In an earlier post, I wondered whether Kerry shouldn't use a label like "warmonger" to go after Bush with something hard and specific that is "negative" without sounding negative.
Then Kerry comes out with his "W stands for wrong" line. That's the type of talk that is needed throughout the campaign.
And where are Kerry "surrogates"? Yes, the congressional GOP is at it again with gay marriage, flag-burning bans and more, but "safe" representatives, senators and Democratic governors need to be speaking more if Kerry wants to stay on a focused message yet portray the Bushian image of being personally above the fray.
A skeptical leftist's, or post-capitalist's, or eco-socialist's blog, including skepticism about leftism (and related things under other labels), but even more about other issues of politics. Free of duopoly and minor party ties. Also, a skeptical look at Gnu Atheism, religion, social sciences, more.
Note: Labels can help describe people but should never be used to pin them to an anthill.
As seen at Washington Babylon and other fine establishments
September 09, 2004
Kerry should emulate Humphrey, and now
In the last week of the 1968 presidential race, LBJ announced a halt on bombing of North Vietnam; at the same time, Humphrey came out more strongly against the current conduct of the war, and to a degree, even the war itself.
Humphrey significantly closed the gap in Nixon, but while it was not too little, it was in fact too late.
Kerry needs to take note.
Rather than blathering about intending to get most if not all troops out of Iraq within four years, he needs to talk about getting all U.S. troops out as soon as reasonably feasible.
Humphrey significantly closed the gap in Nixon, but while it was not too little, it was in fact too late.
Kerry needs to take note.
Rather than blathering about intending to get most if not all troops out of Iraq within four years, he needs to talk about getting all U.S. troops out as soon as reasonably feasible.
September 05, 2004
How should Kerry get tougher to win?
Warmonger might be the best word, tho Bush would point to not attacking either Iran or North Korea.More importantly, "warmonger" tied with the threat of more troops in Iraq for more years, etc... might be the one way Kerry can energize minorities and poor whites.And, if Cohen is correct on Bush/Rove going for a "mandate of one," Kerry *has* to boost turnout among strong Democratic leaners and Democrats.I'm not sure how possible that is, though. Kerry struck me as below average to perhaps average among the Democrats' primary hopefuls in the degree of his appeal to minorities.As for people suggesting he use words like "liar" and "mass murderer," huh-uh. Definitely the wrong strategy.You want to go negative without sounding negative.
September 03, 2004
Who's the Republican candidate for president?
I heard many more chants of "USA" than of "George W. Bush" or "four more years" in Madison Square Garden Sept. 2. I thought I was at the Olympics, not a political convention.
Well, to refer to Samuel Johnson, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Well, to refer to Samuel Johnson, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
August 06, 2004
If Kerry won't tell his "secret plan for ending the war," he could at least...
Come out and clearly say he will repeal Bremer's "100 Rules" if he is elected president.
But we haven't even heard this out of him.
I get the ever-more distinct feeling that, while Kerry is all too ready to slam Bush on anti-terrorism issues (and rightfully so, in many cases), he would love for Iraq itself to disappear.
He keeps repeating his Bush-lite mantra on the war itself, which simply won't fly with discerning antiwar voters such as this one. And eventually, the Bush campaign's carping about his "secret plan" may start to score points.
They are, after all, illegal under international law and so such a statement would fit squarely into his alleged internationalism. In addition, to the degree Bremer's rules beenfit a complany like Halliburton, it would let Kerry take shots at Cheney.
But we haven't even heard this out of him.
I get the ever-more distinct feeling that, while Kerry is all too ready to slam Bush on anti-terrorism issues (and rightfully so, in many cases), he would love for Iraq itself to disappear.
He keeps repeating his Bush-lite mantra on the war itself, which simply won't fly with discerning antiwar voters such as this one. And eventually, the Bush campaign's carping about his "secret plan" may start to score points.
August 02, 2004
Franks unapologetic, Kerry still war-lite
In a Parade magazine interview associated with the publishing of his new book, Tommy Franks remained unapologetic about the conduct of either the Afgahnistan or Iraq campaigns.
In the latter, he stood by rejecting the Powell Doctrine of massive superiority. He then went on to, in essence, fault Iraqis in general for the early post-invasion looting, overlooking that we had cowed security forces into skedaddling, abdicating responsibility, etc.
The interviewer didn't really ask about Afghanistan, but I'm sure Franks being the good soldier and Midland, Texas good-old-boy he is, is falling on his sword on that one too.
Meanwhile, John Kerry continues the war-lite theme, saying he "hopes" to have the majority of troops out of Iraq by the end of his (first) term. WIth he and Edwards boxed in by their Senate votes, they can do little else.
In the latter, he stood by rejecting the Powell Doctrine of massive superiority. He then went on to, in essence, fault Iraqis in general for the early post-invasion looting, overlooking that we had cowed security forces into skedaddling, abdicating responsibility, etc.
The interviewer didn't really ask about Afghanistan, but I'm sure Franks being the good soldier and Midland, Texas good-old-boy he is, is falling on his sword on that one too.
Meanwhile, John Kerry continues the war-lite theme, saying he "hopes" to have the majority of troops out of Iraq by the end of his (first) term. WIth he and Edwards boxed in by their Senate votes, they can do little else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)