It was always "National Security, Stoopid"....SOoooo what can Kerry do....

[FrenchieCat]

To shore up this crucial issue to change the hearts of those who have been sold on their fears, and favor Bush if on nothing else--on National Security?

In my opinion, this Bush National Security strength is a myth propagated by Bush operatives and the corporate media.....But perceptions count...and this one is definitely putting a hurt to the Kerry Campaign. However, since John Kerry and the Kennedy wing of the Democratic party did not heed the words of those of us (Mainly Clarkies) who felt that this was his vunerable "Achilles Heel" that large doses of Good looking "optimism" would not wipe away....what do we do about this problem now?

Bush operatives and the media have started pushing the meme that National Security should be placed above all other issues because without "security" the rest of the issues mean nothing. Considering how well BushCo. has mis-shapen the perception of regular "sheeple" folks, this meme is as effective as would be required for Bush to get those enough undecideds and swings voters into his column.

Clinton operatives, according to "Corporate News" reports is said to have told Kerry....enough already with Vietnam...talk Jobs and the economy. However, I believe that Clinton and his operatives have actually said much more than this to Kerry--which is why Kerry is talking about Iraq (like today). I give Kerry points on this for listening and carrying out the beginning of what may help him out in the polls

....but my underlying problem with all of this...is that Kerry has not demonstrated the natural instincts of a "great pol"....or else he would have understood the Bush strategy a long time ago (I did)...without having to be told, and acting on it after-the-fact of real damage having been done.

PS: I am making it clear that I have supported John Kerry (since Clark dropped out) as President, although I started wavering when Edwards was his announced choice as Vice-President. I thought this was a foolish decision based the KKKarl Rove "Optimist vs. Pessimistic" perfect media set up.


So my question is: what does Kerry do now to sell his strength in the National Security area to Mr. & Mrs. America Sheeple voter?????

Do not flame me ....cauz that's not what I am looking for (and that was not my intention). I would like some answers instead.

Thank you very much.

[freetobegay]

1. What do you think he should do?

Instead of people always asking what Kerry should do, how about being part of the solution & giving us your thoughts.

[FrenchieCat]

3. As my post states.....

With my hat in my hand, my post clearly states that I am asking and looking for answers...so it should be clear to anyone actually reading my post that I don't claim having the solution. Doh....

[FrenchieCat]

13. Was anyone listening?????

DECEMBER 9, 2003, On the Campus of the University of New Hampshire--During one of the Democratic Party's presidential debates:

Wesley Clark:
"But the time has passed in America when this (Democratic) party can be the party of compassion and let the (Republican) executive branch run foreign policy. IT WON'T WORK. We have to be the party that can stand toe-to-toe with George W. Bush on national security, as well as (be) the party of compassion."

"This is an election that's going to be about national security. Its going to be about facing down George Bush and his failure to perform his duties satisfactorily as commander in chief...."

"He's (George W. Bush) going to run on the idea that he's the commander in chief, that it's about his patriotism..."

[troublemaker]

2. Kerry should state this:

"As President I will, if necessary, use military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons."

That's forces Bush to raise the ante, but there's no room left. All he could do is agree with Kerry's position. Any statement stronger than Kerry's will sound insane. And any criticism of Kerry talking too tough will be laughable.

And it doesn't hurt anything in the real world. Iran is apparantly a ways away from anything workable and Israel would probably beat us to the punch anyway. Some situations (like Taiwan) require US ambiguity but drawing a line for Iran isn't all bad. IMO.

[no name no slogan]

4. The nail in the coffin

The American public DOES NOT want a gung-hu warmongering president. If Kerry were to come out in favor of a pre-emptive strike on Iran, he would be shredded by not just the conservatives, but by a sizable amount of the left who are already having trouble supporting him because of his positions on the Iraq war.

Kerry says this, you lose 3-5% of the left to third party candidates. It may not be enough, but in a race that's a statistical tie, it's enough to cost him the election.

[troublemaker]

6. warmongering? No, just "saber-rattling"

Iran says they have no nuclear ambitions. That is either true or false. If true then there's no war to monger. If false then some Sabra-rattling is in order anyway.

When your opponent has only one issue it's useful to outflank him on a selective part of that issue. That makes it an operative tie. "Bush's Iraq policy is tougher but Kerry's Iran policy is tougher." It's sound politics.

There is a real middle in America, and they want to hear Kerry identify some line somewhere that is too much. They don't care where the line is... they just want to know that Kerry can be inflexible when needed. (I am not addressing the wisdom of that view, only that it is widespread.)

[Gloria]

5. Frankly, just doing what he's been doing since the RNC will help

alter a lot of the perception of Kerry as "weak" and Bush "strong".

W is for WRONG....etc. Kerry on fire and directy in Bush's face,
ENGAGED as the pundits would say....that really enhances his stature as a fighter and strong leader....whether he's talking about foreign policy or domestic issues. In fact, being really strong while talking about domestic issues probably has a carry over effect into FP issues.....

[FrenchieCat]

11. There was this NYT article.....

and it featured a supporter of Kerry/Edwards that think very much like many former and current Dean, Clark and Kucinich supporters.....

Read her exchange with Edwards during a campaign stop...

'Earlier in the day, while speaking to about 150 people in a suburban backyard outside Milwaukee, Mr. Edwards accused the administration of covering up a struggling economy that only recently has begun showing signs of improvement.

"They are going to try over and over to put lipstick on this pig, that's exactly what they're going to try to do," he said. "You can put as much lipstick you want, but at the end of the day it's still a pig."

But at that gathering he was also confronted by a supporter who
feared that he and Mr. Kerry had not batted away Republican claims
about their records.

Katie Simenson, 41, a massage therapist, accused the Democratic
ticket of letting Republicans suggest that Mr. Edwards had taken
frivolous cases as a lawyer and that Mr. Kerry was a waffler and
soft on defense.

"They're going to run you right over and make you look like idiots,"
Ms. Simenson said.

Mr. Edwards sought to answer, promising " to fight every day
between now and Election Day" and assuring her that Mr. Kerry
"is strong, courageous and he is a fighter."

"And I like to believe I am the same thing," he said. But Ms.
Simenson shook her head.

"We will - don't shake your head! - we will fight,'' Mr. Edwards
continued. "No, we will fight every way we know how. But we are
fighting for you, we are not fighting with these politicians. George
Bush wants to fight with politicians. We are fighting for you. We want to make your life better - don't argue with me, let me finish. We're going to stand up - I let you talk, let me finish - we're going to stand up for the things that we believe in."

Afterward, Ms. Simenson pronounced his answer a "typical
politician response," but said she would grudgingly vote for Mr.
Kerry.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/07/politics/campaign/07mates.html

[FrenchieCat]

12. Also this from Paul Krugman.....

(who appears as frustated as I in the way Kerry/Edwards are handling the National Security issue--not really responding to it)....


Paul Krugman:
The best book I've read about America after 9/11 isn't about either
America or 9/11. It's "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning," an
essay on the psychology of war by Chris Hedges, a veteran war
correspondent. Better than any poll analysis or focus group, it
explains why President Bush, despite policy failures at home and
abroad, is ahead in the polls.

War, Mr. Hedges says, plays to some fundamental urges. "Lurking
beneath the surface of every society, including ours," he says, "is
the passionate yearning for a nationalist cause that exalts us, the
kind that war alone is able to deliver." When war psychology takes
hold, the public believes, temporarily, in a "mythic reality" in which our nation is purely good, our enemies are purely evil, and anyone who isn't our ally is our enemy.

This state of mind works greatly to the benefit of those in power.

Campaigning exclusively on domestic issues won't work. Mr. Bush
must be held to account for his dismal record on jobs, health care
and the environment. But as Mr. Hedges writes, when war psychology
makes a public yearn to believe in its leaders, "there is little that logic or fact or truth can do to alter the experience."

To win, the Kerry campaign has to convince a significant number of
voters that the self-proclaimed "war president" isn't an effective war leader - he only plays one on TV.

This charge has the virtue of being true. It's hard to find a
nonpartisan national security analyst with a good word for the Bush
administration's foreign policy. Iraq, in particular, is a slow-motion disaster brought on by wishful thinking, cronyism and epic
incompetence.

If I were running the Kerry campaign, I'd remind people frequently
about Mr. Bush's flight-suit photo-op, when he declared the end
of major combat. In fact, the war goes on unabated. News coverage
of Iraq dropped off sharply after the supposed transfer of sovereignty on June 28, but as many American soldiers have died since the transfer as in the original invasion.

And I'd point out that while Mr. Bush spared no effort preparing for
his carrier landing - he even received underwater survival training
in the White House pool - he didn't prepare for things that actually
mattered, like securing and rebuilding Iraq after Baghdad fell.

Will it work? I don't know. But to win, Mr. Kerry must try to puncture the myth that Mr. Bush's handlers have so assiduously created.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/07/opinion/07krugman.html?hp

[goodwalt]

7. Attack Ads!

A couple of posts down,Abrock was essentially posing the same question.The real problem comes from a West Wing episode quote -"Politics is perception". Shrub has given tough talking sound bite after sound bite since the towers fell- to the point that supporters can't be shaken from the idea that he is "tough on terrorism". Facts and rational arguments won't work on these people- they have bought into the image masterfully crafted by Rove and company, and they have way too much of a head start on selling their candidate's "toughness" for us to catch up.
What we CAN do that I think would be effective, is use actual images of Shrub acting dazed and indecisive when the shit actually hit the fan. SOMEBODY needs to run an ad using the infamous "My Pet Goat" footage to full effect- this stuff is SOLID GOLD! Most Repugs have refused to watch M. Moore's film. I have seen Repug talking heads on television trying to spin Bush's dazed inaction as "not wanting to upset the children", but I can't imagine that line of BS selling to anyone that has actually seen the footage.
If you want to see more details on this attack ad idea, check out Abrocks thread about THE MOST IMPORTANT THING I HAVE TO SAY...

[shraby]

8. To the one who mention Iran

personally I don't even want to hear Iran enter into the campaign. I believe they DO have nukes already and Bush is stupid enough to start a war with them. Makes no difference of our troops are overextended or not with him. He counts on the fact that we have nukes to use. That would just open a horrible nightmare situation and we don't even want to go there.

We were researching the spread of WMDs in the "American Treason - for a few pieces of silver" paper here on du and found that Halliburton through shell companies and also a company called ABB that had Rumsfeld on the board were selling nuke components. Halliburton to Libya, Syria and a few other countries and ABB was selling to N. Korea. Pretty scary stuff.

[catforclark2004]

9. I agree that ads may help.....

But is Kerry willing to do "hard hitting" attack ads? He should, as he knows how well they work. Also he needs to smile when he is trying to smack Bush down.....a smiling face always warts off the idea of being crazy or mean, etc.

I'll look at the post you recommended. Thanks.

Sneaking this in for my own piece of mind...<I think Clark as VP would have kept Kerry looking strong, no matter what>.

[FrenchieCat]

10. Here's a great analysis of Bush voters....

(Anthony Pratkanis, an expert in political persuasion and a professor at UC Santa Cruz) of why guys like Bush and seem to ignore his shortcomings. I think he is on to something.

The way I explain the Bush Teflon is to think of it in terms of a smoker who smokes Marlboro's. Everyone knows the stuff will kill him, but he wants that image of being the cool, independent guy rounding up cattle on the plains. The fact that the cigarettes will kill him, just adds to the sense of rebel and adventure. Bush is the political equivalent of the Marlboro man. A vote for him shows that you are that cool, independent guy who is tough and knows the score. The recklessness of his presidency just adds to the sense of rebel and adventure (and besides it isn't your ass going to Iraq). Tell a Marlboro smoker he is going to die with the habit and it is poo-pooed as just some smarty pants know it all who wants to run his life. Tell a Bush supporter that there aren't any WMDs and you get a "yes, there is and besides who cares if there isn't?" Just so I have my image as tough guy.

In contrast, Clinton and Kerry are policy wonks. They delight in seeing problems and then engineering the fix. That is great if you want an economy that hums or a foreign policy that doesn't set the world ablaze. Lousy if you want someone to like you. Clinton and Kerry are like the smarty-pants in school. You go to them when you need help with your homework, but underneath it all there is resentment that you aren't as smart. When some tabloid comes along with a smear, that resentment makes it easier to believe it. (The Australians call it "attacking the tall poppy.")

This is why, despite the current criticisms of Kerry's campaign, I think it was essential that the convention feature his Vietnam service and war hero status. The only way to trump the Marlboro man is with another image for these folks to glob onto. Kerry made two mistakes: (a) he didn't link his heroism and war opposition to current events and (b) he didn't give everyone an easy way to join in and be part hero too (he made himself above everyone instead of like a Budweiser t-shirt that you put on and become that image).

And there you have the Pratkanis (2000) theory of altercasting applied to the 2004 election.

[rumguy]

14. I think Kerry should say that we can't afford any more mistakes in Iraq

The majority in this country is very skittish about the war - most are now opposed to it.

However, Kerry shouldn't be talking so much about Bush's misleading prior to the war, instead he should critique the handling of it - and show how it has cost American lives, and wasted money (lots of money).

We can't afford another Abu 'Grub' for instance. An administration, and a President, that was more engaged in Iraq could avoid such costly blunders.

We can't afford to keep fuckin' up! That way he is optimistic and foward lookin' and can critique the Bush Admin. in a way that offers the American people hope.