Where Kerry Went Wrong: Kerry and Shrum got it backward

Newsweak ^ | 9/27 issue | Jonathan Alter

[js1138]

Jonathan, Jonathan. When you use the word sliming you really put yourself into it.

[clee1]

Kerry went wrong much earlier than this campaign!

I still don't understand why he isn't in Levenworth turning big rocks into small ones.

[kingattax]

jonathan alter is another little piss ant

[Southack]

Newsweek has no news here, only editorial opinion, and that opinion is rotten anyway.

What's news, contrary to this article, is that the Kerry Campaign is coming out with new attacks on President Bush on fake "business scandals," Environmental "lies," and they are even taping a TV show with Dr. Phil to call President Bush a liar about "healthcare" per U.S. News & World Report, among others...

That Dr. Phil TV show airs in October, by the way.

The AWB Has Expired - Gun Owners Have Won Again For All Americans!

[jocon307]

Really, what a jerk.

[RichInOC]

I'm sorry...you mean they hadn't tried already over the summer?

[Reagan Man]

Jonathan Alter is another liberal Democrat propagandist, who shilled for Clinton and is now engaged in resurrection therapy for the Kerry campaign.

[montag813]

Kerry made two fatal errors:

1. Publishing "Tour of Duty"
2. Not running a single ad during the month of August, which left MoveOn running Bush-slam-ads across the midwest, but not a single POSTIVE message ad ran to give voters the other side of the coin. Stupid, amateur-hour politics.

[eggman]

...all that Kerry had to do was establish his credibility as a potential commander in chief and he would win

To have credibility you have to stand for something. What does Kerry stand for besides raising taxes on the rich? Credibility involves more than just saying "I defended this country in Vietnam, and I'll defend this country as President" and posing as a "war hero" when he spent more time protesting the war than fighting it.

[olinr]

"I still don't understand why he isn't in Levenworth turning big rocks into small ones."

Thank you! I don't either. The RINOS don't care, most don't care if our country is history and our children and grand-children are doomed.

But, what can we do?

[MJY1288]

That's an insult to piss ants everywhere :-)

[Cableguy]

I disagree.

1. Without Tour of Duty (and Jim Rasmassen), Kerry would not have been the nominee.
2. DNC ran a bunch of positive ads on Kerry's behalf in August (highlighting his convention speech). In fact, DNC/527 groups outspent Bush in August.

[Political Junkie Too]

...and was reinforced by the sealed and often smug world of Democratic politics, where it was taken for granted that Bush was bad, bad, bad, and any reasonable person already knew why.

It seems like this entire essay comes from that same smug world.

-PJ

[punster]

Alter: "...If they'd sliced up Bush this summer, they could have used the debates to seem presidential."

Alter is out of touch with reality. The DNC (Democrat Nazi Committee), Moveon.org and the News Media have been continually trying to slice and dice GW Bush for the last four years.

Alter cannot realize that Kaptain Ketchup does not have anything presidential in his demeanor. Kerry can only come across as totally phony.

[clee1]

We can keep our powder dry and await the probable.

One day, and possibly soon, the Patriots among us will have to pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor to the preservation of freedom and our Republic.

In the meanwhile, all we can do is to teach our children the value of morality, courage, and critical/logical thinking. The socialist elite that threatens our existence rely on the ignorance and/or inattention of the populace, coupled with slick propaganda in the form of "popular culture", in order to achieve their goals.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

No need to discredit Bush at all, because he was already thoroughly discredited slimed all winter and spring.

[daviddennis]

Took the words right out of my mouth :-).

Nailing Bush means painting a big "F" for failure on his forehead for what's going on right now, then pivoting to explain in the simple terms that have eluded Kerry what he would do differently in the months ahead: Give reconstruction contracts to allies in exchange for helping us stabilize Iraq. Set a date certain for getting out of Iraq. Promise we'll never have another Iraq. Fight terrorism where it threatens us most, which is not in Iraq.

The reconstruction contracts idea is interesting, but how much military help could the French actually give us? Do they have enough military for this to matter? I'd rather stick with people who wholeheartedly support us, instead of those who will knife us in the back at the earliest opportunity.

Set a date for when we leave Iraq? Forget it. Unless you want to give the country to the insurgents, it's not going to happen.

Promise there will never be another Iraq? Don't make me laugh. You'd have to be clairvoyant to know the answer to that one. North Korea, Iran and Syria have done seriously bad things that might need to be opposed at some point. Tying your hands in this way is political suicide. Diplomacy doesn't work without a credible threat of force. Not recommended.

We're fighting terrorism in Iraq, which seems to have done a fair job at keeping it out of the US. Fair trade, especially since Iraq's going to be a lot better off in the end.

D

[snuffy smiff]

this twerp is deluded enough to be working at seeBS

perhaps he's thinking he'll replace Dannyboy...?

[Political Junkie Too]

The reconstruction contracts idea is interesting...

The whole Bush premise was that you don't give reconstruction contracts to the people who were aiding and abetting Iraq in the first place. The Oil For Food scandal proves that Bush was right when he said that France was heavily involved with the Hussein regime. Why would anyone want to reward France by helping to rebuild what they helped to build in the first place?

-PJ