive when actually confronted with the reality of weighing the pros and cons of Iraq (any candidate can sit here and say the right things but it's an entirely different matter when one has to actually deal with the realities).

On the domestic front, Kerry will be influenced by the Democratic dinosaurs (re: Kennedy) in thinking that every single problem is solved by greater federal budgets (via more taxation) and program (was Heinz kidding when she advocated a Dept of Wellness???). Therefore, I believe there it would be impossible for Kerry to present an economic plan that's more than an expansion of entitlements. If Bush lost my vote when he proposed to grow the federal govt even more (e.g., national prescriptions), there were would no way in hell I would vote for Kerry.

[Glengoyne]

I think it's about time Kerry started going after a legitimate Bush weakness. I think the National Guard stuff is garbage. I think the Halliburton stuff is garbage, but I don't guess they are backing away from that quite yet. The economy, I think is doing it's part to turn around. So I don't blame Bush for the way that is going, of course I really don't ever assign blame or give credit to any President for the state of the economy. I do blame Bush for not being prepared to handle post-war Iraq. I think if they had had a plan for post war Iraq, they might very well have avoided some of the fighting that is plaguing our efforts there now.

I do agree that Kerry has to show he has some sort of plan going forward, and at the same time show that Bush doesn't have one of his own. Personally I'm starting to wonder if they're both waiting for the other to announce a plan, so they can then adopt it as their own.

I am not backing Kerry by any means, but I really thought he had this election in the bag months ago. I have had a lot of trouble trying to understand what has happened with the recent polls. I sort of attributed it to the Dem's wandering about trying to find a meaningful message. Maybe this will be it. I just think they should get away from their Michael Moore might as well be our campaign director phase.

[sooner333]

Basically this is Kerry telling people whatever they want to hear and not what he really believes. He changes his opinions on things so much it is unbelievable. I can't say that I could even trust him in power in this country like I could say of many Democrats.

[Young Drachma]

I know I'm not voting for Bush. But Kerry has done nothing to gain my vote. I think his campaign stalled when people realized that both his Iraq policy and his domestic policy are "I'm not Bush."

This is where I'm at right now, too. And since I recently moved to a swing state, all my friends here who want Bush out are trying to persaude me to vote Kerry. But I don't know how comfortable I feel about that.

[sterlingice]

Basically this is Kerry telling people whatever they want to hear and not what he really believes. He changes his opinions on things so much it is unbelievable. I can't say that I could even trust him in power in this country like I could say of many Democrats.
But isn't that what election year is all about? I fail to see how Kerry is that much different than most other election year candidates.

SI

[sooner333]

But isn't that what election year is all about? I fail to see how Kerry is that much different than most other election year candidates.

SI

As I remember last election had Bush and Gore who both stuck to their plans. Gore didn't have the opportunity to do his plans, but I believe Bush tried his best. He did his No Child Left Behind and he did cut taxes. I do think Gore would have done his best to implement his plans as well.

This year I see Kerry changing his mind all the time, saying different things just a couple of weeks after saying the opposite. Does that give me confidence as a voter? No. And then I look at Bush and I see him pretty much keeping with his plans.

Now, it's one thing to change focus from one issue to another. For instance, changing focus from his service in Vietnam to Iraq is just fine, it is the way he is doing it. I read a quote in that article that basically its refreshing to hear him just straighttalking. First off, its not refreshing because it means he wasn't even saying what he meant before. Secondly, how do I really know this is how he feels? His track record suggests he's going to tell other people other things in just a matter of weeks...or approximately 4 times before the election.

[CamEdwards]

As I remember last election had Bush and Gore who both stuck to their plans. Gore didn't have the opportunity to do his plans, but I believe Bush tried his best. He did his No Child Left Behind and he did cut taxes. I do think Gore would have done his best to implement his plans as well.

This year I see Kerry changing his mind all the time, saying different things just a couple of weeks after saying the opposite. Does that give me confidence as a voter? No. And then I look at Bush and I see him pretty much keeping with his plans.

Now, it's one thing to change focus from one issue to another. For instance, changing focus from his service in Vietnam to Iraq is just fine, it is the way he is doing it. I read a quote in that article that basically its refreshing to hear him just straighttalking. First off, its not refreshing because it means he wasn't even saying what he meant before. Secondly, how do I really know this is how he feels? His track record suggests he's going to tell other people other things in just a matter of weeks...or approximately 4 times before the election.

Exactly. As someone who won't be voting for Kerry, I have no problem with him focusing on Iraq from now until Election Day. I don't think he has any credibility left on Iraq. He's literally taken every position from "bring the boys back home" to "send more troops" over the past six months. He's talked of a "secret plan" that he can't reveal until he's elected.

I honestly don't think Kerry has much credibility on Iraq, yet he can't ignore it.

I'm just glad I'm not advising the Kerry campaign right now. I'm kinda stumped as to what would be the best way for him to win the election.

[Arles]

If I was a Kerry advisor right now, I would spend the weekend with him on defining a position on the war in Iraq. Even if it's one that may cost him votes in some areas, that's fine. But I would create a plan for dealing with it, including some specifics and write it down for him. Then, I would hook him up with electric shocks and everytime he even mildly deviated from it in any stump I would shock the crap out of him.

That's essentially what Kerry's going to have to do. Not only come up with a believable plan that is different enough from what Bush is doing to make people want to choose him. But, even more importantly, he has to stick to that plan regardless of whether he is speaking to a gun club in Arkansas or a yachting group in Mass. That's his biggest hurdle, IMO - avoiding the temptation to switch his stance (even slightly) to meet the audience's expectations. In this day and age of a million cameras and cable news shows, just one perceived flip-flop on Iraq can be costly from this point in.

[TroyF]

Exactly. As someone who won't be voting for Kerry, I have no problem with him focusing on Iraq from now until Election Day. I don't think he has any credibility left on Iraq. He's literally taken every position from "bring the boys back home" to "send more troops" over the past six months. He's talked of a "secret plan" that he can't reveal until he's elected.

I honestly don't think Kerry has much credibility on Iraq, yet he can't ignore it.

I'm just glad I'm not advising the Kerry campaign right now. I'm kinda stumped as to what would be the best way for him to win the election.


Exactly. I think he's blown his credibility with this issue as well. His doublespeak on the war topic has ruined any chance he can make inroads on that. Really, when it comes down to it, his lack of a message beyond "I'm not Bush" for months makes it nearly impossible to get any sort of a message out there at this point.

It's why I said after the convention, he was nearly finished. By the time he gets his message out now, he's going to be shredded for how long it took him to get there. Iraq is the thing where the "flip-flop" problem has started. How in the hell can he get that right now?

If I'm advising him, I'm telling him to keep Iraq on the agenda, but to focus on health care, social security, schools and other domestic issues. I don't think Iraq has a chance in hell of working for him. I think it just adds nails to the coffin.

[mgadfly]

Why does everyone on here seem to think that Kerry can win the election in the exact opposite manner that Bush is currently winning it with?

Bush has made the election about Kerry's character--such as his war record (and if not Bush then sympathetic Republicans). I personally don't think there is much wrong with it but after seeing enough commercials saying he's a bad guy, it has its effect.

Bush has made the election about Kerry's flip-flopping. Someone in public service for thirty years has probably flip-flopped ten thousand times, and rightfully so or he would still be talking about communists.

Bush has done this without laying out any plan on Iraq, or the economy (excepting his ill-advised owners plan a few weeks back), or just about any other issue. He's basically won by saying the other guy can't be trusted (flip-flopper) and doesn't have a plan. And sadly, whether we want to face it or not, these types of electoral strategies work.

What Kerry has to do is call Bush's character into question (there is plenty of material to work with) while getting everyone on board the Bush can't be trusted (and after the promises of his 2000 campaign there should be enough to work with there as well) message. And instead of being nice about it, he (or PACs would be better) should be mean about it.

[Buccaneer]

(and after the promises of his 2000 campaign there should be enough to work with there as well)
You do know the value and intent of political campaign promises, don't you?

In an ideal world, I would wish that not a single campaign promise would ever come true.

[Swaggs]

Why does everyone on here seem to think that Kerry can win the election in the exact opposite manner that Bush is currently winning it with?

Bush has made the election about Kerry's character--such as his war record (and if not Bush then sympathetic Republicans). I personally don't think there is much wrong with it but after seeing enough commercials saying he's a bad guy, it has its effect.

Bush has made the election about Kerry's flip-flopping. Someone in public service for thirty years has probably flip-flopped ten thousand times, and rightfully so or he would still be talking about communists.

Bush has done this without laying out any plan on Iraq, or the economy (excepting his ill-advised owners plan a few weeks back), or just about any other issue. He's basically won by saying the other guy can't be trusted (flip-flopper) and doesn't have a plan. And sadly, whether we want to face it or not, these types of electoral strategies work.

What Kerry has to do is call Bush's character into question (there is plenty of material to work with) while getting everyone on board the Bush can't be trusted (and after the promises of his 2000 campaign there should be enough to work with there as well) message. And instead of being nice about it, he (or PACs would be better) should be mean about it.

One of the strange dynamics to Bush's career as a national politican seems to be that he has gotten a virtual free pass on his life up the age of (roughly) 40, while both of his presidential opponents, by virtue of their long careers in public service, seem to be held, to a word, to their record during the same period of time.

Against Gore more than Kerry (because Kerry seems to bring the past upon himself), it made me kind of mad. I remember in 2000 thinking that it was unfair for people to criticize Gore for changing his opinion on abortion and the death penalty during his early congressional career, while it was still acceptable for Bush, at the same age/time, to be partying like a frat boy.

Charisma goes a long way in politics.

[Dutch]

I know nothing of Kerry from the time he threw away somebody's medals and talked of atrocities committed by Americans in 1970 to the time he voted for and against the 87 million. That's about a 32 or 33 year gap.

So I'm not sure he is being examined closer than Bush in that regard.

[Buccaneer]

One of the strange dynamics to Bush's career as a national politican seems to be that he has gotten a virtual free pass on his life up the age of (roughly) 40, while both of his presidential opponents, by virtue of their long careers in public service, seem to be held, to a word, to their record during the same period of time.

Against Gore more than Kerry (because Kerry seems to bring the past upon himself), it made me kind of mad. I remember in 2000 thinking that it was unfair for people to criticize Gore for changing his opinion on abortion and the death penalty during his early congressional career, while it was still acceptable for Bush, at the same age/time, to be partying like a frat boy.

Charisma goes a long way in politics.
How do you know that Kerry, Gore, et al didn't party like a frat boy as well? (Or in the case of Clinton, party like it's 1996 - or dare I say with Kerry's mentor, party like it's 1969?).

In all seriousness, I am beginning to conclude that what the Dems are feeling and going through right now is exactly how those of us felt during the 1996 campaign.

[GrantDawg]

Why does everyone on here seem to think that Kerry can win the election in the exact opposite manner that Bush is currently winning it with?

Bush has made the election about Kerry's character--such as his war record (and if not Bush then sympathetic Republicans). I personally don't think there is much wrong with it but after seeing enough commercials saying he's a bad guy, it has its effect.

Bush has made the election about Kerry's flip-flopping. Someone in public service for thirty years has probably flip-flopped ten thousand times, and rightfully so or he would still be talking about communists.

Bush has done this without laying out any plan on Iraq, or the economy (excepting his ill-advised owners plan a few weeks back), or just about any other issue. He's basically won by saying the other guy can't be trusted (flip-flopper) and doesn't have a plan. And sadly, whether we want to face it or not, these types of electoral strategies work.

What Kerry has to do is call Bush's character into question (there is plenty of material to work with) while getting everyone on board the Bush can't be trusted (and after the promises of his 2000 campaign there should be enough to work with there as well) message. And instead of being nice about it, he (or PACs would be better) should be mean about it.
Your missing something here. Bush did not make this election about Kerry's character. Kerry did. Do you remember the Democratic national convention? Did they mention once during that whole convention that John Kerry had been a senator for many years? Watching that convention you would get the impression that Kerry step straight of the Swift Boat and on to the stage. It was Kerry's plan to make this election about character and it exploded in his face. That allowed Bush to basically do nothing but buddy up to people in swing states, while Kerry fought Vietnam again in a constant headline battle.

As for your first question (why not let Kerry run just like Bush), you can't for several reasons.

1) He is not currently the President. A sitting president has unique advantages (and disadvantages) over a contender. You're comparing apples and oranges.

2) Kerry does not have Bush's charisma. He needs to give people a reason to vote for him, or they are going to go with the likeable guy.

3) Kerry has brought the flip-flopping thing on himself because he does change his stance on Iraq by the crowd he standing in front of. He has to have a defined plan and then he has to stick to it.

[mgadfly]

Your missing something here. Bush did not make this election about Kerry's character. Kerry did. Do you remember the Democratic national convention? Did they mention once during that whole convention that John Kerry had been a senator for many years? Watching that convention you would get the impression that Kerry step straight of the Swift Boat and on to the stage. It was Kerry's plan to make this election about character and it exploded in his face. That allowed Bush to basically do nothing but buddy up to people in swing states, while Kerry fought Vietnam again in a constant headline battle.

As for your first question (why not let Kerry run just like Bush), you can't for several reasons.

1) He is not currently the President. A sitting president has unique advantages (and disadvantages) over a contender. You're comparing apples and oranges.

2) Kerry does not have Bush's charisma. He needs to give people a reason to vote for him, or they are going to go with the likeable guy.

3) Kerry has brought the flip-flopping thing on himself because he does change his stance on Iraq by the crowd he standing in front of. He has to have a defined plan and then he has to stick to it.

The flip-flopping came long before the convention (as did Gore's "stretch the truth" perception, both of which were talking points for Republicans months before they had an impact in the polls).

The swift boats commercials aired prior to the convention. Kerry should have ignored them, but it is a little unfair to act like he brought it on himself. He just did a horrible job of handling the criticism.

Kerry has changed his stance on Iraq about as often as Bush has on the war on terrorism (the Saturday before his convention he said the war on terror was not winnable, but when that caused an uproar he changed his tune just days later in his convention speech). Kerry has changed his opinion on the war in Iraq about as often as Bush has changed his opinion of why we should have invaded. The difference is that Bush has implemented a very organized campaign strategy of creating the perception that Kerry is untrustworthy because he flip-flopped (at about the time Bush flip-flopped on why we were there and how much it was going to cost-first asking for 87 and then publicly stating during the voting process that it wouldn't be enough, which he/Bush was right about).

The difference is not so much based on reality, but is based on perception. Kerry can't fight perception with an optimistic plan about Iraq, national security, economic reforms at home, etc... for the same reason that Gore was unsuccessful; because the Republicans had painted a picture of him as untrustworthy on all issues because he lied all the time (and at the same time when Bush made mistakes or said stupid things they passed it off as innocent errors). This was a great political manuevering by the Republicans.

The problem with the democrats is they believe that a flip-flopper that no one can trust can talk about the issues and win the election. He can't. He's lost all credibility on all issues because the flip-flopping perception transcends all issues. Thus, the only way for him to counter it is to paint Bush (successfully) as someone as untrustworthy as the perception is of Kerry. This works for two reasons: (1) It leaves moderates with the choice between two untrustworthy candidates (which is better than the current perception that we may disagree with Bush, but he always sticks to his word: which is complete bull) and (2) it undermines the trustworthyness of the source that is saying he is a "flip-flopper."

Kerry can't win on any issue if people can't trust him. He has to change the perception and that isn't accomplished by creating a "plan" on Iraq. It is accomplished by attacking the character and validity of the source of the perception that he is a flip-flopper.

[Glengoyne]

Saw Kerry's speech this morning. I think if he keeps this up he will win big.

He was critical of Bush's lack of planning in post-war Iraq. He made several "the President should bring our allies to the table, and make them understand they DO have a stake in a peaceful Iraq" statements. He indicated that if he was president, he would be doing these things. I don't really know that the ideas he proposed are reasonable, but most folks won't think that far in any case.

He said some things about Bush "staying the course" in Iraq, even if that course was wrong. Bush's stubborn streak is both a great strength, and a great weakness. I think it would be wise for the Dems to continue to play up the weaker aspects of the President's backbone.

He did repeatedly say that he has a plan for Iraq, and he has always had that plan. I'm not so sure that is going to sell with anyone who has been paying attention.

All in all, I thought Kerry was speaking to me today, by talking about the things I consider legitimate issues instead of the Texas Air Guard or Halliburton.

[Glengoyne]

...Kerry can't win on any issue if people can't trust him. He has to change the perception and that isn't accomplished by creating a "plan" on Iraq. It is accomplished by attacking the character and validity of the source of the perception that he is a flip-flopper.
Are you the Campaign manager that Kerry just canned? Avoiding the issues, and attacking Bush's character resulted in Bush's surge in the polls. I think the new Kerry team is getting it right.

[mgadfly]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/14/opinion/main643316.shtml

That's an article in the American Prospect via CBS. It's an opinion article, so you don't have to take their liberal stance on actual facts, but I think the author has a point about the problem with democrats and the strength of republican's political strategies.

[mgadfly]

Are you the Campaign manager that Kerry just canned? Avoiding the issues, and attacking Bush's character resulted in Bush's surge in the polls. I think the new Kerry team is getting it right.

What you just wrote about in your prior post is exactly what I'm saying he should do. You don't just say, "Bush is a liar." You talk about Iraq and say how he has screwed up and how he can't be trusted to do what is right because he's too stubborn to ever change his opinion. That is attacking Bush's character, and apparently it worked on you, so I'll stand by that position.

On a side note, besides trying to create the perception that he has a plan, did he say anything that truly spoke to the specifics of his plan? Or did he mostly focus on how Bush has messed up?

[mgadfly]

Are you the Campaign manager that Kerry just canned? Avoiding the issues, and attacking Bush's character resulted in Bush's surge in the polls. I think the new Kerry team is getting it right.

The surge in the polls occurred when he spent all his time defending his own character. He spent very little of the last month attacking Bush.

[Glengoyne]

... You don't just say, "Bush is a liar." You talk about Iraq and say how he has screwed up and how he can't be trusted to do what is right because he's too stubborn to ever change his opinion. That is attacking Bush's character, and apparently it worked on you, so I'll stand by that position.

Saying Bush has screwed up in Iraq, Bush is screwing up in Iraq, and that Bush's lack of gameplan indicates he will continue to screw up in Iraq, is NOT attacking Bush's character. The Fortunate Son ad attacked Bush's character.

[Glengoyne]

Dola,
...

On a side note, besides trying to create the perception that he has a plan, did he say anything that truly spoke to the specifics of his plan? Or did he mostly focus on how Bush has messed up?
Oops. forgot to address this.

No he didn't really give any specifics other than give our allies a stake in Iraq. I didn't say it was perfect, but it is the most appealing message I have seen Kerry deliver.

[mgadfly]

Both do. If saying Bush can't be trusted because he is too stubborn, and because "He hitched his wagon to the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military. The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible consequences." isn't an attack on his credibility and character, even if tied to a legitimate issue (just like the flip-flopping criticism) then I'm not sure what is.

[Bee]

Saw Kerry's speech this morning. I think if he keeps this up he will win big.

He was critical of Bush's lack of planning in post-war Iraq. He made several "the President should bring our allies to the table, and make them understand they DO have a stake in a peaceful Iraq" statements. He indicated that if he was president, he would be doing these things. I don't really know that the ideas he proposed are reasonable, but most folks won't think that far in any case.

He said some things about Bush "staying the course" in Iraq, even if that course was wrong. Bush's stubborn streak is both a great strength, and a great weakness. I think it would be wise for the Dems to continue to play up the weaker aspects of the President's backbone.

He did repeatedly say that he has a plan for Iraq, and he has always had that plan. I'm not so sure that is going to sell with anyone who has been paying attention.

All in all, I thought Kerry was speaking to me today, by talking about the things I consider legitimate issues instead of the Texas Air Guard or Halliburton.

I think at this point it will be tough for Kerry to come back, but this type of approach may be the best chance. He shouldn't go after Bush's past or his "character", but the decisions Bush has made during his presidency.

Just my opinion here, but I think most people in the middle don't really care about either guys' past and Bush has been able to keep himself above the fray much more than Kerry. I think that's been the biggest difference in the past month.

Edit: I think the debates we see this election year may be the most important debates we've seen in an election in a long time. I really have no idea how well Kerry will perform, but I think Bush will be pretty solid requiring Kerry to come off strong to pull off a victory in November.

[sterlingice]

Edit: I think the debates we see this election year may be the most important debates we've seen in an election in a long time. I really have no idea how well Kerry will perform, but I think Bush will be pretty solid requiring Kerry to come off strong to pull off a victory in November.
I think that if the Kerry camp is relying on Bush to hang himself like the Gore camp thought in 2000, it's just not going to happen. In a sports sense, the Bush team may not have the best talent but they don't beat themselves too often. It's like waiting around for the Twins to screw up.

SI

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Here's the actual speech..

Speech at New York University
Remarks of John Kerry
September 20, 2004


For Immediate Release

New York, NY - I am honored to be here at New York University -- one of the great urban universities, not just in New York, but in the world. You have set a high standard for global dialogue and I hope to live up to that tradition today.

This election is about choices. The most important choices a President makes are about protecting America… at home and around the world. A president’s first obligation is to make America safer, stronger and truer to our ideals.

Only a few blocks from here, three years ago, the events of September 11 reminded every American of that obligation. That day brought to our shores the defining struggle of our times: the struggle between freedom and radical fundamentalism. And it made clear that our most important task is to fight… and to win… the war on terrorism.

With us today is a remarkable group of women who lost loved ones on September 11th … and whose support I am honored to have. Not only did they suffer an unbearable loss – they helped us learn the lessons of that terrible time by insisting on the creation of the 9/11 Commission. I ask them to stand. And I thank them on behalf of our country -- and I pledge to them and to you that I will implement the 9-11 recommendations.

In fighting the war on terrorism, my principles are straight forward. The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president, I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies. But billions of people around the world yearning for a better life are open to America’s ideals. We must reach them.

To win, America must be strong. And America must be smart. The greatest threat we face is the possibility Al Qaeda or other terrorists will get their hands on a nuclear weapon.

To prevent that from happening, we must call on the totality of America’s strength. Strong alliances, to help us stop the world’s most lethal weapons from falling into the most dangerous hands. A powerful military, transformed to meet the new threats of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. And all of America’s power – our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, the appeal of our values – each of which is critical to making America more secure and preventing a new generation of terrorists from emerging.

National security is a central issue in this campaign. We owe it to the American people to have a real debate about the choices President Bush has made… and the choices I would make… to fight and win the war on terror.

That means we must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The President claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight.

This month, we passed a cruel milestone: more than 1,000 Americans lost in Iraq. Their sacrifice reminds us that Iraq remains, overwhelmingly, an American burden. Nearly 90 percent of the troops – and nearly 90 percent of the casualties – are American. Despite the President’s claims, this is not a grand coalition.

Our troops have served with extraordinary bravery, skill and resolve. Their service humbles all of us. When I speak to them… when I look into the eyes of their families, I know this: we owe them the truth about what we have asked them to do… and what is still to be done.

In June, the President declared, “The Iraqi people have their country back.” Just last week, he told us: “This country is headed toward democracy… Freedom is on the march.”

But the administration’s own official intelligence estimate, given to the President last July, tells a very different story.

According to press reports, the intelligence estimate totally contradicts what the President is saying to the American people.

So do the facts on the ground.

Security is deteriorating, for us and for the Iraqis.

42 Americans died in Iraq in June -- the month before the handover. But 54 died in July…66 in August… and already 54 halfway through September.

And more than 1,100 Americans were wounded in August – more than in any other month since the invasion.

We are fighting a growing insurgency in an ever widening war-zone. In March, insurgents attacked our forces 700 times. In August, they attacked 2,700 times – a 400% increase.

Falluja…Ramadi… Samarra … even parts of Baghdad – are now “no go zones”… breeding grounds for terrorists who are free to plot and launch attacks against our soldiers. The radical Shi’a cleric, Moktada al-Sadr, who’s accused of complicity in the murder of Americans, holds more sway in the suburbs of Baghdad.

Violence against Iraqis… from bombings to kidnappings to intimidation … is on the rise.

Basic living conditions are also deteriorating.

Residents of Baghdad are suffering electricity blackouts lasting up to 14 hours a day.

Raw sewage fills the streets, rising above the hubcaps of our Humvees. Children wade through garbage on their way to school.

Unemployment is over 50 percent. Insurgents are able to find plenty of people willing to take $150 for tossing grenades at passing U.S. convoys.

Yes, there has been some progress, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our soldiers and civilians in Iraq. Schools, shops and hospitals have been opened. In parts of Iraq, normalcy actually prevails.

But most Iraqis have lost faith in our ability to deliver meaningful improvements to their lives. So they’re sitting on the fence… instead of siding with us against the insurgents.

That is the truth. The truth that the Commander in Chief owes to our troops and the American people.

It is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger. But it’s essential if we want to correct our course and do what’s right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

I know this dilemma first-hand. After serving in war, I returned home to offer my own personal voice of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it those risking their lives to speak truth to power. We still do.

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.

The President has said that he “miscalculated” in Iraq and that it was a “catastrophic success.” In fact, the President has made a series of catastrophic decisions … from the beginning … in Iraq. At every fork in the road, he has taken the wrong turn and led us in the wrong direction.

The first and most fundamental mistake was the President’s failure to tell the truth to the American people.

He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war. And he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens.

By one count, the President offered 23 different rationales for this war. If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded.

His two main rationales – weapons of mass destruction and the Al Qaeda/September 11 connection – have been proved false… by the President’s own weapons inspectors… and by the 9/11 Commission. Just last week, Secretary of State Powell acknowledged the facts. Only Vice President Cheney still insists that the earth is flat.

The President also failed to level with the American people about what it would take to prevail in Iraq.

He didn’t tell us that well over 100,000 troops would be needed, for years, not months. He didn’t tell us that he wouldn’t take the time to assemble a broad and strong coalition of allies. He didn’t tell us that the cost would exceed $200 billion. He didn’t tell us that even after paying such a heavy price, success was far from assured.

And America will pay an even heavier price for the President’s lack of candor.

At home, the American people are less likely to trust this administration if it needs to summon their support to meet real and pressing threats to our security.

Abroad, other countries will be reluctant to follow America when we seek to rally them against a common menace -- as they are today. Our credibility in the world has plummeted.

In the dark days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy sent former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to Europe to build support. Acheson explained the situation to French President de Gaulle. Then he offered to show him highly classified satellite photos, as proof. De Gaulle waved the photos away, saying: “The word of the President of the United States is good enough for me.”

How many world leaders have that same trust in America’s president, today?

This President’s failure to tell the truth to us before the war has been exceeded by fundamental errors of judgment during and after the war.

The President now admits to “miscalculations” in Iraq.

That is one of the greatest understatements in recent American history. His were not the equivalent of accounting errors. They were colossal failures of judgment – and judgment is what we look for in a president.

This is all the more stunning because we’re not talking about 20/20 hindsight. Before the war, before he chose to go to war, bi-partisan Congressional hearings… major outside studies… and even some in the administration itself… predicted virtually every problem we now face in Iraq.

This President was in denial. He hitched his wagon to the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military. The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible consequences.

The administration told us we’d be greeted as liberators. They were wrong.

They told us not to worry about looting or the sorry state of Iraq’s infrastructure. They were wrong.

They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots. They were wrong.

They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy. They were wrong.

They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country and a police force and army to secure it. They were wrong.

In Iraq, this administration has consistently over-promised and under-performed. This policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. And the President has held no one accountable, including himself.

In fact, the only officials who lost their jobs over Iraq were the ones who told the truth.

General Shinseki said it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq. He was retired. Economic adviser Larry Lindsey said that Iraq would cost as much as $200 billion. He was fired. After the successful entry into Baghdad, George Bush was offered help from the UN -- and he rejected it. He even prohibited any nation from participating in reconstruction efforts that wasn’t part of the original coalition – pushing reluctant countries even farther away. As we continue to fight this war almost alone, it is hard to estimate how costly that arrogant decision was. Can anyone seriously say this President has handled Iraq in a way that makes us stronger in the war on terrorism?

By any measure, the answer is no. Nuclear dangers have mounted across the globe. The international terrorist club has expanded. Radicalism in the Middle East is on the rise. We have divided our friends and united our enemies. And our standing in the world is at an all time low.

Think about it for a minute. Consider where we were… and where we are. After the events of September 11, we had an opportunity to bring our country and the world together in the struggle against the terrorists. On September 12th, headlines in newspapers abroad declared “we are all Americans now.” But through his policy in Iraq, the President squandered that moment and rather than isolating the terrorists, left America isolated from the world.

We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and posed no imminent threat to our security. It had not, as the Vice President claimed, “reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

The President’s policy in Iraq took our attention and resources away from other, more serious threats to America.

Threats like North Korea, which actually has weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear arsenal, and is building more under this President’s watch…

… The emerging nuclear danger from Iran…

… The tons and kilotons of unsecured chemical and nuclear weapons in Russia…

… And the increasing instability in Afghanistan.

Today, warlords again control much of that country, the Taliban is regrouping, opium production is at an all time high and the Al Qaeda leadership still plots and plans, not only there but in 60 other nations. Instead of using U.S. forces, we relied on the warlords to capture Osama bin Laden when he was cornered in the mountains. He slipped away. We then diverted our focus and forces from the hunt for those responsible for September 11th in order invade Iraq.

We know Iraq played no part in September 11 and had no operational ties to Al Qaeda.

The President’s policy in Iraq precipitated the very problem he said he was trying to prevent. Secretary of State Powell admits that Iraq was not a magnet for international terrorists before the war. Now it is, and they are operating against our troops. Iraq is becoming a sanctuary for a new generation of terrorists who someday could hit the United States.

We know that while Iraq was a source of friction, it was not previously a source of serious disagreement with our allies in Europe and countries in the Muslim world.

The President’s policy in Iraq divided our oldest alliance and sent our standing in the Muslim world into free fall. Three years after 9/11, even in many moderate Muslim countries like Jordan, Morocco and Turkey, Osama bin Laden is more popular than the United States of America.

Let me put it plainly: The President’s policy in Iraq has not strengthened our national security. It has weakened it.

Two years ago, Congress was right to give the President the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This President… any President… would have needed the threat of force to act effectively. This President misused that authority.

The power entrusted to the President gave him a strong hand to play in the international community. The idea was simple. We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam: disarm or be disarmed.

A month before the war, President Bush told the nation: “If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail.” He said that military action wasn’t “unavoidable.”

Instead, the President rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted without making sure our troops had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead without understanding or preparing for the consequences of the post-war. None of which I would have done.

Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no – because a Commander-in-Chief’s first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe.

Now the president, in looking for a new reason, tries to hang his hat on the “capability” to acquire weapons. But that was not the reason given to the nation; it was not the reason Congress voted on; it’s not a reason, it’s an excuse. Thirty-five to forty countries have greater capability to build a nuclear bomb than Iraq did in 2003. Is President Bush saying we should invade them?

I would have concentrated our power and resources on defeating global terrorism and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. I would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein – who was weak and getting weaker -- so that he would pose no threat to the region or America.

The President’s insistence that he would do the same thing all over again in Iraq is a clear warning for the future. And it makes the choice in this election clear: more of the same with President Bush or a new direction that makes our troops and America safer. It is time, at long last, to ask the questions and insist on the answers from the Commander-in-Chief about his serious misjudgments and what they tell us about his administration and the President himself. If George W. Bush is re-elected, he will cling to the same failed policies in Iraq -- and he will repeat, somewhere else, the same reckless mistakes that have made America less secure than we can or should be.

In Iraq, we have a mess on our hands. But we cannot throw up our hands. We cannot afford to see Iraq become a permanent source of terror that will endanger America’s security for years to come.

All across this country people ask me what we should do now. Every step of the way, from the time I first spoke about this in the Senate, I have set out specific recommendations about how we should and should not proceed. But over and over, when this administration has been presented with a reasonable alternative, they have rejected it and gone their own way. This is stubborn incompetence.

Five months ago, in Fulton, Missouri, I said that the President was close to his last chance to get it right. Every day, this President makes it more difficult to deal with Iraq – harder than it was five months ago, harder than it was a year ago. It is time to recognize what is – and what is not – happening in Iraq today. And we must act with urgency.

Just this weekend, a leading Republican, Chuck Hagel, said we’re “in deep trouble in Iraq … it doesn’t add up … to a pretty picture … we’re going to have to look at a recalibration of our policy.” Republican leaders like Dick Lugar and John McCain have offered similar assessments.

We need to turn the page and make a fresh start in Iraq.

First, the President has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don’t have to go it alone. It is late; the President must respond by moving this week to gain and regain international support.

Last spring, after too many months of resistance and delay, the President finally went back to the U.N. which passed Resolution 1546. It was the right thing to do – but it was late.

That resolution calls on U.N. members to help in Iraq by providing troops… trainers for Iraq’s security forces… a special brigade to protect the U.N. mission… more financial assistance… and real debt relief.

Three months later, not a single country has answered that call. And the president acts as if it doesn’t matter.

And of the $13 billion previously pledged to Iraq by other countries, only $1.2 billion has been delivered.

The President should convene a summit meeting of the world’s major powers and Iraq’s neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly. He should insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific, but critical roles, in training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq’s borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq’s future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq’s oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.

This will be difficult. I and others have repeatedly recommended this from the very beginning. Delay has made only made it harder. After insulting allies and shredding alliances, this President may not have the trust and confidence to bring others to our side in Iraq. But we cannot hope to succeed unless we rebuild and lead strong alliances so that other nations share the burden with us. That is the only way to succeed.

Second, the President must get serious about training Iraqi security forces.

Last February, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that more than 210,000 Iraqis were in uniform. Two weeks ago, he admitted that claim was exaggerated by more than 50 percent. Iraq, he said, now has 95,000 trained security forces.

But guess what? Neither number bears any relationship to the truth. For example, just 5,000 Iraqi soldiers have been fully trained, by the administration’s own minimal standards. And of the 35,000 police now in uniform, not one has completed a 24-week field-training program. Is it any wonder that Iraqi security forces can’t stop the insurgency or provide basic law and order?

The President should urgently expand the security forces training program inside and outside Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double classroom training time, and require follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries. And he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers.

Third, the President must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people.

Last week, the administration admitted that its plan was a failure when it asked Congress for permission to radically revise spending priorities in Iraq. It took 17 months for them to understand that security is a priority … 17 months to figure out that boosting oil production is critical … 17 months to conclude that an Iraqi with a job is less likely to shoot at our soldiers.

One year ago, the administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency. Today, less than a $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent. I said at the time that we had to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability. Now we’re paying the price.

Now, the President should look at the whole reconstruction package…draw up a list of high visibility, quick impact projects… and cut through the red tape. He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton. He should stop paying companies under investigation for fraud or corruption. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort.

Fourth, the President must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee the promised elections can be held next year.

Credible elections are key to producing an Iraqi government that enjoys the support of the Iraqi people and an assembly to write a Constitution that yields a viable power sharing arrangement.

Because Iraqis have no experience holding free and fair elections, the President agreed six months ago that the U.N. must play a central role. Yet today, just four months before Iraqis are supposed to go to the polls, the U.N. Secretary General and administration officials themselves say the elections are in grave doubt. Because the security situation is so bad… and because not a single country has offered troops to protect the U.N. elections mission… the U.N. has less than 25 percent of the staff it needs in Iraq to get the job done.

The President should recruit troops from our friends and allies for a U.N. protection force. This won’t be easy. But even countries that refused to put boots on the ground in Iraq should still help protect the U.N. We should also intensify the training of Iraqis to manage and guard the polling places that need to be opened. Otherwise, U.S forces would end up bearing those burdens alone.

If the President would move in this direction … if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and forces … train the Iraqis to provide their own security …develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people … and take the steps necessary to hold credible elections next year … we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years.

This is what has to be done. This is what I would do as President today. But we cannot afford to wait until January. President Bush owes it to the American people to tell the truth and put Iraq on the right track. Even more, he owes it to our troops and their families, whose sacrifice is a testament to the best of America.

The principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now and in the future are clear: We must make Iraq the world’s responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should share the burden. We must effectively train Iraqis, because they should be responsible for their own security. We must move forward with reconstruction, because that’s essential to stop the spread of terror. And we must help Iraqis achieve a viable government, because it’s up to them to run their own country. That’s the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.

On May 1 of last year, President Bush stood in front of a now infamous banner that read “Mission Accomplished.” He declared to the American people: “In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.” In fact, the worst part of the war was just beginning, with the greatest number of American casualties still to come. The president misled, miscalculated, and mismanaged every aspect of this undertaking and he has made the achievement of our objective – a stable Iraq, secure within its borders, with a representative government, harder to achieve.

In Iraq, this administration’s record is filled with bad predictions, inaccurate cost estimates, deceptive statements and errors of judgment of historic proportions.

At every critical juncture in Iraq, and in the war on terrorism, the President has made the wrong choice. I have a plan to make America stronger.

The President often says that in a post 9-11 world, we can’t hesitate to act. I agree. But we should not act just for the sake of acting. I believe we have to act wisely and responsibly.

George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. I do.

George Bush has not told the truth to the American people about why we went to war and how the war is going. I have and I will continue to do so.

I believe the invasion of Iraq has made us less secure and weaker in the war against terrorism. I have a plan to fight a smarter, more effective war on terror – and make us safer.

Today, because of George Bush’s policy in Iraq, the world is a more dangerous place for America and Americans.

If you share my conviction that we can not go on as we are …that we can make America stronger and safer than it is… then November 2 is your chance to speak... and to be heard. It is not a question of staying the course, but of changing the course.

I’m convinced that with the right leadership, we can create a fresh start and move more effectively to accomplish our goals. Our troops have served with extraordinary courage and commitment. For their sake, and America’s sake, we must get this right. We must do everything in our power to complete the mission and make America stronger at home and respected again in the world.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

[Swaggs]

How do you know that Kerry, Gore, et al didn't party like a frat boy as well? (Or in the case of Clinton, party like it's 1996 - or dare I say with Kerry's mentor, party like it's 1969?).

In all seriousness, I am beginning to conclude that what the Dems are feeling and going through right now is exactly how those of us felt during the 1996 campaign.

I nearly put Clinton in my original post when I mentioned that charisma can go a long way in politics. I think the only differences are that Clinton also was in public view during the 70s and on, and therefore had a record of some sort built. His critics threw everything at him, and by and large due to his charisma, most of it did not stick. I can imagine conservatives were very frustrated by losing to Clinton with what were actually two of the most qualified candidates we have had run for president.

As for Kerry and Gore, I think you well know (and one of the critiques of both of them, in fact is) that they have been in public service nearly all of their lives. My point is that they seem to be held accountable for positions they took in the 1970s and 80s, while George Bush was out committing "youthful indescretions" well into his 30s. It has seemed to me in the past two elections, fair or not, that Bush began his adult life when he became a strong Christian and that his life before that point does not need to be accounted for.

[Solecismic]

So, Kerry launches his planned Iraq campaign today, and the big story of the day is CBS admitting Dan Rather's report bashing Bush was based on fabricated evidence.

Not the greatest timing in the world. But I guess it proves that CBS isn't completely run by Terry McAuliffe.

[CentralMassHokie]

As a Kerry supporter, I take no issue with calling him on the fact that he has yet to state a plan for Iraq. Granted, the situation in Iraq today is likely to be far different than it will be in January, when he takes office, but you'd like to see something.

I'm just baffled at the fact that many of the same folks think that President Bush has a plan for Iraq. Just this weekend, there were at least 2 folks who are known to basically parrot for the administration out pushing diametrically opposing plans for Iraq (Novak stating that Bush plans to cut and run in Iraq as soon as the elections are over, various Administration folks saying they plan to keep the force the same and are in it for the long haul).

The President has yet to articulate a plan for Iraq, other than that he doesn't plan to back down, which really isn't a plan.

This should not be a difficult issue for Kerry to frame. The speech above is a good start, especially with the very nice Hussein soundbite.

[Dutch]

So, Kerry launches his planned Iraq campaign today, and the big story of the day is CBS admitting Dan Rather's report bashing Bush was based on fabricated evidence.

Not the greatest timing in the world. But I guess it proves that CBS isn't completely run by Terry McAuliffe.

The left is totally screwing up this campaign. ;)

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Yes, that horrible liberal media owned by those leftist companies such as General Electric, Time Warner, and Disney.

[Dutch]

The President has yet to articulate a plan for Iraq, other than that he doesn't plan to back down, which really isn't a plan.


I think the plan is to stay in Iraq and provide security in order to implement a democratic society in the heart of the middle east. Once it gets international support and the situation stabilizes (after January elections), then troops could come back.

If terrorism is still a major issue, the military will take the brunt of the attacks. If we leave, terrorism does not go away. They just get to spend their resources on planning US bombings instead of wasting it all on funding terrorists in Iraq. Who do we want to be casualties in the War on Terror? The military or the civilians? And no, I won't believe you if you tell me there are no terrorists that are killing Americans.

I think the plan is bold and agressive.

Kerry's plan is to quit? I don't believe it. If he were elected President, he would be "brought in" to understand the situation to be quite different than TV politics would lead you to believe. This isn't Somalia. This is a massive untertaking that's already in full swing. In the War on Terror/War in Iraq, I don't care who is President, they will both do what is right for our nation.

[Dutch]

Yes, that horrible liberal media owned by those leftist companies such as General Electric, Time Warner, and Disney.

Is mayonaise an instrument?

[Glengoyne]

...This isn't Somalia. This is a massive untertaking that's already in full swing. In the War on Terror/War in Iraq, I don't care who is President, they will both do what is right for our nation.
This I agree with.

I don't think Kerry has any solutions to offer, but I have grown tired of Bush's lack of a game plan. I'm not switching my position to vote for Kerry, but I'm glad he is at least challenging Bush on some of the things he has done wrong. I do figure If I can listen to the second half of Kerry's speech and feel like he was addressing my concerns, then Bush might be in trouble if he keeps this up. Kerry is no longer preaching to the choir.

[duckman]

Yes, that horrible liberal media owned by those leftist companies such as General Electric, Time Warner, and Disney.
Of course, they can't be liberal based since they are owned by large companies. No liberal could be a liberal if they run multi-billion dollar business. :rolleyes:

[Arles]

First, the President has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don’t have to go it alone. It is late; the President must respond by moving this week to gain and regain international support.
This is new? Kerry keeps telling us that countries who's population despises the war in Iraq and who's administrations have promised their people they will never send one soldier to Iraq - are going pull an about face once he gets elected because he lets them bid on some oil job and says nice things. No rational person can actually believe Germany or France will send troops in under any circumstance, especially a quantity that would actually allow US troops to go home.

Second, the President must get serious about training Iraqi security forces.
Two things: First, they have been very serious about this and have made this a top priority for almost a year. Second, you have to be smart about training and vetting these Iraqi forces. The worst thing you can do is just hand weapons to any Iraqi that walks up to be part of a security force without doing some kind of check on that person. And, of course, that process takes time. Does Kerry have an idea on how to improve this process? Maybe bring in some Frenchmen to speed up the vetting, perhaps.

Third, the President must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people.
Huh? The president received the cash for the reconstruction plan about one year ago and has completely redone much of the infrastructure, put up numerous schools and hospitals, and allowed all kinds of businesses to reopen in Iraq.

It's not going to take a week to do all this. This is a process that takes time and of all the legit things to rip on in Iraq (managing spots like Fallujah, Najaf and others), I don't see the rebuilding of Iraq as being that far out of line. Heck, it took a decade to rebuild Germany with a population that essentially was 90% in favor of US involvement after the first few years.

Fourth, the President must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee the promised elections can be held next year.
Such as ...? It seems to me that the president has made this a major focus in the process and the US is doing everything in its power to make sure these elections happen. The UN says these elections are in Jeopardy - OK, they also said we could never remove Saddam and that there's no way the handover would go through. Again, what are some specific items that the president is not doing correctly in terms of preparing the country for elections?

This, IMO, is the only discernable theme to Kerry's foreign policy in Iraq:
The President should recruit troops from our friends and allies for a U.N. protection force. This won’t be easy. But even countries that refused to put boots on the ground in Iraq should still help protect the U.N.

I hate to break it to Sen Kerry, but there is no way France and Germany are going to send enough troops (even if Kerry did bribe the hell out of them) to even make a dent in what the US is providing. Plus, the UN has already pulled out forces multiple times because it thinks Iraq isn't safe. So, is Kerry saying that by sending in 10 frenchmen and a few germans that suddenly the fighting will cease and Kofi will OK the UN to return?

I think that Kerry does deserve some credit for atleast trying to address these questions, but this speech is no different than anything he has said to this point. He continually gives vauge references to areas where the president isn't doing a good job, yet refuses to offer even a general plan on how the US forces could be more successful in Iraq. And, when he eventually is cornered on a specific idea, he goes back to the "get the Europeans involved" montra. And, again, even if Kerry used some voodoo and all of Fort Knox in bribes to get them to actually send forces, it wouldn't even be 1% of the US troops currently there now.

I'm all for looking at ways to improve the process in Iraq, but I haven't heard one tangible idea that Kerry would do differently than Bush that leads me to believe the reconstruction would be going better or the security situation would be better under control or the elections would have a higher chance of happening.

[GrantDawg]

The flip-flopping came long before the convention (as did Gore's "stretch the truth" perception, both of which were talking points for Republicans months before they had an impact in the polls).

The swift boats commercials aired prior to the convention. Kerry should have ignored them, but it is a little unfair to act like he brought it on himself. He just did a horrible job of handling the criticism.

Kerry has changed his stance on Iraq about as often as Bush has on the war on terrorism (the Saturday before his convention he said the war on terror was not winnable, but when that caused an uproar he changed his tune just days later in his convention speech). Kerry has changed his opinion on the war in Iraq about as often as Bush has changed his opinion of why we should have invaded. The difference is that Bush has implemented a very organized campaign strategy of creating the perception that Kerry is untrustworthy because he flip-flopped (at about the time Bush flip-flopped on why we were there and how much it was going to cost-first asking for 87 and then publicly stating during the voting process that it wouldn't be enough, which he/Bush was right about).

The difference is not so much based on reality, but is based on perception. Kerry can't fight perception with an optimistic plan about Iraq, national security, economic reforms at home, etc... for the same reason that Gore was unsuccessful; because the Republicans had painted a picture of him as untrustworthy on all issues because he lied all the time (and at the same time when Bush made mistakes or said stupid things they passed it off as innocent errors). This was a great political manuevering by the Republicans.

The problem with the democrats is they believe that a flip-flopper that no one can trust can talk about the issues and win the election. He can't. He's lost all credibility on all issues because the flip-flopping perception transcends all issues. Thus, the only way for him to counter it is to paint Bush (successfully) as someone as untrustworthy as the perception is of Kerry. This works for two reasons: (1) It leaves moderates with the choice between two untrustworthy candidates (which is better than the current perception that we may disagree with Bush, but he always sticks to his word: which is complete bull) and (2) it undermines the trustworthyness of the source that is saying he is a "flip-flopper."

Kerry can't win on any issue if people can't trust him. He has to change the perception and that isn't accomplished by creating a "plan" on Iraq. It is accomplished by attacking the character and validity of the source of the perception that he is a flip-flopper.

Keep on drinking that Kool-aid, dude.

[Dutch]

This I agree with.

I don't think Kerry has any solutions to offer, but I have grown tired of Bush's lack of a game plan. I'm not switching my position to vote for Kerry, but I'm glad he is at least challenging Bush on some of the things he has done wrong. I do figure If I can listen to the second half of Kerry's speech and feel like he was addressing my concerns, then Bush might be in trouble if he keeps this up. Kerry is no longer preaching to the choir.

YES! Somebody agreed with something I said in a political thread. Let me write this down...

:)

[mgadfly]

Keep on drinking that Kool-aid, dude.
Ad hominem back at ya, dude.

[GrantDawg]

Ad hominem back at ya, dude.Well, you really weren't reading my post as much reading in. It wasn't worth continuing.

[GrantDawg]

Kerry is doing a very good job on Letterman tonight. He is much more comfortable in this setting than Gore was.

[GrantDawg]

And listen to him not just attack, but lay out his ideas. Hmmmmm....

[finkenst]

One Kerry criticism I've heard from the middle class is that every time he opens his mouth about entitlements, people start checking their wallets, because removing the tax cuts for those making over $200k isn't going to come close to paying for them.

The middle class doesn't want new entitlements, they want someone to step in and reverse the incredible recent increases in the cost of health care. That's going to take insurance reform AND tort reform. Neither party will do both, unfortunately.

I know I'm not voting for Bush. But Kerry has done nothing to gain my vote. I think his campaign stalled when people realized that both his Iraq policy and his domestic policy are "I'm not Bush."
i'm way behind on this..

but as a colleague of mine put it today:

"I can't afford to vote for Kerry."

[CraigSca]

Kerry is doing a very good job on Letterman tonight. He is much more comfortable in this setting than Gore was.

Too bad MNF is still on :(

[GrantDawg]

Too bad MNF is still on :(
He just now finished up. It was a pretty good showing over-all. Probably the best joke was when Letterman asked him about the "standing up/sitting down" arguement over the debates (Edwards wanted to stand during the VP debates, and Cheney wanted to sit).

Kerry said (best paraphrase): We made a compromise. Bush is going to sit on Cheney's lap.

[sterlingice]

i'm way behind on this..

but as a colleague of mine put it today:

"I can't afford to vote for Kerry."
To be fair, a lot of people feel the exact same but switch the name.

SI

[GrantDawg]

I also thought the top ten proposed tax changes by Bush. Two best in IMHO:

Every family that has two Presidents in it are exempt from estate taxes.

Dick Cheney can claim GWB as a dependent.

[GrantDawg]

Curse you messing up my dola, SI. *Shakes fist*

[sterlingice]

Curse you messing up my dola, SI. *Shakes fist* I'll dola you!*

Lisa: But Dad, I'm supposed to practice an hour a day!
Homer: I'll practice you!*
Lisa: You'll practice me...what does that mean? Is it supposed to be some sort of a threat?

SI

[SFL Cat]

Can't vote for a sports-poser like Kerry. I'm joining the "Football Fans for Truth" 527 organization.

hxxp://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-15-kerry-football_x.htm

[Arles]

Kerry is doing a very good job on Letterman tonight. He is much more comfortable in this setting than Gore was.
Let's just hope that Triumph the insult comic dog doesn't show up ;)

[duckman]

Let's just hope that Triumph the insult comic dog doesn't show up ;)
Kerry is a great presidential candidate....................FOR ME TO POOP ON! :D

[Vegas Vic]

http://members.cox.net/brettclark2/oil-schmoil.jpg
http://members.cox.net/brettclark2/enron2.gif

[Dutch]

"Mmmmm, this kool-aid IS delicious..."
*slurp*-*slurp*-*gulp*-*hic*......"


....excuse you. :)

[timmynausea]

I thought Kerry was awesome on Letterman last night. After the primaries I was basically planning to vote third party, but as time went on I switched over to the lesser of two evils vote for Kerry. The past month or so I think Kerry has looked a lot better. I'm getting to the point where I'm actually liking the prospects of voting for John Kerry instead of just voting against President Bush. This Letterman appearance just about put it over the top. I was really impressed. I'll be curious to see what the media says about it today.

[Buccaneer]

I thought Kerry was awesome on Letterman last night. After the primaries I was basically planning to vote third party, but as time went on I switched over to the lesser of two evils vote for Kerry. The past month or so I think Kerry has looked a lot better. I'm getting to the point where I'm actually liking the prospects of voting for John Kerry instead of just voting against President Bush. This Letterman appearance just about put it over the top. I was really impressed. I'll be curious to see what the media says about it today.
Let's see, a candidate goes on a comedy talk show, acts like a goof, participates in a skit...and that makes someone wants to vote for him? What's next, a boxers/briefs skit on MTV?

[timmynausea]

Let's see, a candidate goes on a comedy talk show, acts like a goof, participates in a skit...and that makes someone wants to vote for him? What's next, a boxers/briefs skit on MTV?
Did you watch it? (Probably not.) He talked about the issues a lot. Particularly Iraq. He was on for at least 20 minutes (maybe more) and about a minute of that time was spent on jokes.

[GrantDawg]

Did you watch it? (Probably not.) He talked about the issues a lot. Particularly Iraq. He was on for at least 20 minutes (maybe more) and about a minute of that time was spent on jokes.Exactly, and you can know he did not watch it because Kerry wasn't in a skit. He actually spent most of his time on issues, but threw enough Bush jokes (and CBS jokes which I thought was surprising) to make it entertaining. There is no doubt that it was a one-sided platform (Letterman wasn't exactly going to attack anything he said, and gave him some good softballs), but he still did a very good job with what it was.

[Buccaneer]

If presidential debates and conventions are not worth watching, why would being on a comedy show be anymore worthwhile? This goes back to the oft-criticized notion that Nixon didn't look good on TV therefore, not electable. Or that it's about charisma and celebrity-ism that gets one elected (e.g., Reagan, Clinton) or lack thereof (Gore). It's a long-standing bias that I have in that I prefer a business or military leader as president, not a charismatic TV personality. But I guess with this culture's obsession with TV and celebrities, it's no wonder that this becomes important.

By skit, I meant the Top 10 thing.

[Dutch]

Did you watch it? (Probably not.) He talked about the issues a lot. Particularly Iraq. He was on for at least 20 minutes (maybe more) and about a minute of that time was spent on jokes.

I didn't watch it, I was watching football. What did he have to say?

[Swaggs]

Top Ten List:

No. 10: "No estate tax for families with at least two U.S. presidents";

No. 9: "W-2 form is now Dubya-2 form";

No. 8: "Under the simplified tax code, your refund check goes directly to Halliburton";

No. 7: "The reduced earned income tax credit is so unfair; it just makes me want to tear out my lustrous, finely groomed hair";

No. 6: "Attorney General Ashcroft gets to write off the entire U.S. Constitution";

No. 5: "Texas Rangers can take a business loss for trading Sammy Sosa";

No. 4: "Eliminate all income taxes: just ask Teresa to cover the whole damn thing";

No. 3: "Cheney can claim Bush as a dependent";

No. 2: "Hundred-dollar penalty if you pronounce 'nuclear' instead of 'nucular'";

No. 1: George W. Bush gets a deduction for mortgaging our entire future."

[Buccaneer]

The last one should read, "Congress gets a deduction for mortgaging our entire future".

[GrantDawg]

If presidential debates and conventions are not worth watching, why would being on a comedy show be anymore worthwhile? This goes back to the oft-criticized notion that Nixon didn't look good on TV therefore, not electable. Or that it's about charisma and celebrity-ism that gets one elected (e.g., Reagan, Clinton) or lack thereof (Gore). It's a long-standing bias that I have in that I prefer a business or military leader as president, not a charismatic TV personality. But I guess with this culture's obsession with TV and celebrities, it's no wonder that this becomes important.

By skit, I meant the Top 10 thing.An effective leader needs to have strong charisma. Without it, he might have the best ideas in the world, but he will no one following him. That is not just TV. That is history. You can have some that succeeds without, but they are constantly fighting an uphill battle.

BTW, I watched the conventions and will watch the debates. Not everybody will, yet they will still vote. More people probably watched Letterman last night than did the conventions. Doing shows like that (and like Dr. Phil which both canidates are doing) have become very important in talking to the un-political voter. That makes it important. Bemoan it if you will, it is still a fact.

[Buccaneer]

An effective leader needs to have strong charisma. Without it, he might have the best ideas in the world, but he will no one following him. That is not just TV. That is history. You can have some that succeeds without, but they are constantly fighting an uphill battle.

BTW, I watched the conventions and will watch the debates. Not everybody will, yet they will still vote. More people probably watched Letterman last night than did the conventions. Doing shows like that (and like Dr. Phil which both canidates are doing) have become very important in talking to the un-political voter. That makes it important. Bemoan it if you will, it is still a fact.
Fair enough. I just get tired and cynical about it all.

[CamEdwards]

An effective leader needs to have strong charisma. Without it, he might have the best ideas in the world, but he will no one following him. That is not just TV. That is history. You can have some that succeeds without, but they are constantly fighting an uphill battle.

BTW, I watched the conventions and will watch the debates. Not everybody will, yet they will still vote. More people probably watched Letterman last night than did the conventions. Doing shows like that (and like Dr. Phil which both canidates are doing) have become very important in talking to the un-political voter. That makes it important. Bemoan it if you will, it is still a fact.

Just for argument's sake, I'm going to say that far more people watched the conventions than watched Letterman. Letterman got a 5.4 share last night. I believe Fox alone averaged a 5.2 for the Republican National Convention (and that was during prime time, when there are more viewers).

I was one of those who didn't watch, but then again, I wouldn't stay up late to watch Dubya on Letterman either. Glad he did well, but I wouldn't overestimate the importance of one tv show.

[panerd]

Just for argument's sake, I'm going to say that far more people watched the conventions than watched Letterman. Letterman got a 5.4 share last night. I believe Fox alone averaged a 5.2 for the Republican National Convention (and that was during prime time, when there are more viewers).

I was one of those who didn't watch, but then again, I wouldn't stay up late to watch Dubya on Letterman either. Glad he did well, but I wouldn't overestimate the importance of one tv show.

I won't overestimate one TV show either. But as far as 5.2 vs 5.4, I would figure the RNC audience was mostly Republican while Letterman would probably go more 50/50.

[Dutch]

I watched both equally....I think I gave both of them about an hour of my time.

[sterlingice]

An effective leader needs to have strong charisma. Without it, he might have the best ideas in the world, but he will no one following him. That is not just TV. That is history. You can have some that succeeds without, but they are constantly fighting an uphill battle.
Yeah, but he doesn't need tv charisma. The best guy at your work at getting people to do what they want may not be the most photogenic guy for tv. It's a different kind of charisma. It's not as if the president conducts his most important meetings via teleconference- he does it face to face and how he looks on tv doesn't translate in that way.

SI

[GrantDawg]

Yeah, but he doesn't need tv charisma. The best guy at your work at getting people to do what they want may not be the most photogenic guy for tv. It's a different kind of charisma. It's not as if the president conducts his most important meetings via teleconference- he does it face to face and how he looks on tv doesn't translate in that way.

SI
But, the people he is trying to convince is on the other side of the TV, not sitting in a board room. A modern president needs both TV and board room charisma.

[GrantDawg]

I was one of those who didn't watch, but then again, I wouldn't stay up late to watch Dubya on Letterman either. Glad he did well, but I wouldn't overestimate the importance of one tv show.
I'm not (never said that it would like swing the election). Also, as other pointed out, maybe not more people saw it than the convention, but different people saw it which is even more important.

[gstelmack]

http://members.cox.net/brettclark2/enron2.gif

Can someone please explain to me why Bush is blamed for Enron when most of the wrongdoing (and most of the other big corporate scandals) occurred during the Clinton administration?

[GrantDawg]

Can someone please explain to me why Bush is blamed for Enron when most of the wrongdoing (and most of the other big corporate scandals) occurred during the Clinton administration?
Because he was governor of Texas and friends with many involved.

[gstelmack]

Because he was governor of Texas and friends with many involved.

Is he still friends? I mean come on, this broke soon after he came into office, they investigated, people are on trial for it, and yet he still gets hammered? But Republicans get nailed for bringing up Whitewater, the Commodities scandal, and Chappaquidick where the Dems were directly involved? Give it a rest, folks.

[GrantDawg]

Is he still friends? I mean come on, this broke soon after he came into office, they investigated, people are on trial for it, and yet he still gets hammered? But Republicans get nailed for bringing up Whitewater, the Commodities scandal, and Chappaquidick where the Dems were directly involved? Give it a rest, folks.
In politics, nothing is ever given a rest.

[Dutch]

Can someone please explain to me why Bush is blamed for Enron when most of the wrongdoing (and most of the other big corporate scandals) occurred during the Clinton administration?

The power of suggestion is the biggest propaganda tool around.

[Swaggs]

Can someone please explain to me why Bush is blamed for Enron when most of the wrongdoing (and most of the other big corporate scandals) occurred during the Clinton administration?

Both sides were whores for Enron's money.

I think the main problem is that the Enron wrongdoers have somehow avoided any type of prosecution up to this point.

[Buddy Grant]

This whole attacking Presidential candidates thing is wearing on my nerves, and Bush should very vocally tear Kerry a new one for participating in the shameful practice. This isn't a time to for buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important, this is a time for steadfast resolve, and it's about time someone started acting like it.

[timmynausea]

This whole attacking Presidential candidates thing is wearing on my nerves, and Bush should very vocally tear Kerry a new one for participating in the shameful practice. This isn't a time to for buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important, this is a time for steadfast resolve, and it's about time someone started acting like it.
Buzzwords like "steadfast resolve"?

[Buddy Grant]

This message is hidden because timmynausea is on your ignore list.
Sorry, I have placed everyone with fewer FOFC forum posts than I have on my ignore list.

[gstelmack]

I think the main problem is that the Enron wrongdoers have somehow avoided any type of prosecution up to this point.

Yup, it took a bit to do the investigations. Let's plaster wrongdoing all over the place but make sure not to talk about where the investigations are at: http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/20/enron.merrill.lynch.ap/index.html (Jury selection is beginning).

[Glengoyne]

I think the main problem is that the Enron wrongdoers have somehow avoided any type of prosecution up to this point.
Isn't Lea Fastow doing time now?