Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Kerry Take Heed!
speakingcorpse writes:
Revered Sir,
I understand that you need to be very careful right now, that you don't want to step into a firestorm that is already burning up your enemies. And I understand that you are working out a simpler, more disciplined, and more positive message. Great. But you've got to be sharper, more memorable, and more IMPLICITLY--if not explicitly and dangerously--critical of the Bush administration. More specifically, you've got to call attention to the secrecy/credibility/trustworthiness problem of the President. You don't have to make big speeches about it; you don't have to announce that you're attacking the President; but you've got to mention it ALL THE TIME! Integrate references to the president's secrecy into all of your stump speeches; say, constantly, "We need to look at X, Y, or Z truthfully, honestly." Ask reporters why Americans should believe Bush's attacks on you when he has already misled us about WMD's, Medicare, etc. Declare your hope that all the truth comes out in the 9/11 investigation. Be calm, careful, statesmanlike. Don't even make the truth question the main question. But make it stick. It should pervade your discourse--don't let us forget about it. As a start, look at E. J. Dionne's column in today's Post: it is moderate, calm, respectable. But it gets to the heart of the matter. If you can succeed in making Americans take Bush's credibility problem for granted, you will win.
speakingcorpse
Blicero adds:
For instance, Senator Kerry: Cheney recently "jabbed" at you on the tax issue in a speech he gave to the Chamber of Commerce. Cheney's "jab" was reported widely in the news media, as was your campaign's response: something to the effect of, "The Vice President is in no position to be lecturing anybody about the economy." Now, given that the news media is going to report both the attack and the response, wouldn't it have been just as easy--and vastly more effective--if your campaign's response (distributed free by the media) had said, "The Vice President--who, along with the President, has misled America on every issue from his energy task force to the cost of Medicare to Iraqi WMD intelligence--has no credibility to be lecturing anybody about the economy."
See the difference? Now get with it!
posted by Blicero : 3/31/2004 02:23:00 AM
Revered Sir,
I understand that you need to be very careful right now, that you don't want to step into a firestorm that is already burning up your enemies. And I understand that you are working out a simpler, more disciplined, and more positive message. Great. But you've got to be sharper, more memorable, and more IMPLICITLY--if not explicitly and dangerously--critical of the Bush administration. More specifically, you've got to call attention to the secrecy/credibility/trustworthiness problem of the President. You don't have to make big speeches about it; you don't have to announce that you're attacking the President; but you've got to mention it ALL THE TIME! Integrate references to the president's secrecy into all of your stump speeches; say, constantly, "We need to look at X, Y, or Z truthfully, honestly." Ask reporters why Americans should believe Bush's attacks on you when he has already misled us about WMD's, Medicare, etc. Declare your hope that all the truth comes out in the 9/11 investigation. Be calm, careful, statesmanlike. Don't even make the truth question the main question. But make it stick. It should pervade your discourse--don't let us forget about it. As a start, look at E. J. Dionne's column in today's Post: it is moderate, calm, respectable. But it gets to the heart of the matter. If you can succeed in making Americans take Bush's credibility problem for granted, you will win.
speakingcorpse
Blicero adds:
For instance, Senator Kerry: Cheney recently "jabbed" at you on the tax issue in a speech he gave to the Chamber of Commerce. Cheney's "jab" was reported widely in the news media, as was your campaign's response: something to the effect of, "The Vice President is in no position to be lecturing anybody about the economy." Now, given that the news media is going to report both the attack and the response, wouldn't it have been just as easy--and vastly more effective--if your campaign's response (distributed free by the media) had said, "The Vice President--who, along with the President, has misled America on every issue from his energy task force to the cost of Medicare to Iraqi WMD intelligence--has no credibility to be lecturing anybody about the economy."
See the difference? Now get with it!
posted by Blicero : 3/31/2004 02:23:00 AM
