THE DEMOCRATS MAKE BIG MISTAKE IN CHOOSING KERRY

Bush could put kerry away quickly

Democrats on Super Tuesday picked a candidate who cannot possibly win the White House in November. In choosing John Kerry of Massachusetts, Democrats have broken from the pragmatism that dominated their party’s profile under Clinton and Gore in the 1990s. Clinton was a very unethical person but at least he had charisma and he always had a bigger than life presence about him. The Democratic Party has now moved back to the liberal extremism of Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. And I predict that in November, the results will be another disaster for the Democrats.

President Bush should be able to take advantage of this by waging a smart and well thought out campaign. Here are the three areas the Bush campaign should concentrate on:

First, Bush should use the next six months to educate voters on Kerry’s opposition to the death penalty, his crazy vote against the 1991 Iraq war, and his opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act. In other words, define Kerry as an ultra liberal. Bush has to zero in on him and push him to the left right now. He could put this election away if he used this strategy.

Second, Bush needs to make Americans understand that the war on terror is still our major priority. He needs to elevate the sense of threat so that his advantage as a war president begins to count. Kerry seems to think that the war on terror should be fought through the criminal justice system. Voters recognize that Bush is right when he says that this is a war against nation-states that sponsor terror, not a hunt for criminal bands in the mountains. Kerry has tried to defund the CIA and he also has apposed funding for the Iraq war. Our national security would be in jeopardy if Kerry were to become president. Bush must use his profile as president to make Americans understand how crucial staying the course in the war on terror is to our safety. He must stress the need to make America safe from terror and he must also stress how important it is to stick to this task.

Third, Bush must begin to pull American troops out of Iraq after the handover in June. He should leave a sufficient number there, in safe, secluded bases, to intervene if the bad guys try to come back in power. But the daily drip of casualties must end. Then, after he is reelected, he can always put more troops in if they are needed.

Bush’s surrogates should savage Kerry while the president raises the profile of the war on terror and his foreign-policy team brings the troops home. If Bush wages his campaign in this manner, then the election will be over long before either Bush or Kerry is designated as the nominee of each of party.
7,148 views 11 replies
Reply #1 Top
Democrats on Super Tuesday picked a candidate who cannot possibly win the White House in November.


So I guess those polls that showed both Kerry and Edwards very competitively challenging Bush's grip on the public were more liberal media lies.


The Democratic Party has now moved back to the liberal extremism


So? The Republicans are running on a platform of conservative extremism.


President Bush should be able to take advantage of this by waging a smart and well thought out campaign.


When was the last time Bush did anything smart and well thought-out?


First, Bush should use the next six months to educate voters on Kerry’s opposition to the death penalty, his crazy vote against the 1991 Iraq war, and his opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act.


In other words, harp on subjects that (1) are irrelevant to national security or (2) are irrelevant to the economy or (3) happened at least 13 years ago or (4) call attention to Bush's political misplays. I hope Bush picks on Kerry for those things; that will allow Kerry to rip apart Bush's record on lying about WMDs, on the economy, and on tinkering with the Constitution for political purposes. Good try, but the public won't be distracted by your non-issues.


Second, Bush needs to make Americans understand that the war on terror is still our major priority.


Then why did he fight a war in Iraq, which (1) he admitted was not "in on" September 11 and (2) has no WMDs to date? Again, not convincing.


He needs to elevate the sense of threat


Translation: He needs to scare us for no reason, as he has so many times before.


Voters recognize that Bush is right when he says that this is a war against nation-states that sponsor terror


Do they? We'll see in November. It's not smooth sailing for the GOP.


Third, Bush must begin to pull American troops out of Iraq after the handover in June. He should leave a sufficient number there, in safe, secluded bases, to intervene if the bad guys try to come back in power. But the daily drip of casualties must end. Then, after he is reelected, he can always put more troops in if they are needed.


Agreed (except on the reelected part ).


while the president raises the profile of the war on terror


I.e., elevates the color code level for no reason (as usual), talks about "chatter" for no reason (as usual), lies to us some more (as usual)...


If Bush wages his campaign in this manner


I don't know about that. I think the American people are interested in seeing some actual progress in Iraq. (I can't say "Afghanistan" also, since Bush's trick of switching gears to Saddam actually managed to get us to forget about Osama.)
Reply #3 Top
Kerry was rated by the National Journal, an independent publication, as the most liberal Senator in 2003. Even more than Ted Kennedy! He voted with Ted Kennedy 96% of the time. Kerry is a liberal extremist. Also he voted to slash military funding, and tried to tear apart the CIA. He voted down 27 weapons programs (Patriot Missile System, M1, Trident Submarine, F14 fighter jet through todays, etc...) All of these weapons that we use today to liberate 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan. And voted for social experiments in the military. He denounced Reagan's head-on policy with the Soviets. Kerry is huge liberal dressed in moderate's clothing. His record is his number one enemy.
Reply #5 Top
The Polls now, but that is because the Democrats have a monopoly over the media. The competition is being watched very closely by the media. And now that The Democrats have narrowed it down to Kerry, they will lose some of the media spotlight. The two opposing candidates will now get equal media time. After months of hearing nothing but the Democrat side on the media, the American people will get a healthy dose of the conservative side. The tide will turn and when Iraq has free elections and a locked in Constitution, President Bush's aproval rating will soar back up to the %63.
Reply #7 Top
OMG!!!!! I Cant believe this fucker actually posted that stuff trying to make it his own!!!!   Horrbile.
Reply #8 Top
Ah yes, that good old Iraqi constitution which is being held up by extremist Shiite Clerics. And that Damn Liberal Media, best shown by Fox News I think.

The conservatives love picking on the media, but let's look at some facts. The media is controlled by a handful of rich white men. While some rich white men are liberals, the HUGE majority are conservatives. Do you think the owner would allow his company to be to opposed to his own view? Honestly, think about these things.

Cheers
Reply #10 Top
Look at any independent publication!


And the magical, mysterious force that keeps conservatives from starting independent publications is...?
Reply #11 Top
Bulbous head shows that this posting is not necessarily the bloggers own - unless you are, in fact, Mr. Morris. I do believe in freedom to post information. I also believe you should attribute the words of the author to him Mr. Cooley. It does damage to your credibility as a Republican and Conservative if you don't. It should be a minor adjustment to make the correction. I say this as I found this post on another site and your words are getting around with this label emerging.

I think you are well-intentioned and it is evidenced by the allowing 'bulbous head' to state so. There are a couple blogs active now which cite a student losing a college education due to plagiarism however, and some can be quite direct about such an issue. I hope bringing this to your attention spares you having to run that less-sympathetic gauntlet on your future posts.

Otherwise it is a good post and Democrats do have their work cut out for them. Once they can convince themselves their Candidate is okay, then they can try it out on Republicans. I don't think they can. One observation I would make though, is that Nader will offset the label of 'L' by comparison.

(NOTE: PLease feel free to delete this as the correction is made and let no more mention of it be made to damage your credibility. UNLESS you are Mr. Dick Morris that is.)