It's time to go on the offensive against Bush

[WI_DEM]

Things look good for John Kerry. On his post-convention swing he got huge and enthusiastic crowds. 20,000 in Grand Rapids, 15,000 in Harrisburg, Pa. and the biggest rally in Portland history--50,000. He is leading in most national polls by 2-4 points. State polls in key swing states are encouraging.

But the campaign is just heating up. Most Americans really don't pay attention until after Labor Day--actually many don't pay attention until late October or until the debates. We had our convention but the republicans still will have theres. We can count on the media to probably spin their convention in a more positive light than ours, imo.

Now the news in the past two weeks has not been on the agenda that John Kerry and John Edwards have been talking about as they campaign across the country. They have generally been positive and upbeat. This is good--to a point.

But the news has been dominated by the Bush campaign--Rove's themes. 1) That distorted book by John McNeal on the Switch boat. Yes, he has been slapped down by some in the media, including a stellar performance by Tweety. But remember a few years ago a book came out on the chimp "alleging" his drug use and other skeletons. The media came down hard on the author because he was a ex-felon (I believe he has since died) and the book was even withdrawn. That hasn't been the reaction to this book of lies. 2) Then Kerry fell into Rove's trap when he answered that question about whether he would still vote for the Iraqi resolution. He should have dismissed it by stating, "I don't answer hypothetical questions." 3) Then his statement about conducting a more "sensitive" war was distorted and has since become a minor issue. 4) Now they have a new attack ad on Kerry missing 75% of intelligence committee meetings. It got free exposure thanks to Tim Russert and MTP this morning. (Yes, I know only a few of these meetings are important, but Mr. and Mrs. Joe Sixpack may not see the nuance of that).

It is time for Kerry to take off the gloves. In only a couple of weeks the GOP will be dominating the airwaves and the time to act is now. He needs to go on the offensive.
1. Why when these chicken hawks are attacking a real hero like Kerry are we not having our surrogates bring up Bush's own lack of experience in Vietnam? That Bush specifically asked not to go to Vietnam--Kerry asked to go there. And about his AWOL status in the last year of his National Guard service? We have a better case on this issue than the republicans have with Kerry's service.

2. Why are we not being more aggressive in arguing that Bush misled congress, the American people, and the world community in making his case for the Iraqi Resolution?

3. Bush is labeling Kerry a phoney flip flopper. Bush's record and words are full of flip-flops and it would be easy to put together something showing Bush's words "a compassionate conservative" with his deeds.

I know that people say, don't rock the boat--everything is fine. He is ahead in the polls. But we can't just sit on a small lead. Dukakis (yes, I know that Kerry is a different candidate than Dukakis) had a 17-point lead after his convention but he didn't lose it overnight. It took several weeks and a republican convention where he was defined as the ultra left wing, ACLU supporting, soft on crime candidate. Kerry's lead is much smaller than that Dukakis had (true, it might also be more solid). Bill Clinton fought back against GOP charges and they had an effeicient "war room" which was so impressive that even a documentary was made of it. He didn't let Poppy Bush define the agenda--he made the agenda. And he did this while leading in the polls--from the period after his convention up until election day. We must define the agenda as well.

No, the sky isn't falling. But we haven't yet "closed the deal" on the election. Three months is a lifetime in politics (that's a cliche but its true). Rove is going to keep fighting in the gutter because it is the only way they know how. We got to show them we can be just as tough as they are and we will fight fire with fire. If Rove wants to make Kerry's military record the issue--then it should be open season on the chimps. And so on.

[soothsayer]

1. I think the debates will do * in for sure this time. Gore was a stiff

but Kerry is likeable and surprisingly charismatic. * has NOTHING to brag about. Kerry will destroy him, methinks.

[WI_DEM]

2. I agree the debates will be critical this year

and could define the election. We can't let expectations get out of hand for Kerry like they did for Gore. We should keep telling the media, "Bush has been president for nearly four years he has the edge." We should call the media on it if they start there usual dribble about Bush winning as long as he doesn't soil himself. Afterall, he is the president.

[xfundy]

5. The media will call it for Bush

just like last time, when he scoffed at Gore for thinking of Social Security as a "government program."

Why is everthing upside down?

[soothsayer]

8. listen, people will SEE the debates with their own eyes. I really don't

think they need the media to tell 'em what they saw. Really, I think * was a big fat loser BUT Gore sort of blew it, too. Just wasn't animated or charismatic in any way. We've seen Kerry go to town at the DNC. Shocked and delighted me! I'm verrrry hopeful.

[checks-n-balances]

3. I agree that Rove is still framing the "discussion" and calling the shots

regarding which topics will be "discussed."

Maybe your ideas can meet up with this one:

From Dem_Strategist:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x622688

A respnse:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x622699

[chuck555]

4. I don't think so.

Kerry 327/bush whatevers left. Its not the WWF. Its not Jessie Ventura or Mr.T. Its not the "ROCK".

[Kahuna]

6. I agree. Jeez. Since when is it a bad thing to point out your

opponents misleading statements and policies. Especially when he is hypocritically painting you that way and it's sticking.

[zulchzulu]

7. Don't sprint in the middle of a long race

Believe it or not, not that many people are following the sub-text of this election yet.

Wait until after Labor Day.

[volosong]

9. Yes, Rock the Boat and Write Letters En Masse

http://congress.org/congressorg/dbq/media/

Great link to news media. Don't forget to put your telephone number or they won't print your letter defeding Kerry.

Here's a rough draft of one about strong leadership, which I will have to shorten:

Some polls indicate that voters rate Bush has having stronger leadership qualities than Kerry. The purpose of this letter is to briefly analyze the historical characteristics of a "strong leader."

A generic list of great Presidents who displayed "strong" leadership skills might include Washington, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, JFK, and Reagan. While military experience does not guarantee Presidential leadership greatness (Grant, McKinley, Eisenhower), the most obvious shared characteristic is that 5 of the 7 had actual combat experience (Lincoln in the Black Hawk War). FDR was physically disabled, and Reagan did his fighting in Hollywood. None of the 5 went AWOL; and one (JFK) even used family and political influence to obtain a combat assignment and not to flee from it.

Another characteristic of this diverse group, is all politicians "flip flop," even outstanding Presidents. Bush too has a long list of flip flops. It is unclear that this is always a negative characteristic, and the case can be made that it is preferable to stubborn pursuit of an ill-conceived and poorly planned policy that kills people and costs billions.

Lincoln, FDR, and Truman presided over war as a stimulant to jobs and a general boost to the economy. Today we are waging a war with an anemic economy with increased unemployment, loss of jobs overseas, and a shrinking middle class financial base.

All wars were won utilizing restraint and "sensitivity." Lincoln and JFK were brilliant in this regard, with Reagan making great use of both in ending the Cold War. Dick Cheney's kindergarten remarks about "sensitivity" can only make us all thankful that far wiser and calmer minds prevailed during the Cuban Missile Crisis or we would all have died long ago. The absence of wisdom and sensitivity may be two reasons why our Iraq adventure has developed into such a thrombosed hemorrhoid.

The most universal characteristic of strong Presidents is that they embraced and encouraged science rather than hobbled it. Science saves lives, and made America the leader she is today. FDR did not comprehend nuclear fission, yet he aggressively promoted the Manhattan Project. In short, while they are not scientists, strong leaders are not science stupid.

The second almost universal characteristic of these strong leaders is that they did not govern with negativity. This is especially true of FDR in the midst of a world war with enemies patrolling and landing on our coasts. Yes, we did do some terrible things to Japanese Americans, but generally great leaders refrained from playing the Politics of Terror; issuing repetitive terror alerts, and other transparent gimmicks to convince the American public not to leave the G.W. Titanic.

Another characteristic of these strong leaders is that to my knowledge none ever disparaged or questioned the military record of the opposing candidate. Under the law the dictum is "silence means consent." So President Bush in refusing to condemn the anti-Kerry military ad is endorsing same. A new low in dirty politics and a dangerous game to play for someone who was hiding while the other man was fighting, and who violated military law by going AWOL. Where was George?

While it is true that during the Civil War Lincoln did suspend the writ of habeas corpus, none of these seven Presidents attempted to restrict civil liberties, free speech and due process in the manner of the present administration. This has always been characteristic of America's enemies and not her own Government.

And finally, a "strong" leader is not synonymous with a competent or successful leader. Competent and successful Presidents are usually perceived as strong, but strength without other variables is more a recipe for national disaster than success.

[mzmolly]

10. I agree. I posted positive poll numbers, but I never suggested

we "don't rock the boat"

I just think we don't have to freak out just yet is all ... :hi:

I have said over and over again we need to play offense NOW. My opinion on this matter hasn't really changed. But, I don't think I am in a position to be overly critical of the campaign either.

Kerry said in the primaries "you're either on offense or defense, and I prefer offense." I hope he still feels that way.

The Dukakis lead is different I think, as most voters IN THIS ELECTION, have their minds pretty well made up.