PLEASE give me good reasons to trust that Kerry will beat Bush!

[maxr4clark]

I was predisposed to like Kerry, but I watched him a couple of times early on and couldn't figure out what I should like about him. He was completely unconvincing on TV that he would make any improvements in our country--and that was BEFORE I found out that he voted for the IWR and for the Patriot Act!

When Clark entered the race, I was impressed with what he has done; he has recently fought and ended a war much like the one in Iraq. I am certain Clark would beat Bush based on his experience and character; after having found out all I can about him, I have no doubt that he is of impeccable character and would make an excellent President. But Clark may not get nominated.

Now that Kerry is the clear front-runner, I want to know in detail why anyone thinks he will beat Bush--just like I wanted to know about Clark before choosing to support him. While there is still time to nominate someone other than Kerry, what I want to know is this: Is Kerry REALLY the candidate we want to nominate? Will he beat Bush?

To get to more specific questions about Kerry, why should I believe he can win the swing voters that will decide this election? What has he accomplished that he can point to in order to win their votes?

Kerry was in the Vietnam war what, 35 years ago? Is that STILL his most impressive qualification to replace Bush? Why did he seem so unimpressive and uninspiring for the first year of his campaign, starting off as the front-runner and never catching on while Dean's support grew and grew?

Why should I believe that Bush and Rove won't make mincemeat out of Kerry based on his past? Does he have a history of questions about his sexual behavior? If he does, Bush will just say "We don't need another Bill Clinton", and the election will be lost.

This is an honest question from a Democrat looking for reason to hope about our country's future, should Kerry get the nomination. If you can't convince ME that Kerry should be President, how will he ever convince enough swing voters to vote for him over Bush in November?

I am not setting you an impossible task. I prefer Clark to Dean, but I see things Dean has accomplished that make me think he might beat Bush. He balanced the budget in Vermont, even when he wasn't required to by law. He was against the invasion of Iraq from the start, like Clark was--not because he is against ever using violence, but because he didn't believe the invasion was justifiable. Dean is a very effective public speaker--not my type, but undeniably effective. So I see reasons Dean might be electable over Bush--and I also see reasons why he might not be. But Kerry will easily be labeled a tax and spend Democrat, is not an effective public speaker on par with Dean or Edwards, and voted for both the IWR and the Patriot Act. So what DOES he have to run on, that sets him apart from Dean and Clark and Edwards as the clear choice, who can convincingly defeat Bush?

[Melodybe]

1. Dems will unite by Nov. regardless, ABB is the slogan, we won't forget it

I know people are still holding on to their candidates but only one guy can win the nomination. If you can't completely let go of your first choice, remember that our candidates are not going anywhere, they can run again in 2008, maybe America will be ready for them. Baby steps.

[fearnobush]

3. ABB is the victory sign. Kerry, when he brought out a

Republican Green Beret vet that he rescued in Nam, Bush's numbers dropped 11 points. The vet also changed his registration to vote Kerry in the Washington win. Kerry is war hero, Bush is an AWOL vet.

[Wonk]

2. Bush's Skull & Bones nickname was "Temporary".

:tinfoilhat:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Skull+Bones+Bush+Temporary
:tinfoilhat:

;-)

:shrug:

[ComerPerro]

4. Simply put

Bush is a stupid, drunken moron who, despite three years of training, still can't string together more than ten words without sounding like a complete fucking idiot. He has lost some of the votes he picked up in 2000 as some of his supporters are realizing what a Miserable Failure he is.

No one who voted for Gore will vote for this idiot. And I am certain that many people who voted for Bush won't make the same mistake twice. Now, as long as everybody here agrees to play nice and vote for Kerry if he wins then nomination, then there is no reason we should not win (barring any shady incidends with BBV or the SCOTUS).

[Shanty Oilish]

6. Simply and beautifully put

Thank you! Take 2000. Add to Bush column those voters who voted for Gore and regret it. Add to Kerry column those who voted for Bush and regret it. Add those who voted for Nader to Kerry column. 2004 to Kerry.
If we lose it's our fault this time.

[w13rd0]

9. "If we lose it's our fault this time"

You have far more confidence in your candidate than others might have. Yes, if we lose this time, it will be your fault. Who is the "our" you are referring to?

[maxr4clark]

12. None of that recommends Kerry as the nominee.

[Casablanca]

26. So why not vote for Dean, or Edwards, or Clark, or Kucinich?

They're anti-drunken Frat Boy too.

You really don't have a positive thing to say about Kerry that isn't a meaningless media mantra ("war vet", "more electable") do you?

Your reasons are way too simple.

[Shanty Oilish]

5. Because Clark will promise you Kerry will beat Bush

as soon as Kerry becomes the nominee, if not sooner. All the Democratic former candidates will say it. When Clark says it you'll know it must be true.

[maxr4clark]

16. If you put so much stock in the opinions of former candidates

then you should have gone with Gore's endorsement of Dean. What swayed you to support Kerry?

[Shanty Oilish]

18. I don't put any stock in mere words

Which is why I support Kerry.

[abracadabra]

7. the media told us he is our candidate-get over it !!

and let's move on.
The media decides things for us and that's just how it is.
Now that's just the way we do it nowadays and get with the times !!
The media says "John Kerry is the ONLY candidate that can beat Gorge DubbleYou Boosh" and I believe them!!
What's wrong with you people who think differently??
Why can't you just "get over it"and join the "in" crowd.

We luv Murika.
and Murika's media luvs Gorge "DubbleYou" Boosh--that's who they have decided will win!
GET OVER IT !!!
It's ok for you to vote--that's what this cuntree 's all 'bout...but we're not gonna base our policy on a "focus group"****so vote away (it's kinda cute)and we'll take care of the rest don't you worry...

[Old and In the Way]

8. First, you should go to Kerry's website and see what he lists as

his accomplishments. While they will accentuate the positive and play down the negatives, that would at least get you somewhat familiar with Kerry and his record.

Personally, I've followed him since his VVAW days and I was struck then with his leadership qualities.

(1) He's law school trained and been a DA.
(2) He's a product of Mass. campaigns/elections. Never lost, either. He's tough, no softball playing there. His last election with Weld was a real heaveyweight bout.
(3) He's been progressive on the issues. Republicans will paint him as a liberal, the Left is painting him as a neo-conservative, somewhere in the middle lies the truth. Left of Clinton is a safe bet.
(4) I am unaware of anything that would arise to scandel level...his record has been scrutinized to the nth degree in 3o years of electoral politics. Well, there's terrible secret, Skull and Bones.


For me, it's leadership and appeal to broad segments of all voters. I think Clark has that intangible, too.

[maxr4clark]

13. Thank you for a sensible reply. What is his website?

[BruinAlum]

15. Here ya go

http://www.johnkerry.com/

[maxr4clark]

20. Thanks, let's take a look

I'm taking a first look at his website, and giving my initial reactions. If you think I'm skimming too much or being unfair, I think on the contrary that I am taking a deeper look than most voters will, even if they make it to his site; and I am giving you my honest impressions, both good and bad.

My first stop is the "On the Issues" section, in order down the page:

Restoring Jobs and Rebuilding our Economy: talks about Bush and about his plans and priorities; no accomplishments mentioned. I'm skipping the plans and priorities, because every candidate has those, including Bush, and which candidate you prefer for those is a matter of personal choice. Swing voters especially are just as likely to choose Bush as Kerry on these.

Winning the Peace in Iraq: talks about his plans. There's a sidebar that "explains his vote on Iraq": i.e. against the $87 billion. No mention of voting for the IWR? That's an admission that he isn't proud of that vote.

So he helped get us into the most ill-advised military action since Vietnam, and protests it when the troops are in danger. It doesn't seem like he learned the lesson of Vietnam to me! These are the kinds of "accomplishments" that make me worry he will lose.

Access to Affordable Healthcare: Author of the most comprehensive HIV/AIDS bill to ever pass the Senate. Now that is a good accomplishment, the kind of thing I'm looking for.

Defending America's Homeland: Plans and priorities, no accomplishments.

Strengthening America's Schools for the 21st Century: Plans and priorities, no accomplishments mentioned.

A Cleaner and Greener America: Before looking at this, I know that Kerry has been endorsed by a major environmental group. That counts in his favor (but no mention of it on his page?). The page says he has fought "to clean up toxic waste sites, to keep our air and water clean, and to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other pristine wilderness areas." I would have liked more detail, like defeating a noxious bill or authoring some legislation. Taking sides is good, but not enough to show me he has what it takes to get something done as President when faced with a Republican-controlled Congress.

Endorsed by Congressman Earl Blumenauer. Who? Is this a member of the House from his own state? No details given; not impressive.

A Principled Foreign Policy: "A Proven Leader". This looks good. 18 years on Senate Foreign Relations committee. Decorated combat veteran--yeah, I'd heard that a few thousand times. Son of an American diplomat: so what, GWB is the son of a former President. All that means to me is that both of them have been raised to think they're better than the rest of us.

Beginning with his groundbreaking work on the Senate investigations into the Iran-Contra and BCCI scandals, Senator Kerry has taken on complex and challenging issues, earning a bipartisan reputation for integrity and perseverance. As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, Senator Kerry traveled frequently to Southeast Asia to investigate the fate of missing American soldiers, laying the groundwork for normalization of diplomatic and trade relations with Vietnam. He has continued to play a prominent role in formulating U.S. policy in the region in his role as ranking Democrat on the East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee. This is all good.

In 1997 Kerry wrote The New War, an in-depth assessment of the national security issues facing the United States in the 21st Century. Drawing on his extensive Senate experience, including a term as chairman of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations, Senator Kerry played a key role in crafting the American response to the events of September 11th, and he has since been a leading Democratic voice on developments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the fight against terrorism, and the Middle East peace process. This is bad. He clearly knows what is up in national security, which is good, but he voted for the invasion of Iraq. Not only does that mean something to me, but any swing voter who would consider not voting for Bush is likely to be against the invasion of Iraq. So Kerry took all his knowledge of Vietnam and national security, and voted for invading Iraq anyway? Very poor judgement.

[sandnsea]

10. Nobody can beat Bush

It's all over. We should all go and drown ourselves. Come on out to my town, lots of tall lovely cliffs we can jump off of together.

Because if all we're going to do is sit around and cry and make excuses, there isn't any way to beat Bush.

[maxr4clark]

14. With all due respect,

I gave you reasons to support Clark, not reasons to jump on a bandwagon. Swing voters who will jump on a bandwagon will choose to support the incumbent, not the challenger. The challenger needs convincing reasons to sway swing voters.

If any Democrat will beat Bush this year, then Kerry will win. Frankly I was hoping for a more substantive reason to have hope that Kerry will win. I don't want to count on Bush to lose on his own.

[sandnsea]

27. It's been provided

For almost a year now. These kinds of posts are just bashing, they serve no other purpose. I'm tired of playing. If you can't watch Bush's poll numbers go up and down depending on who's going after him, and draw conclusions on who's affective at pummelling Bush, then I'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise.

And with the hateful attitude around here, I suspect the left will destroy Kerry and give Bush the win, so I'm beginning to not even care anymore.

[Old and In the Way]

32. If I cared, whichI don't, I could go to Clark's website

(or any candidate for that matter) and highlight statements, then add editorialization with my own biased slant. Are you saying that Clark has no warts? That no Democrat doesn't have unique weaknesses that can be exploited? Certainly, his legislative record is unknown, so that is an advantage, I suppose.

Ok, so I fell for it. You obviously had no intention to really consider Kerry, just a rather creative way to turn this into a pro-Clark, anti-Kerry thread. Touche!

[He loved Big Brother]

11. Sad, when "ABB" is the only way to guarantee a win for your guy

Issues should be enough. In my dreams.

[Casablanca]

28. I'm not so much anti-Kerry as anti- his supporter's rationalizations ...

Because those rationalizations all reduce to a naive belief that Bush anger is so rampant in this country that Carrot Top could win in a landslide.

I have yet to hear a Kerry supporter convincingly argue why a fiscal conservative who hates Bush but will not vote for a "left of Ted Kennedy" voting record will (or even should) sell out to voting for his ideological enemy.

And no Dem candidate has ever gotten into the Oval Office without their support.

I'm beginning to suspect that they don't because they can't, but they just don't want to admit it. When Dem candidates and supporters work so effectively for the Republican corporatist cause, Dean's "closet Republican" accusations start making a lot more sense.

[nonconformist]

17. I wish I could, but I'd love to know this myself

Every day, I hear these two talking points in favor of Kerry beating Bush: he's "electable" (whatever the hell that means) and everyone will be ABB anyway so roadkill could beat Bush at this point.

I don't happen to agree with either stance personally. I don't hate Kerry, and of course he'd be better than Bush, but I think that nominating Kerry is sadly leaving behind the anti-war fervor. He can criticize it all he wants, but all Bush has to do in a debate is thank Kerry for his vote on the IWR and it loses a lot of steam. There are a lot of people out there that got interested in politics for the sole reason of being against the Iraq war - not to mention all of the people it's energized that were previously just going through the motions and (while this number may be low, it does exist) Republicans that were against the war.

I sure hope Kerry can beat Bush and if he gets the nomination (which according to the 'media', he's got it locked up already) he's got my vote - but I can't help feeling ignored, forgotten, frustrated and disappointed, and not just because my first choice isn't the nominee. It goes much deeper than that.

[RetroLounge]

19. Democrats will vote for a Houseplant before bush*

and they are proving it now.

[Robb]

21. What Democrats have to decide

or determine, and what they apparently haven't decided or determined, is which group is bigger:

- The dissatisfied conservative voter bloc that would vote for someone they see as a "centrist" like Kerry; or

- The newly-motivated "liberal" bloc that would vote for someone like Dean.

I know this is grossly oversimplified, and the labels don't fit properly with folks current on the issues, etc. etc. etc. But I think this is a question that the Democratic party has to address. Or perhaps they have already, and the answer is the first group. :shrug:

Still, while I prefer Dean, I will vote for Kerry. I've watched enough of him, and read enough of his stuff, to think he'll be a damn fine President. :thumbsup:

[maxr4clark]

24. In what way is Kerry a centrist?

He is more liberal than Dean is on the issues, and by their voting records. The only "centrist" thing about Kerry is that he voted for invading Iraq. That wasn't centrist, that was just a mistake.

[ramapo]

22. Trust won't beat Bush

Hard work and money will...

Kerry will be the recipient of vicious attacks. Each attack must be repelled. Kerry knows this and will not allow any attack to go unanswered. If he fails at this he will lose. This is not just a Kerry-specific problem. Edwards, Dean or Clark would each be a target tuned to their record (or lack of).

Kerry is smart and speaks well. He is not a great orator but he can speak coherently which is certainly more than GWB can do.

Kerry is not perfect but he can and must win.

He will need our financial and political support.

[maxr4clark]

25. This isn't very convincing of anything!

IMO Clark has less to attack than Kerry, so he can focus more on issues; and on the issues, Bush will lose. So let's nominate Clark rather than Kerry.

Clark is smart and speaks well; he is not a great orator but he can speak coherently which is certainly more than GWB can do. Kerry has no advantage over Clark here; and Dean and Edwards are both good orators, so they have an advantage over Clark and Kerry here.

Whoever we nominate will not be perfect, but he must win. What I'm asking you for is why you think Kerry can win, and can win more surely than the other candidates.

Whoever the nominee is, he will need our financial and political support. Kerry needs our financial support less than any of the other candidates, and our political support won't amount to anything compared to his connections in the Democratic party. Kerry as our nominee doesn't motivate me to do anything but vote for a Democrat.

[PATRICK]

23. People's choice

Convincing the Dem primary voters is different form the general electorate, but if decisive and not simply by lack of choice, it carries strong indicators that the candidate is a strong alternative for change. If the electorate is down on the incumbent who has fixed negatives they need assurance more than enthusiasm that they will get better. In either case Bush's base is discouraged, stays home. Kerry has seemed to me to have improved message and contact within his own framework with solid work not shallow image refashioning. Kerry's heroism is not made of shiny medals but a solid inner quality that I think people catch, especially since the contrast has now been made to action toy Bush.
In a solid sense there is no argument they can use against him that will wash. Already they are doing more damage to themselves than anyone else.

Were they to attack the others, and they have, there might be some big thing like lack of this or that experience. Kerry seems to stride the range even if he isn't as strong as one or the other candidates in a particular way. When someone brings this up as a "weakness" I think back to our famous losers of the past. Somehow he projects a strength and smart fighter aura that would make me choose him over Gore, Carter, Dukakis...just about anyone we've run with except the Kennedys. The fact that he has fought through a tough primary field now means it is just not me, though I am an Edwards supporter. When Dean was the frontrunner I was wishing him well and lamenting for all his status he was not getting his real strong points out very well. Kerry had mystically vanished from the idiot media radar, but had not shrunk personally at all.

It's an odd effect. The strange uniqueness of the times elected Carter, nearly squelched JFK who had to play hawk until his death, gave Mondale no chance in hell so he committed political harakiri to see what might happen, were never soft enough to elect a soft candidate like Dukakis, gave LBJ a legacy he never could have earned, and on and on. Then just do a rundown of the GOP roster over the years, a steady decline except in the opportunistic coup department and marvel how anyone ever could have trusted any of them. I think we the people had better look to our own flaws and power. Maybe then we can work to getting the better choices the world really needs. Any of our top candidates would be a giant step in the right direction and they are all exceptional and committed public servants.

[flpoljunkie]

29. maxr4clark, did you read this:How JK Won Over Macomb County, MI Dems

How John Kerry Won Over Macomb County Michigan Reagan Democrats

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=cohn020904

Workable

by Jonathan Cohn

Only at TNR Online
Post date: 02.09.04

Warren, Michigan

John Kerry's campaign swing through Michigan on Friday showcases the support of almost every big-name Democrat in the state, from Governor Jennifer Granholm to Congressman John Dingell. But at a late morning rally in Warren, the person who makes me most optimistic about Kerry's political potential is a guy in the audience wearing a black biker t-shirt. His name is Chuck Kulikowski, and his shirt bears the emblem of American Bikers Aiming Toward Education, a group that crusades against helmet laws and other "motorcycle-unfriendly" legislation. (Motto: "Let Those Who Ride Decide.") Yet while Kerry is a well-known Harley Davidson enthusiast, Kulikowski says it wasn't the senator's interest in motorcycles that drew him to the Friday event. Instead, he says, it was Kerry's desire to drive President Bush from the White House--a desire Kulikowski shares fervently. "He's too rich, too arrogant, and he thinks he's running the world," Kulikowski says of the president. "He does what he wants, and doesn't care what other people think."

You expect to hear those sorts of things at a Democratic campaign rally, but not from a guy like Kulikowski and certainly not in a place like Warren, smack in the middle of Macomb County. A northern suburb of Detroit, Macomb is legendary for its large population of "Reagan Democrats"--white working-class voters who abandoned the Democratic Party in the 1980s because it had veered too far to the left. And Kulikowski is an almost perfect Reagan Democrat specimen: Having voted for Reagan during the 1980s, he tends to agree with Republicans on hot-button issues like abortion and gun control. But even after I point out all the issues on which he seems to disagree with Kerry, Kulikowski says he likes what he sees. "What good is a gun if you don't have a job?" says Kulikowski, a 57-year-old unemployed toolmaker. "You can't buy the bullets."

It's no great secret that white working-class voters in heavily industrialized states like Michigan, Ohio, and Missouri could propel a Democrat to the White House in 2004--just as they did in 1992, when Bill Clinton won back Reagan Democrats with a campaign based around the catchphrase, "It's the Economy, Stupid." The problem for Democrats is that Kerry, whose 35-point victory in the Michigan caucuses makes his nomination appear ever closer to inevitable, seems so conspicuously ill-suited for the task. Unlike Clinton, who regularly broke with his party's leadership over issues like affirmative action and welfare, Kerry has an impeccably liberal voting record, one that Republicans are already starting to mock. And unlike his current chief rival, John Edwards, Kerry has about as much rapport with the average American as fellow Yalie William F. Buckley.

<snip>

Then again, working-class authenticity doesn't seem to matter to the Macomb voters I meet. They are so annoyed at President Bush--for his failure to save their manufacturing jobs and preoccupation with foreign affairs--that they'll embrace even a mechanical New England liberal like Kerry. "I like anybody but George Bush," says Jeff Terry, 33, who works at the nearby Ford axle plant and describes himself as an independent. Just as I did with Kulikowski, I start running through the standard lines of attack against Kerry--he voted against the federal defense of marriage act, against the partial-birth abortion ban, for NAFTA, and so on. Terry shrugs. "Me, personally, I'm more concerned with my job. And I hope that people don't get sidetracked with the other issues." But what about the war with Iraq, supposedly President Bush's trump card with blue-collar voters? "I wouldn't want to give up on the troops," Terry says, "but to think that we were led there under such false pretenses...."

__________________

Try as he might, Jonathan Cohn just can't seem to talk these Reagan Democrats out of their support for John Kerry. Indeed, it has been widely reported that Kerry has been winning across all demographic voting groups in the caucuses and primaries so far completed.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

30. I wouldn't want you to trust that any Dem will beat Bush.

That might lead to overconfidence. I would urge you to work as hard as you can for your chosen candidate, and then to work as hard as you can for the Democratic nominee whether it is your candidate or not, and never to 'trust' that he will beat Bush.

[bain_sidhe]

31. Sadly, I have come to the conclusion

that none of this matters. Kerry (or Clark, or Dean, or Edwards) will beat Bush if that's what the media wants. Bush will beat Kerry (or Clark, or Dean, or Edwards) if that's what the media wants.

I see some hopeful signs. The media is making a fairly concerted effort to drive Bush's numbers down, and to not be too hard on Kerry. This could be a signal that they're as appalled as I am at what Bush has done (although probably for different reasons than I am). I think that perhaps even they see that Bush is bad for the country, and ultimately, that's bad for them in terms of the "wealth" available for their corporate masters to loot. So, it could be that they're ready to throw bush to the wolves, as evidenced by all the bad press they're giving him and the (relatively) glowing treatment they're giving Kerry.

Unfortunately this is the exact same strategy they'd use to insure that Kerry was the nominee so that they can "take him down" after he gets the nomination.

Which is it? Your guess is as good as mine.