Does anyone else wonder whether the Democratic Party leadership might — through intent or apathy — be forfeiting the presidential election?
Kerry/Edwards have offered no details about his plans to:
- repair the Bush foreign-policy catastrophe;
- wage the war in Iraq differently;
- improve our nonexistent port security;
- prevent nuclear terrorism and proliferation;
- utilize our European allies, who happen to have almost no armed forces;
- slash the Bush deficit without slashing spending and Social Security; or
- fix the broken and corrupt election systems in Florida and other states.
The Dems are airing no ads in several contested states. They are not defending Kerry’s Senate record or his once-strong positions on human rights and war crimes. They are not asking Americans whether they want Vice President Cheney in power with or without Bush acting as figurehead.
Like the GOP, the Dems hide behind buzzwords while offering no constructive plan for the nation.
Discuss this or other topics.
They’re playing rope-a-dope, I really think they are. Hang back, let Rove lash out hoping to find something, anything to gnaw on and finding nothing because Kerry and Edwards aren’t on TV saying anything. Soon, the Bush campaign will start running out of steam because they have no quotes, nothing to act all faux angry at. And then come in for the kill right at the end.
If offered the job of president, I’d sooner spend the next four years shoveling manure. Bush has made his bed; let him lie in it. And when it’s all over, he will be remembered as the most atrocious failure we’ve ever had.
Of course, SOMEONE will have to clean up the mess eventually.
Maybe Amanda, but I don’t think voters change who they are planning to vote on quickly especially when it comes to President. I think most people listen to the campaign and decide slowly whom they are going to vote for long before Election Day. Unless Bush blows the debates (not likely), the only chance Kerry has to win is by statistical Error. I am not sure if this problem is systemic to the democrats or what. The last election was lost due to sheer incompetence on the democrat’s side. Last election it was
1. Not hitting Bush’s weak points i.e. being a three year governor with no other government experience.
2. Getting lulled into sense of false security on the debates(i.e the difference between a senate debate with charts/graphs and a presidential one remembered for snappy one liners)
3. Pressing a plan to protect Social Security to appeal to older voters with a plan that clearly appealed to younger ones.
4. Releasing Bush’s drunk driving record too late in the campaign. If released earlier in the campaign, it would have done more damage and promoted people to ask more questions about Bush’s character but released the day before the election it simple caused people to wonder if it is true and rebel against such a blatant attempt to swing the election.
For this election the list looks like
1. Kerry’s inability to go for the jugular. What surprises me most is how he hasn’t pressed his biggest advantage. The fact the prewar intelligence was wrong. You could spin that so many ways from “How can we win a war with such bad judgment” hawkish statement to “Bush lied people died” peace activist statement. You could get quite a lot of traction from “Let get this liar out of office” from both camps. He should be pushing issues of trust, honesty, and judgment. Things that can get traction with both the peace lovers and the war hawks.
When it comes to the war in Iraq, well people do want to know what he plans on doing about it, but there are very few options in any case. Either you keep our troops in or you pull them out. Nobody thinks anyone in their right mind would put their troops in Iraq just cause we changed leaders. His best bet would be to press something vague like “If elected I plan to do what the Bush team was unable to do stabilize Iraq and get us out of this mess.” He will need to do a Richard Nixon on that front.
2. His inability to make waves. He wants to be carried into office by unfolding events. That is not going to happen. If he wants to get elected you are going to have to make waves. I don’t think Bill Clinton would have been elected if he hadn’t pressed for nation health care, or to raise the minimal wage and made clear he supported NAFTA. Yes the economy was in a dump, but people need more to motivate them. They need hope. They need to see how you plan to change things and that you are not locked into your parties line. This is where Kerry comes up short. He sounds like Bush 2.0. A kinder gentler smarter version of the person we currently have rather than someone new and refreshing. He is too alike to Bush for his own good.
3. Making all that hay about being on a boat in Vietnam. What has bravery 30 years ago have to do with what do you plan to do now? How does that motivate people to vote for you in any major way? What have you done since then?
>Not hitting Bush’s weak points i.e. being a three year governor with no other government experience.
A nit, he was a five year governor when he ran for president. He was first elected in 1994 (inaugurated in 1995), and served until he resigned in 2000 or so to assume the pResidency.
On the topic of the post, I suspect that Kerry doesn’t want to lose, but it is probable that he doesn’t have a clue about what to do to correct most of the things that Bush has botched. Regarding Iraq, it is unlikely that he can formulate a plan to correct the situation there until he knows what the situation is–if and when he takes over. I suppose he could try to enunciate some broad policies, but it is doubtful that he would want to say anything particularly specific. Announcing now that he would pull the US troops out immediately would clearly undermine them in the near term. Announcing they might be there 4-5 more years hurts him with some voters. Saying he’d try to get the international community (read France & Germany) involved is a non-starter, since it is unlikely that they would provide much, at least in the way of troops, and everyone knows it–Britain has announced that they are pulling out. Even Nato is refusing to send people to help train proposed Iraqi security forces. Regarding Iraq, Kerry is literally between a rock and a hard place.
BTW, you are incorrect in saying the the European allies have almost no armed forces–although it is difficult to know what “almost” refers to. It is true that they individually have smaller forces, but they also have smaller populations. On the other hand, Germany, for example, has forces in the Balkans and Afhanistan. The likelihood is between slim and none that Germany would send troops to Iraq–even in the unlikely event that Nato were to authorize deployment there. Largely because of its history in two world wars, Germany has tried to steer clear of sending its troops abroad into a war zone. It first did so in the Balkans in the late 1990s, and it almost tore Schroeder’s government apart, but it did so in large part because the Balkans were a European theater. It also deployed troops in Afghanistan because it was authorized by Nato and was seen as being part of a defense of a Nato ally. There is nothing similar in regards Iraq, and that would be true whether Bush or Kerry was in office.
I largely agree with J. Kuznicki–I can’t figure out why Kerry would want the job–all he’ll have is to try to clean up Bush’s mess.
I have one comment on Bush’s presumed “resolve.” Some of us might call it “pig-headedness.” Juan Cole had a comment on Bush’s “resolve” versus Kerry’s “flip-flopping” this morning https://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_juancole_archive.html#109643699174903863 Frankly, when I look at Bush and his resolve, I am reminded of the legends regarding the lemmings. I suppose that it is nice that the lead lemming has resolve, but I really wouldn’t want to follow him off the cliff.
Here’s why I hope someone would want Bush’s job:
Among Bush’s strongest supporters and power blocs are the believers in the End Times. They do not merely believe these are the last days; they are acting to make those times happen.
From Bill Moyers via tompaine.com via Dispatches from the Culture Wars:
And here’s (according to Moyers) what Bush’s support base has come to believe about free speech:
Patriotism has been elevated into an idol, a religion of its own.
Mike:
Those self-same Rapturites also have a pathological fear of GLBT folks. They know that the Republican Party is the anti-gay party. Their vote for Bush is a given. Honestly (and I know lots of these people), the Rapturites would vote for the Anti-Christ hizzself (or herself) if he or she were a Republican, in order to “preserve the sacred institution of marriage from the onslaught of radical homosexual activists who are intent on destroying this bedrock foundation of our [Judeo-Christian] civilization.”
I fear for my country; especially when naked emotion trumps reason in national elections.
Mike A. | September 29, 2004 12:34 PM
Mike, I saw Bill Moyers broadcast when he read that, and I’ve seen some of the pieces of his program that he’s referring to. Your post indicates why you hope that somebody should want to take the pResidency away from Bush. It doesn’t indicate why Kerry himself would want to go after and win the job.
He can’t attack Bush on Iraq until the flip-flop crap has worn off. Believe it or not, most people who don’t know who they are going to vote for wait until the very last minute to make the decision. Kerry isn’t so off to wait until then.
Let Bush win. Four more years of hell will be an powerful aversion to ignorant Americans. It will expose the religious socon agenda and sink them indefinately, making them another villain of the past. It’s apparent that the next generation of American has very low tolerance for such deceiving bigots. Perhaps a new social conservative movement will rise in the future, one that may even accept queers and restrict them to same-sex marriage.
There’s one other thing I’d like to point out. Some may say that the Republican Party has lost its roots and true values, but I disagree. I think it has returned to its true roots as a party of corruption, deceit and tyranny as it were during the regime of the faux hero Abraham Lincoln.
youhave my vote kerry.
We need Bush to finish the war on terror. It would be a disaster to the nation if he’s off the office at this critical moment.
Kerry is too weak and too undecisive to lead our nation. He can’t do anything firmly for any one. If you’re a lesbian or a gay, you can’t count on him for promotion of same-sex marriage. If you’re a catholic, you can hope him to stand up against abortion, either. While if you are pro-choice, you may find Kerry yield to the conservatives and say “I personally oppose abortion, too.”
Kerry is not a firm protecter of any group of people.
Jane,
I have to disagree. As a resident of DC, I take no comfort in the supposed “safety” that Bush brings to the country, and do not believe one should reward incompetence and obfuscation with more time in office. Bush has done almost nothing right, particularly if you remove the early action in Afghanistan, in the war on terror – DC, for instance, is just as unprepared for a major attack as it was on 9/10 (and Lord knows we were unprepared that day). The illegal invasion and disastrous occupation of Iraq has only served to create a haven for terrorists – one that did not exist prior to our involvement.
I just finished Kerry’s interview with the Advocate magazine. I was completely satisfied with his stance on all gay issues – I may disagree with him on gay marriage, but his vision of civil unions is the “all but the name” model, which is 1,000,000,000 times better than the GOP platform, which seeks to destroy civil unions in Vermont, and every single form of domestic partnerships in the country. The platform is modeled on the VA laws, which not only prevent private employers from offering same-sex benefits, it may actually invalidate wills, health care proxies, out-of-state adoptions and any other contract between gay people (and it is the major reason why I now refuse to spend any $$ in VA).
The Chicago Sun-Times endorsed Bush in 2000, and The Orlando Sentinel has endorsed every GOP candidate for President in the past 40 years.
This year, they and The Washington Post all agree that Bush has stubbornly and incompetently botched the war on terror. They argue that Bush also has undermined the economy (and the security of our children and grandchildren) through utterly undisciplined deficit spending, while unnecessarily dividing the American public against one another.
These newspapers have broken with pro-GOP traditions and affirmed Kerry’s experience and flexibility — specifically, his ability to adapt to changing circumstances, in contrast to Bush’s stubborn determination to take the nation in mistaken and blatantly self-destructive directions.
Bush’s badly flawed decisionmaking seems to be rooted in his reliance upon flawed and irrational “instincts” rather than reason; his inexperience with war; his disinterest in finance; his “loyalty” to poorly chosen aides who are never held accountable for mistakes; and his immature understanding of faith.
According to Sojourners, more than 200 theologians and ethicists, many of them from theologically conservative seminaries and Christian colleges, have signed a statement rejecting President Bush’s misguided and un-Christian theologies of war, empire, and “divine appointment” for the presidency.
The Washington Post counts 36 newspapers that endorsed George Bush in 2000 but now endorse John Kerry.