Kerry's Past to Star in Bush's Ads

[maddezmom]

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 20, 2004; Page A01

~snip~

"The beauty of John Kerry is 32 years of votes and public pronouncements," said Mark McKinnon, the chief media adviser. McKinnon suggested a possible tag line: "He's been wrong for 32 years, he's wrong now."

Campaign officials said in interviews that they plan substantial positive advertising about the president, focused on his proposals rather than accomplishments, when they begin spending tens of millions of dollars on the airwaves next month. But they made it clear that many of the ads will accuse the Democratic front-runner of "hypocrisy," in McKinnon's word, in part by reaching back into his early career.

A 1970 Harvard Crimson interview in which Kerry said that U.S. troops should be deployed "only at the directive of the United Nations" will be fair game, the officials said. If they run ads about that period, they will probably focus on Kerry's high-profile opposition to the Vietnam War and comments about U.S. atrocities that could neutralize his record as a decorated veteran.

Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said: "These attacks and smears against us are just one more example of the fundamental need to change the direction of the nation from George Bush's extreme agenda to an agenda that meets the needs of mainstream America. And these attacks allow us to turn to real issues in response, which is precisely what the voters want to hear." As for the liberal label, she said: "The fact is John Kerry doesn't fit the mold Republicans throw Democrats in -- and they don't know what to do about it."

~snip~

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56111-2004Feb19.html

discussing now on CSPAN.

[ibegurpard]

1. snarf

"As for the liberal label, she said: "The fact is John Kerry doesn't fit the mold Republicans throw Democrats in -- and they don't know what to do about it.""
They sure as hell DO know what to do with it...point to his record and his recent attempts to run away from it and call it blatant political pandering...which is exactly what it is.

[59millionmorons]

5. still bitter?

nt

[ibegurpard]

8. yes

but I fail to see how that somehow invalidates Kerry having left himself WIDE OPEN to these kind of charges...the most obvious being the perennial IWR vote.

[molly]

2. Bring them on

BTW - this was posted in LBN yesterday.

[maddezmom]

3. thought I'd post since it was being discussed on CSPAN

:)

[papau]

14. Lowman abortion, cocain community servicein 72, AWOL, bin laden

connections, insider trading and SEC (just like Martha but with more evidence) and contributions for votes (dare we say bribe)

should be fun to watch the media pretend Bush is staying positive and forward looking, as his uncontrollable friends throw the dirt!

:-)

[maddezmom]

17. if bush goes dirty, he's in for the ride of his life

Dems are finally ready to play hardball with the GOP. I'm looking forward to the fight.

[emulatorloo]

4. I can't wait to see the ads about GWB's past

Will love the ads about the failed business, the champaign guard unit, the cocaine arrest, and all the lies.

There there is Rummy's past and his great love for Saddam Hussein.

The possibilities are endless if you through the others in the admin in the mix.

[union_maid]

6. Bring it on for sure

That's the kind of thing that's going energize Kerry and it's a dialogue we need to have anyway. The American public was made aware of atrocities by soldiers, often officers, and even some career officers who were horrified by what was happening. The right has made much of the bad behavior of the most immature, shallow and mob driven of the anti-war movement and continued to use their excesses to drive the wedge deeper. They were not most of us. Most of us decried a war where our young men were being brainwashed, pressured or forced by circumstances to commit acts that would likely haunt them all their lives. Concern about war crimes was not all for the victim. Thoughtful people were also genuinely concerned about what the aftermath of the war would bring on the heads of our soldiers. Nuremburg was a recent memory and we didn't yet know that the US was immune to such judgements. We did recall that "just following orders" was not a defense. We truly thought that our boys might be called to account for participation in acts that they, many still teenagers, lacked the judgement, power or authority to stop or even avoid.

[59millionmorons]

7. This is good for Kerry

This shows the people in Mayberry(WH) have no successes to run on.

[nonconformist]

9. Risky move for the Repugs

When you start comparing pasts, point by point....

Dumb Repug: "Waaa... Kerry may have fought in Vietnam, but he had the GALL to come back here and try to bring the rest of those soldiers home. TRAITOR!"

Informed Dem: "Where was Bush during Vietnam anyway? Oh that's right - he can't remember! By the way, how many times DID he get arrested for DUI?"

I'm still ambivalent on some of Kerry's recent votes and genuinely concerned on how this will play out - but really, bottom line, there is no way to compare Kerry and Bush's past. I hope that when Rove runs an ad showing that pic of Kerry and Fonda sitting at the same rally (think they'll note it was before her infamous visit to Vietnam and that they're sitting several feet apart?), Kerry's camp counters with a pic of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand.

[Raven]

10. This could be very bad for Kerry.

He has 32 years of votes and interviews and speeches and positions he's taken. I am sure there will be plenty of material for Rove. On the other hand, Bush has spent most of the last 32 years as the playboy of the western world. I think the Kerry campaign has to do two things:

Never be defensive! Kerry is not at his best when he is being defensive...he begins to parse his words and talk like a lawyer. He needs to respond by saying..."yes, that was my vote and it was my best judgment at the time and x number of Repubs votes the same way."

Go after the Bush team...these guys all have nasty histories. Going after Bush won't be good enough because he's as light as ashes and that was tried, and obviously failed, in the 2000 Campaign.

[ibegurpard]

11. Of course it's bad for Kerry!

Why do you think the IWR vote continues to be such a big deal? He could've taken the moral high road and worked like hell to spin it to his political advantage and instead he opted for what he thought would be most politically beneficial, leaving himself wide open to these kind of charges.

[Raven]

12. My intention was not to bash Kerry,

I was hoping that we could talk about the political tactics that would result in a Democrat in the WH. At the moment, it looks as if Kerry might be the nominee. Edwards would not have quite the same problem since he has not been in office that long. Assuming that Kerry gets the nomination, how can we blunt the Repub attacks...that was all I wanted to discuss. :-)

[ibegurpard]

13. Whether I could've worded it differently or not

it still remains that this vote and other recent stands contrary to his record HAVE left him open to these kind of attacks. I'll leave it up to you to decide how best to counter them since I freely admit I have no desire whatsoever to see Kerry as the nominee.

[Raven]

15. I understand where you are coming from and

respect your opinion, having said that, do you think it would be possible for you to allow a discussion of political tactics assuming Kerry is the nominee?

[ibegurpard]

16. By all means...go for it.

The reason I responded to you is because you seemed to be the only person in this thread with a realistic assessment of the situation. And with that I'll leave you to your strategizing.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

18. My opinion

Take it for what it's worth, this is going to be very bad, and very ugly. I will be sitting here holding my breath. I wish people would have thought about this BEFORE the rush to end the primaries was made. Hind sight is always 20-20 and we do it every time. If the repubs succeed with this strategy we will have no one to blame but ourselves. We just handed then a clear and glaring target and 8 solid months and a shit pile of unlimited money to accomplish their goal.

[emulatorloo]

19. "If we want to redebate the war on Vietnam in 2004, I'm ready for that."

Inside Politics 2-20

WOODRUFF: They are saying, in effect, you were accusing American troops of war crimes.

KERRY: No, I was accusing American leaders of abandoning the troops. And if you read what I said, it is very clearly an indictment of leadership. I said to the Senate, where is the leadership of our country? And it's the leaders who are responsible, not the soldiers. I never said that. I've always fought for the soldiers. In fact, not only did we oppose the war, but we proudly stood up and fought for the additions to the GI Bill so that vets would be able to use it. We fought for the V.A. Hospitals. I wrote the Agent Orange legislation with Tom Daschle. I helped with the post-Vietnam stress syndrome outreach centers.

I'm proud of the record of fighting for soldiers and for veterans. And the fact is if we want to redebate the war on Vietnam in 2004, I'm ready for that. It was a mistake, and I'm proud of having stood up and shared with America my perceptions of what was happening.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/19/ip.01.html