“What is it that we [Democrats] are? If you go to Kerry, that’s a disaster because the candidate should not be involved in solving disputes or the creation of his message.
“It also starts to impact in regard to the whole image of leadership. If someone can’t control a message in a presidential campaign, how are you going to be a good president?”
This is so rich. The first quote came about a third of the way through the article, then the second concluded the article. It seems that Democrats must have it both ways, all the time.
It makes me wonder what the point of the candidate is. I thought it would be the candidate's views that would then be expressed and refined via his staff. But I guess I'm a bit old-fashioned (like Bush).
If his staff are creating Kerry's views, maybe we have the wrong guy running. Maybe his staff should be running for President, if they determine the message and its meaning.
Heck, they couldn't do worse than Kerry.
D
That first quote perfectly sums up the difference between Kerry and Bush. Bush DOES create his message. HE makes the decision on what he stands for and what his campaign is about - hence his straight forward, consistant positions on issues. Kerry, on the other hand, has his staffers telling him what his positions should be - hence his bizarre inconsistencies on issues.