One thing missing from Kerry's talking points

[Goldmund]

(Sorry to repost this -- I mistakenly posted it in GD instead of here:)

...is that he should PRAISE the people of Spain for their bravery in voting out the Conservatives in the wake of the bombing, and not cowering by "rallying around the leader" who got them into the Iraq mess. He should commend the Spanish at least as intensely as the Republican attack dogs smear them.

I think one major thing is being missed by most Democrats: the Republicans are calling the Spanish "cowards" not merely because they're dismayed to lose one of the few allies in the Iraq war, but because they're drawing a thinly-veiled analogy with the US elections. It wouldn't fly to say "Voters who don't vote Bush in November are cowards", but the spanish-bashing is a "PC" equivalent of the same sentiment. If the Spaniards voting out the Conservatives is "a victory for the terrorists", then why would voting out Bush not be the same?

This is coordinated with the "Who do you think terrorists would want to win, Bush or Kerry?" and similar lines, as well as the "Kerry says foreign leaders suport him" (read: it would be a victory for the foreigners and a loss for Americans to elect Kerry) story. They're cooking up a propaganda strategy to paint Bush as the Americans' American candidate, and Kerry as a crony of the elitist, appeaser foreigners, whose election is in the interest of terrorists; they're trying to paint Kerry as the "foreign" candidate and his campaign as the arm of foreign pressure on the US, that it would be strong and patriotic of American people to not "bow" to this pressure, to resist it, and thus elect Bush.

I think that's how the "Kerry definition" phase of the campaign is planned out by these bastards. And Kerry needs to confront it head-on, and be consistent. If he thinks that Americans would be brave to elect him, then he must think the equivalent of the Spaniards, and he should say so.

[Abe Linkman]

1. Excellent insight and THINKING

Very well done. Thank you.

[tobius]

2. So, what is your suggestion?

"This is coordinated with the "Who do you think terrorists would want to win, Bush or Kerry?" and similar lines, as well as the "Kerry says foreign leaders suport him" (read: it would be a victory for the foreigners and a loss for Americans to elect Kerry) story. They're cooking up a propaganda strategy to paint Bush as the Americans' American candidate, and Kerry as a crony of the elitist, appeaser foreigners, whose election is in the interest of terrorists; they're trying to paint Kerry as the "foreign" candidate and his campaign as the arm of foreign pressure on the US, that it would be strong and patriotic of American people to not "bow" to this pressure, to resist it, and thus elect Bush." - that's a good take, but what strategy do you have in mind to turn that around?

[Goldmund]

4. Ultimately --

-- that it is patriotic to oust Bush. Ultimately. Of course, that battle has to be fought on many fronts. I gave an example here -- he should praise the Spanish for voting out the Conservatives, or at least strongly dissasociate himself from the "terrorists won in Spain" garbage. The PEOPLE won in Spain.

But again, it's a battle on many fronts. He should emphasize his foreign support, but in the context of debunking this general Republican anti-foreign sentiment; he should point out that it is patriotic to work for an America that is a good global citizen and that it is patriotic to work for a strong global community.

Also, the anti-intellectualism -- you know, Kerry is an aristocrat because he actually reads newspapers and can pronounce words with more than 6 letters -- he needs to combat that. This idiotic idea that real Americans are rough straigh-shootn' black-and-white-thinking cowboys and that intelligence and education (think "fuzzy math", which actually worked) are essentially unamerican.

He is doing some of what I'm suggesting, but not forcefully enough IMO. The Bushies are after defining him as the foreigners' candidate while Bush is the Americans' candidate. And they are using cultural divides as much as the ideological. Before they are succesful in defining him that way, he needs to counterpunch, and do it hard.

[tobius]

5. ok, sounds alright, but here at DU people are freaking that spain's new

leader zapatero is endorsing kerry.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x428169

and he is distancing himself from deans comments- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x466959

now he is also stating he voted for the 87 billion dollar bill and against it.-"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it," http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/17/politics/campaign/17CAMP.html?hp

this is all in the last 24-48 hrs. part of the problem is kerry's own statements.

[Goldmund]

6. I absolutely agree.

I just gave my 2 cents on how the counterattack should be handled. Kerry of course should be at the helm of that counterattack. I'm not terribly happy with how he's handled it so far either.

[BurtWorm]

8. Excellent question, tobius.

Damn good question. People who want Bush out should give it a lot of careful thought. :evilfrown:

[SheilaT]

3. Ever since Bush seized power,

he and those around him have been willing, even eager, to isolate themselves and this country from the rest of the world. From day one they made it clear they were willing to go it alone on anything and everything. None of that has changed.

Much of what has transpired in that time has served to cut off most ordinary citizens from any real knowledge or understanding of the rest of the world and how it perceives world events and the behavior of this country abroad.

These attacks on Kerry, of aligning him with foreign leaders hint quite clearly at treasonous behavior on his part. These attacks and this association of Kerry with treason will only increase. We can only hope that enough Americans will see through this, and that enough of them will be so eager to get Bush and his minions out of power that they won't be coerced into "re-electing" Bush.

[info being]

7. Right, or a "Are you going to let terrorists rule your life"

approach...suggesting we should build the country we want...and letting the terrorists have any influence in our vote is letting them win.