How is Kerry going to approach the GOP Q&A on his past votes?

[papau]

Kerry has been my horse in this race for a long time, but Mike Moran points out some questions that folks like us at DU might want to think about.

Kerry has a great - IMHO - well-documented record in the Senate, and in fighting in the VietNam war (the war that had begun with Ike's Dulles killing the vote in the South that was called for in the 54 Geneva agreement that cut up Indo-China into Cambodia, Laos, North and South VietNam - after Ho won the vote in the North - because Ho would win the vote in the South. This was followed by IKE sending the "1958 U.S. advisors" to work with Diem's troops in the field along with US airpower, and then JFK's increase in the few thousand IKE had sent over to a 16000 man force).

So the GOP is running out Kerry's votes these days to put him down.

But Kerry voted a nuanced vote - weapon systems that had serious cost overrun and design problems got "no" votes - as was the case for 3 of the 4 no votes he made against the B-1 bomber, the F-14 and F-15 fighters and the Patriot missile system.

He voted against Gulf 1 and for Gulf 2, and has not stated a clear - Bush ad proof - explanation for the Gulf war 1 vote, although he seems to have a solid response for the Gulf 2 vote (immenent danger per the data from the WH trumped American resources that had been hunting for Osama bin Laden and his followers being diverted toward Iraq).

Last year’s "A Call to Service" - Kerry's "vision book" will be put into Bush ads as rationalizations, qualifications and finger-pointing about the low esteem America is now held in abroad, as Bush pushes back on the Kerry claim for a need for more patience in assembling an international coalition, along with a plan for U.N. involvement after the fighting ended, and all those other “inept” Bush efforts to win European support and to ensure that there would be international legitimacy to U.S. actions.

Kerry has to sell “collective action” as a better way for America to get its way in the world than Bush's cowboy "bring it on" or "draw" approach - and folks like the unilateral American concept where no one tells us what to do. I have not heard yet the sound bites that get the listeners to reject unilateral action and to applaud as they do so

The 97 Book by Kerry - The new war - hits the Saudi financial support to radical Islam, and the Pakistan mischief making, and Kerry now claims foresight because of this, but Bush ads will note that Kerry perhaps overstates that foresight since he never mentions Islamic fundamentalism or Osama bin Laden - can Kerry stay modest for the next 9 months and not overstate his case - so as to avoid the Bush "Gore overstates/lies" ads?


He is still my guy - but Mike Moran's points are well taken.

[placton]

1. Here are your answers:

The election will be won by who convinces the "middle" (aka MORON AMERICANS) to vote for him. These folks won't think much about the election for several months. Right now, they are getting "impressions." They have had good Kerry ones recently, and bad Bush ones. Result: Kerry wins today.

These folks give a shit about "nuanced vote" - and will not punish Kerry for votes on "weapon systems: - Kerry just says OUR MILITARY NEEDS MORE BANG FOR ITS BUCK, THAT'S THE WAY I ALWAYS VOTE - MY CONSCIENCE. End of story, for Morons.

He voted against Gulf 1: tougher, but history; tell them Bush Sr. was bad wartime leader (HE COULD HAVE GOTTEN SADDAM THEN, BUT FAILED, LIKE HIS SON FAILS WITH OSAMA), so Kerry did not trust him, and the proof is in the pudding.

for Gulf 2, you said it: "immenent danger per the data from the WH trumped American resources that had been hunting for Osama bin Laden and his followers being diverted toward Iraq"

"low esteem America is now held in abroad"/"collective action": morons could care less, they just need to be reminded of Clinton, and yes, Bush I! They did better with collective action. Boring, say the morons.

97 Book - The new war - hits the Saudi financial support to radical Islam, and the Pakistan mischief making, and Kerry now claims foresight because of this, but Bush ads will note that Kerry perhaps overstates that foresight since he never mentions Islamic fundamentalism or Osama bin Laden: morons are really bored now, was Kerry tough on AY-RABS, or not, is their issue: Kerry stays modest and says yes was was tough on them

Nope, none of these hurt our boy. There are other issues that can.

[sandnsea]

2. Only issues that can

There are no other issues that can hurt him in my estimation. The only things that can hurt him are defense votes because that's why he's saying he should be chosen over Bush. But I think with the 80's deficits and our current deficits, and the fact that he was right about human intelligence and terrorism in general, the votes should put him in a good position on defense.

There isn't anything else that can hurt him, including Hanoi Jane, his first wife, gay rights, and so-called "special interests". People aren't going to be voting on this stuff and Bush picks up more money in one day than Kerry got in a lifetime.

[killbotfactory]

3. He'll run them over on a Harley

Don't piss of John Kerry: SUPERPRESIDENT!

[library_max]

4. He may have to admit that the Desert Storm vote was a mistake.

It was, by the way. He thought it would be a quagmire, take years, heavy U.S. casualties, wrong on all points. But, as another poster already said, that's ancient history.

The GOP can't possibly hurt him on the IWR vote. What are they going to say, that voting for the IWR was wrong but invading Iraq was right? If they try to use it to defuse Kerry's criticism of the war ("How can you criticize the war when you voted for the IWR?"), they're going to get the same answer every time: BUSH LIED TO US. I don't see how that helps the GOP.

[papau]

5. Thanks Folks - I was getting nervous - now back to smiles!

:-)