Posted on 08/29/2004 3:56:22 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
It was a bittersweet pleasure to go on-air Friday for two hours with my friend Jerry Agar, WPTF afternoon drivetime, from Raleigh to most of North Carolina and parts of states north and south of there. This was our last sit-down, since Jerry is moving to KMBZ in Kansas City, a larger market that wants a quick, intelligent voice from the conservative side of the spectrum.
We spent 45 minutes of our time talking about the Swift Boat controversy involving John Kerry. The phones lit up, and so did the computer screen with e-mails. Both the calls and the e-mails represented all sides of the issue. On a quality talk show, the host (and guest) can have strong opinions, but those who disagree will still call and write, confident they will get a fair hearing.
There’s a whole lot of common sense and plain unvarnished reality among the listeners to any intelligent, articulate radio talk show. That leads me to suggest an amendment to the Constitution to improve the quality of future presidential candidates. Of course we want candidates who are honest, intelligent and dedicated – regardless of their politics or party. But there just isn’t a way to test for such things.
Here’s a test that could serve as a surrogate. Pass a constitutional amendment that no one could run for President until he or she had done 30 hours on major talk shows located anywhere except inside the Washington Beltway. No matter whether the host is liberal or conservative, all talk shows of any popularity have a sub-base of contrarian listeners and participants.
In the town meeting events held by presidential candidates, producers usually screen participants to avoid difficult questions from cantankerous people. But talk shows (unless the producer/editor on the phones is both stupid and dishonest) will have a range of callers. And the Good Lord knows that the subjects raised will vary all over the lot. When I began in talk radio in 1968 with Chuck Boyles on WBAL in Baltimore, the strangest type of calls on odd subjects were referred to as “cat-up-a-tree calls.” Anyway, a presidential candidate who faced 30 hours of calls from ordinary citizens would have to display grace, intelligence, knowledge, and a measure of courage. Those aren’t exactly bad characteristics for anyone who would be President.
And if John Kerry had ever dealt with an electronic roomful of ordinary Americans like that, he might not have made the fatal planning error that has doomed his run for office this year. The callers to Jerry Agar’s Show last Friday would have given Kerry better advice than he gave himself, or than he got from his high-priced consultants.
Most, but not all, of the veterans who contacted Jerry’s show last Friday were harshly opposed to John Kerry for what he did in Vietnam, but especially for what he said once he returned home. Equally important were calls from people who never served in the military, and were heavily anti-war. One man said that he was “in the demonstrations during the 1968 Democratic Convention.” I remember those beatings and gassings from watching them on TV. From self-validating details, I believe that gentleman was where he said he was, and did what he said he did.
The fascinating aspect is that the anti-war caller and one of the veterans actually agreed on this point – both would have supported Kerry if he had returned from Vietnam and attacked just the political leaders who were conducting the Vietnam War. Neither of those gentlemen are supporting John Kerry for President now, precisely because of his attacks on the individual American servicemen when he returned.
There are two dispositive factors about the issues in any election. The first is obvious: how many people agree with your (you, the candidate’s) position on an issue, as opposed to how many disagree. But in an era where voter turnout will again be slightly more than half, the other factor can be more important. That factor is intensity. How strong are the feelings of your supporters, compared to the strengths of the opposition?
Stronger supporters of a candidate, or of the issues of a candidate, are more likely to turn out and vote, more likely to give money or time, more likely to encourage others to vote the same way, etc. The passion and dedication of the veterans who believe John Kerry is unfit to command are far ahead of the passion and dedication of the fewer veterans who believe Kerry is fit to be President. That single difference, in my opinion, means that John Kerry’s campaign is now dead, and by his own hand.
Here’s why: There are about eight million veterans of the Vietnam era, about half having served in country. In addition, there are about 16 million veterans of other eras, living today. These 24 million men, and some women, live in every city, town and hamlet. They work in every business, organization, and civic association. They are members of almost every family in the United States. Among these veterans, support for George Bush was just 4% more than for John Kerry, before the Swift Boat Vets for Truth began their advertising campaign. Today, the Bush margin among veterans has grown to about 24%, or almost 2-1 over Kerry (62-38).
I spent Saturday visiting with Randy Wootton, a lifelong friend who has a marketing firm in Atlanta. We talked about what Kerry did wrong in the planning of his campaign -- the Vietnam ploy. We discussed the most powerful form of communication for or against any product, service, or candidate. In the trade it’s called “viral communications.” Us ordinary folks refer to that as word of mouth. If ordinary people start telling their friends and neighbors to “go see this movie” or “go vote for this candidate,” then that movie or that candidate will soon be in high cotton. But viral communications also can work negatively. A movie, candidate, whatever, which is bad-mouthed person to person cannot be salvaged by advertising and pronouncements at the national and public level. That is Kerry’s position right now.
And it gets worse. When A tells B about a movie, one person’s opinion has no greater value than another’s. But what happens when the subject is the military service of a candidate for President? If A is a military veteran, giving his opinion to B who is not a veteran, THAT word of mouth will be even more effective than usual.
As a friend of mine said in an e-mail at 2 a.m. last Wednesday, this is now a “water cooler election.” George Bush, as the incumbent President, is a known commodity. The last equation in this election is whether John Kerry is seen as fit, or unfit, to replace Bush, among those voters who already think that a change might be in order. At the grassroots level, the word is spreading like wildfire that Kerry is unfit (at a 2-1 rate) to independent and undecided voters.
What if Senator Kerry had called a press conference three years ago to announce that he had “made some mistakes” in his service in Vietnam and later in his testimony before Senator Fullbright’s Committee on returning home? What if Kerry had given examples of those mistakes at that conference? The press would have largely ignored that conference, because after all, “Who still cares about Vietnam?” Kerry, who knew then that he intended to run for President in 2004, could have turned this entire subject into “old news.”
But apparently Kerry had already decided, along with his high-powered, top-dollar, experienced advisors, that he was going to feature his Vietnam experience. Rather than set it aside and deal with more recent subjects, Kerry decided to hang his campaign hat on his four months and 12 days on Swift Boats in Vietnam. His representatives forced that subject into the speeches of most people at the Democratic Convention. Kerry himself slammed the point home from his opening salute to the final paragraphs of his speech accepting the nomination. When John Kerry sat down after that speech, his campaign was already doomed to defeat.
When the Captain of the Titanic ordered 21 knots in the North Atlantic where icebergs had been reported, his ship was doomed. When General Lee ordered Pickett’s charge into the center of the Union lines at Gettysburg, his cause was doomed. If you prefer examples that involve the death of ambitions, rather than human beings, try these: When the Coca-Cola Company introduced “New Coke,” the effort was doomed before the first ads ran. Or when Gary Hart told the press, “You can follow me,” his campaign was doomed.
In every instance, the questions the person in charge failed to ask and answer were these: What’s the worst that can happen to me and my cause? And, how can I avoid that fate? Kerry failed to ask and answer those questions. And now his candidacy is doomed by an insolvable, self-created problem.
In each Presidential Election, I predict the outcome as soon as I am reasonably confident of it. Yes, alert readers will point out with amusement that I’ve done that once before in 2004. Before the Iowa Primary, I looked at Howard Dean’s unusual and successful organization, at his fund-raising, and at the nature of the Democratic voters there and in New Hampshire. I concluded Dean would win both states, cruise to his party’s nomination, and then get trounced by George Bush. But enough about my former triumphs as a prognosticator.
It isn’t necessary to wait until the end of the Republican Convention to make this year’s predictions. Bush will have a 5% lead after the Convention. That will increase to 10% by November 2, and the Electoral College results will be a landslide for Bush. At the same time, the Republicans will gain 2 seats in the Senate, and 11 seats in the House.
Outside Washington, Republicans will gain one Governorship, 121 seats in the various state legislatures, and a substantial number of other state and local offices. Lastly, all these specific predictions are minimums. Any results that don’t match my predictions should be greater than my numbers. If not, label me wrong again. And you won’t have to phone me up; I’ll call the fouls on myself.
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor is a civil rights attorney who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. CongressmanBillybob@earthlink.net
- 30 -
I think that Kerry's been planning his Presidential run since Al Gore became Bill's annointed successor; long before the debacle of the 2000 election. After W's win, his team was fully ready to go with his Senate experience, his "progressive" credentials etc.
Then, suddenly, his entire world turned over. No longer was JFK(2) going to be able to win by being a Northeast liberal, the country wanted a man of action, someone you'd like next to you when the bar fight started.
So Kerry was faced with a no win situation - either be the anti-war lib or remake himself as the hawk with the fruit salad on his chest to prove it.
All it would take is a fawning media to gloss over the details, a little soft shoe and - voila' - just what the country needs, a hero in the nick of time. Throw in a couple of "docudramas", make some accusations of your opponent being AWOL and it's clear sailing to Pennsylvania Avenue.
What wasn't accounted for was the reaction of those little people on whom he stepped while climbing to the top. Had 9/11 not happened, Kerry's in without mention of Vietnam', after 9/11 he's toast.
The best laid plans of mice and rats often go astray.
I could be wrong. But regardless of when Kerry went for this ploy, the result is the same. He has stepped out onto very thin ice. And now he must run as fast as possible across that thin ice, hoping to reach the safety of shore before he falls in a drowns.
Kerry is committed to a disastrous course of action. And as of now, he has no recovery. He's too far committed to go back. And the "little people" he's stepped on along the way, are not about to let him get away with it.
John / Billybob
I could be wrong. But regardless of when Kerry went for this ploy, the result is the same. He has stepped out onto very thin ice. And now he must run as fast as possible across that thin ice, hoping to reach the safety of shore before he falls in a drowns.
Kerry is committed to a disastrous course of action. And as of now, he has no recovery. He's too far committed to go back. And the "little people" he's stepped on along the way, are not about to let him get away with it.
John / Billybob
I could be wrong. But regardless of when Kerry went for this ploy, the result is the same. He has stepped out onto very thin ice. And now he must run as fast as possible across that thin ice, hoping to reach the safety of shore before he falls in a drowns.
Kerry is committed to a disastrous course of action. And as of now, he has no recovery. He's too far committed to go back. And the "little people" he's stepped on along the way, are not about to let him get away with it.
John / Billybob
Of course, you actually know him while I'm just speculating, and, as you say, the result is the same. Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you. Again, congrats on the grandchild and regards.
What's to keep Kerry from visiting 'Snare' America for 30 hrs straight, assuming they're still around, today. It's a good point in that talk radio really helped spread the Swift Vets' message. Gardner was effusive, as they say, in congratulating Melanie and . . mmm . . . and that guy on KSFO, this morning, as representatives of talk radio, nationwide. Couldn't have done it without you, he said.
One thing I really wish talk radio would implement - recorded segments, that you can stream back anytime. You can't always be there for a live broadcast. And you miss all these Swift Vet guys, who really should be recording all these shows, themselves, and streaming the audio on swiftvets.com, with whatever releases might be required.
For the past twenty-five years, Kerry never ran in a truly contested election.
This is not appropriate preparation for the Big Show.
For the past twenty-five years, Kerry never ran in a truly contested election.
This is not appropriate preparation for the Big Show.
How much do you know about Massachusetts? Have you ever lived there?
Once Kerry was designated as the RAT Senate candidate in 1984, it was basically impossible for him to ever lose. This is not appropriate preparation for runing for President.
I liked this assessment in your column:
When John Kerry sat down after that speech, his campaign was already doomed to defeat.
And I liked this one even better:
Bush will have a 5% lead after the Convention. That will increase to 10% by November 2, and the Electoral College results will be a landslide for Bush. At the same time, the Republicans will gain 2 seats in the Senate, and 11 seats in the House.
J / BB,
You lose no points for failing to predict Dean's implosion. Nobody could possibly have predicted his complete meltdown in a blink of an eye. He's a really bad William Shatner. Dubya is no Howard Dean and is not going to meltdown like the WW of the W.
As far as I am concerned, your prediction that Ah-nold would win in California was so dead-on both in analysis and the result that your status as a prognosticator is safe for a long time.
I agree with your prediction of a 10 point margin of victory -- I just don't see Kerry motivating a lot of people to go out and vote for him. The Dubya-haters will vote for him, but I doubt these people exceed 40%. If the Kerry campaign collapses, that might be all he gets.
The protestors in NYC are a good sign. Do any of them look like they have a job? They, like John Kerry, are stuck in the Sixties. How pathetic.
I have never lived in Massachusetts. My daughter went to school there for four years. I am orignally from Jersey City, lived in New York, and am Irish so I am familiar with Democrat machine politics. My grandfather was a ward healer for "I am the Law" Mayor Frank Hague.
Kerry first trotted out his "dogs" in 1984 in the Dem primaries to take out an opponent. He got his BOB together again to beat Weld in 1996 who did represent a formidable challenge to him.
I agree that national politics is a whole different ball game, which is why I think he will lose. America will not elect the most liberal senator from the most liberal state in the country. However, the GOP must rip away the current Kerry veneer and show what is really underneath. In his present incarnation as a hunter, life begins at conception believer, man of faith, tax cutter for everyone except the very rich, pro-marriage advocate, and pro Iraq war advocate, Kerry has tried to recreate himself. Unfortunately for him, he has a record.
Even more so than in prior elections. The Rats never stopped running against Bush from the 2000 election. From "selected not elected", through the chortling about every verbal gaffe, to the inordinate focus on his National Guard record, and then Fahreneit 9/11, they've been campaigning against him nonstop for more than four years now.
While it may have been fun for them while it lasted, it also means that they've shot most of their arrows. Everything negative about Bush has been beaten into the ground so many times that most voters just tune it out now. It's similar to the Clinton overkill -- people just stop listening after awhile.
That may make it extremely difficult for Kerry to generate significant movement in the coming months. There aren't any bombshells or skeletons that haven't already been aired ad nauseum. In contrast, the Bush campaign really hasn't even started in on such fertile territory as Kerry's vote against the Gulf War.
The really bad sign for the Kerry campaign is that even after using up all its ammo so early in the campaign, it is at best in a tie, with momentum going in the other direction.
John / Billybob
John / Billybob
Nothing offends a geek like a quasi-geek. :-)
Congratulations, Grandpa. Pass that on to the parents as well. The arrival of another future freeper is always good news.
How is Draft-Dodging-Dave-Price doing in his reelection bid?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.