What do you think of Jon Stewart's critique of Kerry tonight?

[coloradodem2005]

I fear that there may be some truth to what Stewart said, even though Kerry has my support 100%. The one thing my brother and I were talking about tonight is the concern that Kerry may be too much like Gore in that you have them; reasonably intelligent and stiff, as opposed to their opponent, stupid, but comes off as affable, though that is a facade.

But many feel that Kerry is not making the most of his airtime. I even feel that way a little. He has done some things really well, but he needs to pick up the pace. He is running against the most incompetent person ever to occupy the White House. There is no doubt in my mind that he could do well as president, especially compared to Bush. But he needs to convince everybody else of that. I have not always agreed with what he has done, but I believe him to be a man of honor. Bush is vulnerable. Kerry needs to smell the blood and strike. It is time. It is time to attack Bush. It is time for Kerry to make himself show how strong he is as a leader and a man. These people who are saying he is unfit to be C-in-C be damned. I know that I should not listen to the news. But, ironically, I take Jon Stewart more seriously than most "news".

[shraby]

1. Remember that old saying...

give them enough rope, they'll hang themselves. Looks like Bush and company are doing a good enough job of it without Kerry saying anything. After the Republicans are finished rolling in the mud, Kerry can come out with feel good ads and win the White House.

[patricia92243]

5. I agree. " See your enemy shooting himsef in the foot - don't stop him".

[komplex]

2. Difference between 2000 and 2004

For now, don't worry about Kerry, it's too early in the election cycle. The difference between 2004 and 2000 is that we are in serious times and we need a smart, serious person in charge, who can admit mistakes and learn from them.

I mean, unless the GOP has something that nobody knows about, there really isn't much left to attack Kerry on.

Kerry's been declared dead so many times he makes Jesus look like a slacker. :)

[huellewig]

3. I don't think Kerry can win for being Kerry..

This is for bush to lose. Bush must defeat himself. And I think he is off to a fine start. Hopefully the liberals get off the couch and go to the polls. I would vote for Kucinich before Kerry if those were the only options. We must mobilize and get our friends to the polls. And get the friends of our friends to the polls.

Lets get out and start talking politics!! It's time for a regime change at home!!

[coloradodem2005]

7. THe sad thing is, that makes Bush appear even more dictatorial.

In 1992, the results of the election were almost as much about Clinton winning as it was about bush I losing. In 1980, it was as much about Reagan winning as it was about Carter losing.

In 2004, it is all about Bush II shooting himself in the foot repeatedly until he finally has defeated himself. It devaluates the importance of Kerry who would reap the benefits from Bush defeating himself. He would be president for the next 4 to 8 years.

[RoyGBiv]

14. I'm not sure what you're getting at here...

Could you clarify?

The '80 and '92 elections were extremely complex, if for no other reason than the fact there were at least three viable choices in the general election. That altered the dynamic of the typical incumbent vs. challenger.

This year's election is complex in a way, but not in the same way. Aside from the extremely polarizing issues that have different factions so entrenched, we are currently dealing with the typical model. That model is almost always manifested by the election being the incumbent's election to lose due to the inherent advantages.

Not that I disagree with your overall point about how dictatorial the Shrub has become.

[coloradodem2005]

16. Well....

...generally with empires and dictators who run these totalitarian societies, it is the leaders to loose. Though these elections are generally the incumbent's to lose.

[Delano]

4. Fair and funny critique.

It's what Kerry needs- a swift kick in the pants. He needs to get in gear and set forth a clear message that "vision thing" Bush 1 lacked so much. He doesn't need to be over the top this early on, but he needs a CLEAR, CONCISE vision and theme. Something that is real-world, but also works in sound bites. I'm not sure what Kerry's real priority is, the thing that compelled him in the first place to seek public office. I hope that that thing was something a bit more than merely holding office.

I basically like Kerry. He's not exciting, but he's not as annoying as Gore was, and if he can tone down his tendency towards always wanting to have it both ways, while giving us some sort of sign that he really does feel some sort of passion about something, he'll be on his way.

Maybe he has all of these things, and it's just not getting across - I don't know.

[wubbathompson]

17. Jon Stewart is a damn funny host

I hope he never leaves Comedy Central like Kilborn did.

[FlemingsGhost]

6. Right on the money, as always.

It's simply not enough for John Kerry to not be George Bush.

Seeing it was John Stewart, perhaps the message will be recieved by the ABB/Kerry-by-default crowd.

[Jane Austin]

12. I am so frustrated with the American public.

The public is totally hung up on images and appearances.

Kerry is photographed all duded up in a bicycling outfit. Not just riding a bike, but all dressed up.

Bush gets photographed hanging his head out of a pickup truck. Granted, it's the only thing he knows how to do, but it resonates with regular people.

Now I don't care what either of them does for a hobby, but the image is everything in a political campaign.

Lose the professional cycling outfit.

We had a Republican candidate down here in Texas who started running spots about two years before the election of him riding a rearing horse while lassooing something-or-other .

Very dramatic. A man's man, for sure. Possibly the Marlborough man. Nothing irregular about him. Just the right image.

He won his statewide election, too.

Now the fact that it's an open secret that it turns out that he is gay doesn't make a whit of difference, because he LOOKS like a Tall Texan Cowboy. (No gays need apply for our state fantasy, thankyewverymuch.)

It does seem to me that as long as that's the way the game is played - - where appearances are everything - - that Kerry and Co ought to get with the program and TRY to look like somebody an engineer or foreman could identify with.

Roll up your sleeves, dammit! For God's sake loosen your tie! Muss up your hair once in a while. Wear a baseball cap or something. Why does that seem so hard?

[VolcanoJen]

8. On Monday night's show, just after savaging Bush...

... he said something like, "Calm down, I'm going to do Kerry tomorrow." :-)

It was fine with me, Kerry's fair game, and I chuckled a few times.

But not nearly as hard as I laughed when John repeatedly said "Reporter, I mean douchebag, Bob Novak..."

[coloradodem2005]

10. Yeah...

...I loved the way he went after Novak. He at least veils some of his feelings about Bush, but man, he hates Novak, there is no question about that. Joe Wilson was great on that show tonight too.

[ancillaryidealist]

9. accumulation

With the various Iraq issues dominating the newscasts I don't see much opportunity for Kerry to get any message across right now.

I don't see the major news networks showing a Kerry stump about Iraq or even on a domestic message when you have sensational news coming out of Iraq.

Bush is doing a fine job of getting a lot of negative publicity right now and hopefully it will begin to accumulate and drag him down.
a
I still believe there is more accumulation coming. Then unleash the campaign.

[Systematic Chaos]

11. Hello, and welcome to DU!

:D

[RoyGBiv]

15. I agree...

...and welcome to DU.

:hi:

:toast:

[Lexingtonian]

13. on closer examination: no, it's not time

The hardcore surveys done earlier this year before Nader got in say that 94% of people who are pretty sure or very they're going to vote have decided on which side.

The very first pollings were all 48-49% Kerry, 46% Bush. Since then the numbers say that Nader sucks 1-2% out of the last Undecideds and 1-2% from Kerry, and Bush's Approval rating (in practice the upper limit on his vote) has sagged to the 45% range.

Democrats have gained ~3% of the national vote every election since 1992. It has to do with new voters (generally immigrants and 20-year-olds) coming in and old ones dying. 43% in 1992, 46% in 1996, 48.5% in 2000 (with 0.5%-1.0% gone to Nader). Guess what the trend suggests for 2004. We will have a Presidency, if Kerry wins, that has a solid and real majority behind it of 52-45-3 (though differences in turnout rate may make the numbers seem closer or farther apart on Election Day). Bye bye all the rightwing domination since 1968.

This bankrupt Administration has spent four years tearing down the great edifice of built-up pro-Republican popular mythology, which is its political capital, and using it for firewood to keep their hot air ballon afloat. A very large amount got bundled into pushing the tax cuts and vanished when the middle class realized it got stuck with the bill and restructuring of the economy against them. Another very large bunch got bundled as the Iraq initiative, the outcome of which is: a messed up foreign country, a senile megalomaniac in chains, and another highway robbery of the American taxpayer.

After four years of this sort of political capital burnup Bush only has 9/11-related stuff left to run on. And the more the actual events and players get exposed, the more his 9/11-related support/preference numbers fall (just like everything on which his actual behavior has been exposed these days).

You are exactly right: Kerry has a good distance to go to prove his competence, and everyone feels- a bit sorely- that the case hasn't been made, and that Republicans are doing their part by keeping a good bit of media focus on "doubts" about his Vietnam medals.

But the Kerry campaign has a problem- if they focus on making the case for his competence and relevance now, that gives the media and Republicans a distraction from the factual breakdown of Bush's last points of strength in events on the ground in Iraq and domestic investigations of 9/11 and its handling.

So I think the present round of Kerry campaign ads is intended to deal with the problem you point out, at least in the swing states. In the solid Blue States I suppose the Kerry campaign thinks it can ask the voters to wait on trust until, well, August/September and see from the lack of effectiveness of Republican attacks that Kerry doesn't have serious weaknesses that matter. Basically, Al Gore was forgiven worse things of much the same flavor by much the same voters- they're not worried that this matters.

But the grassroots anxiety among Democrats is real, even where it is not realistic. But were I a campaign advisor, I think the Kerry camp is doing the right thing in letting Bush fight his losing battle with his record rather than give him a live target to distract from it. Bush needs a fight where he can break even, can claim some victory, how ever miniscule and easily reversed the next day. There's no point in handing that sort of Republican even one: starving and poisoning the egos of the depraved is far more effective in defeating them than engagement in cycles of concession and punishment.

So: the Bush Presidency dies when the excessive credit the Administration has gotten for "handling" 9/11 is used up. All that Iraq could give them is nearly used up, everything that pandering to big business and taxpayer greed and the Christian Right could give them is expended. And not only does the Bush Presidency die with the bankruptcy of GOP in political capital- so does Republican hold on Congress and a lot of their hold at the state level. In conclusion: we want the Bush Administration to continue to burn GOP domestic political capital up at the greatest possible rate- a real runaway wildfire beyond any of their control to limit it- and lose the Presidential campaign in November anyway. Chances are we can and will get both. But it comes at a price in building up Kerry, maybe even in feeling very sure about what we seem to have in him, for what may seem to be quite a long time.