If you were Kerry's campaign advisor, what would you do?

[CJvR]

The most wanted fugetive from the Saddam regime is reported to have been caught - worth a few points in the polls perhaps?

[Master of Ossus]

It's a Texas saying. Molly Ivins has used it and she can use it with impunity. LBJ could have used it. But it just sounds wrong coming out of Kerry; it doesn't suit his personality at all, and it gives the impression he's deliberately trying to dumb-down his own campaign for the little people. Bad move all around.

GW might even be able to use it, but it's Kerry's job to say things that he can get away with saying.

Not only is Kerry a bad candidate, he's managed to assemble what must undoubtedly be the worst presidential campaign in decades.

I dunno... He's yet to take the opportunity to look truly stupid like the way Michael Dukakis did riding that tank in '88. First second I saw that, I knew he was sunk.

True. With Kerry, though, it isn't a single incident. It's a seemingly never-ending series of bungled opportunities and idiotic posturing. Much like Dukakis, now that I think about it.

I don't care if Kerry earned every academic honor there is to be won at Yale, Harvard... hell, the whole damn Ivy League. He's plainly a moron, and this latest incident proves it.

First sign of that was when he boldly proclaimed the greatness of the Ohio St. football team —to a Michigan crowd. One of those moments where you hear about it, throw up your hands and go "Oh fuck..."

Good GOD! What the hell was he thinking? Did he know what kind of game he was going to?

[Axis Kast]

I've really begun to wonder: how the hell is it that John Kerry and his people are going ahead with a campaign agenda that they have got to be seeing is costing them any hope of winning this upcoming election?

[Marksist]

Well if I were Kerry's campaign manager, I'd punch myself in the fucking face. Then, I'd hire James Carville, who knows how to tactfully "unleash the hounds" on the opposition, then I'd fire myself.

I just read a story that Kerry is pissed at Cahill for assuming that the Swifty ads. wouldn't hurt his numbers, hopefully Kerry shit-cans his whole staff and hires some new people to use Republican-esque tactics against Bush. Kerry needs to make Bush go on the defensive. Maybe it's not too late to get Carville to join up? Or someone who has run a competent campaign before. [/i]

[Iceberg]

GOOD. Hopefully the campaign will quit sitting around with its thumb up its ass.

[Marksist]

Here is the Yahoo News story about Kerry being angry at Cahill.

Yahoo News

NEWSWEEK: Kerry Furious With Cahill Over Not Attacking Swift Boat Ads Sooner; 'He Was Very Angry,' Says One Friend
Sunday September 5, 11:18 am ET
John Kerry Leaning More Heavily on John Sasso, Who Ran Dukakis '88 Campaign, Friends and Close Advisers Say

# NEW YORK, Sept. 5 /PRNewswire/ -- As Senator John Kerry's campaign reeled from tough attacks against his military record by a group of hostile Vietnam vets, his campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill and other staffers argued that the Swift Boat ads would blow over. But, as Newsweek reports in the September 13 issue (on newsstands Monday, September 6), Kerry had had enough. For three or four days, as he campaigned across the country, Kerry ripped into Cahill, furious that the mostly baseless attacks on his valor were driving his numbers down.(Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20040905/NYSU004 )

"He was very angry," one old friend says. "The calculation had been made that this wasn't going to hurt him," report Washington Correspondent Richard Wolffe and General Editor Susannah Meadows. Kerry's solution was to reach for an old ally. "Get Vallely," he screamed. Thomas Vallely is the leader of the pack of vets that Kerry calls his dog-hunters, a group that has beaten back the attacks on his Vietnam record since his first Senate race 20 years ago. "He knows that I know the other players," Vallely says of Kerry's Mayday call. "He knows that I also like this stuff." The return of the old warriors marked a turning point in the Swift Boat controversy, and a rare moment when Kerry stamped his authority on a drifting campaign, reports Newsweek. "OK, time to break out the fatigues. We've been there, done that. Time to do it again," says David Thorne, Kerry's close friend, of the mood among the senator's inner circle.

And that led to Kerry's rally in Clark County, Ohio, the same night that President George W. Bush was delivering his speech in Madison Square Garden. And even though Kerry's counteroffensive seems to fit a well-worn pattern, Thorne promises there's more lashing to come. But even some of Kerry's most trusted friends can't be sure when the gloves will really come off. "I hope we don't get to the near-death experience again," says one senior aide. "I think he's a lot better when he's behind, but I hope we don't get too far behind."

Kerry's campaign manager, meanwhile, stands by the strategy. "We jointly made the decision about when to respond, and when we did, it was a very direct and strong response from him," Cahill says, pointing to a mid-August speech when Kerry accused the Swifties of doing Bush's dirty work. Cahill insists that the campaign went through a similar ebb in March, when it took a big hit in the polls as it concentrated on fund-raising. (At the time, the campaign was saved by the downward spiral in Iraq). She maintains that her conversations with Kerry remain private; others say there's nothing unusual about the candidate's venting at his aides -- in this campaign or any other. "The truth is that he'd be lost without her," says one senior staffer. "She saved this campaign once already."

Cahill is likely to survive the turmoil, but Kerry's friends and closest advisers say the senator is already leaning more heavily on another old chum: John Sasso, Newsweek reports. Last spring Kerry installed Sasso, who ran the Dukakis campaign in 1988, as his general-election manager at the Democratic National Committee. According to a source familiar with the campaign, Kerry wanted Sasso to run his campaign from the outset, and asked him again to do so when he fired his first manager, Jim Jordan, last year. Sasso and Cahill already meet several times a week and talk daily about the campaign's field operations. Sasso has a rare quality among Democrats, according to those who worked with him in '88. "Nobody has sharper elbows than John Sasso," says Michael Goldman, a former Boston political consultant. "He can hit as hard as the Republican hit machine."

[/url]

[MKSheppard]

[Stormbringer]

I just read a story that Kerry is pissed at Cahill for assuming that the Swifty ads. wouldn't hurt his numbers,

The problem is, the defensive against the Swift Boat Ads was feeble and feckless. Had they simply, firmly denied them and moved on to real issues they wouldn't have hurt them. Instead they've mostly drawn out the bleeding and made Kerry look like a real shyster.

Look at the difference between how Bush handled his shoddy ANG service. Now look at the Vietnam debacle Kerry has been fighting for a very long time now. Need I say more?

hopefully Kerry shit-cans his whole staff and hires some new people to use Republican-esque tactics against Bush. Kerry needs to make Bush go on the defensive. Maybe it's not too late to get Carville to join up? Or someone who has run a competent campaign before. [/i]

Trying to imitate the sort of nasty attacks that the conservatives 527s have launched won't really work and would likely get him in worse. That'll as like as not turn off a lot of voters and convince a lot of people to just fuck it.

He simply needed to run on the issues that actually matter and hammer Bush. Had he gone for a decisive push against Bush it would have been over since Bush remains incredibly weak on the actual issues.

[Darth Wong]

He simply needed to run on the issues that actually matter and hammer Bush.

He needed to clearly differentiate himself from Bush in terms of policy. Instead, the Democratic Party chose to "play it safe" and go with positions that were just marginally different from those of the Bush Administration, in an effort to appeal to people who liked the Bush platform.

There's such a thing as trying to have a tent that's too big, and the Democrats have just demonstrated the folly of such thinking. Kerry was chosen for the exact same reason that his campaign is failing: he is not radically different from Bush. And when faced with a candidate who is not strongly differentiating himself from his opposition except to say that he'll basically do most of the same things but better, is it really that surprising when he can't energize the troops?

[Durandal]

He simply needed to run on the issues that actually matter and hammer Bush.

He needed to clearly differentiate himself from Bush in terms of policy. Instead, the Democratic Party chose to "play it safe" and go with positions that were just marginally different from those of the Bush Administration, in an effort to appeal to people who liked the Bush platform.

There's such a thing as trying to have a tent that's too big, and the Democrats have just demonstrated the folly of such thinking. Kerry was chosen for the exact same reason that his campaign is failing: he is not radically different from Bush. And when faced with a candidate who is not strongly differentiating himself from his opposition except to say that he'll basically do most of the same things but better, is it really that surprising when he can't energize the troops?

This is a symptom of the DNC's ludicrous decision to distance itself from Bill Clinton. They don't want to be associated with someone who had extra-marital affairs while in office. What they've forgotten is that he won and left office with an approval rating somewhere around 60%, even in spite of the utterly vitriolic sewage the GOP was throwing his way. The guy must know something about how to win an election. They should've had him on board from the beginning if they were serious about getting Bush's sorry ass out of the White House.

Clinton said it best on The Daily Show. You have to hit back and hit back hard when they attack you, especially if you're the challenger. Because if you're just responding to what they do, you're defending yourself, not being an asshole. This "turn the other cheek" bullshit doesn't work, especially in a political climate so focused on terrorism. When someone challenges the world champion of boxing, he trash talks like crazy, and he hits hard in the ring. He doesn't sit there like a pussy and take punches. You have to make the reigning champ look bad.

People want strong leadership, and they see the GOP doing whatever it takes to win. So they think, "Who else would we rather have in office than a guy who will do whatever it takes?" No one gives a shit if someone forgets to read a terrorist his Miranda rights, and no one gives a shit if John Kerry's feelings get hurt because of the lies and false accusations of cock-suckers like SBVfT or MoveOnForAmerica.org.

So yeah, Kerry, they're slandering you. What're you gonna do about it?

[Elfdart]

I'd run the clip of Dubya saying:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

Then a voice and caption will say:

"Aren't you tired of this kind of stupidity? Put an end to it by voting for Kerry."

[Durandal]

I'd run the clip of Dubya saying:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

Then a voice and caption will say:

"Aren't you tired of this kind of stupidity? Put an end to it by voting for Kerry."

Splice in a clip of an average voter smacking himself in the forehead, and it's gold.

[Darth Wong]

I'd run the clip of Dubya saying:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

Then a voice and caption will say:

"Aren't you tired of this kind of stupidity? Put an end to it by voting for Kerry."

Splice in a clip of an average voter smacking himself in the forehead, and it's gold.

That would play right into Bush's hands. The fact that George W. Bush is, shall we say, "not too bright" hasn't hurt him yet, and it won't hurt him in future. The painful but unavoidable conclusion is that the voters don't particularly care how smart a presidential candidate is; they only care about whether they can identify with him.

It's a popularity contest, not a selection of the most qualified job applicant.

Maybe Kerry should start mispronouncing words and finding evidence that he was a drunken moron in his teens, or got held back a grade in high school.

[Durandal]

I disagree, Mike. Bush's stupidity has been largely ignored by the populace because of his decisiveness. He picks a course and sticks with it, regardless of whether that course is stupid. In the past few years, the public has really forgotten what an idiot he is. He's gotten a little better at public speaking. Kerry needs to highlight Bush's idiocy. Of course, that's not the only thing he should focus on, but he should at least be doing something.

[Patrick Degan]

One campaign ad I'd devise would run a clip of Bush's scaremongering State Of The Union address prior to the Iraq War, the clip of David Kay before Congress stating flat out: "We thought we would find WMD in Iraq. Turns out we were all wrong" and juxtapose both with photos of flag-draped coffins.

"Vote Kerry on November 4th. The future depends on it."

[Phil Skayhan]

Maybe it's not too late to get Carville to join up? Or someone who has run a competent campaign before.

You may get your wish.

Among the better-known former Clinton aides who are expected to play an increasingly prominent role are James Carville, Paul Begala and Stanley Greenberg, campaign aides said.

It's a good thing they're including Begala because without him Carville is....well, Carville. While you may want Carville in order to be able to hit back against the attacks made against Kerry (and he is very good at this; though I sometimes wish he'd speak a tad slower), you need Begala in order to effectively push an agenda driven campaign and get the message across to the public.

[Master of Ossus]

One campaign ad I'd devise would run a clip of Bush's scaremongering State Of The Union address prior to the Iraq War, the clip of David Kay before Congress stating flat out: "We thought we would find WMD in Iraq. Turns out we were all wrong" and juxtapose both with photos of flag-draped coffins.

"Vote Kerry on November 4th. The future depends on it."

That would be political suicide, since everyone would attack you for not respecting American troops... AGAIN! Kerry already has a bad reputation for stabbing the military in the back, so he can't use the whole Iraq War thing in the election. He really is tied in a straight-jacket from which he has to figure out a way to fight back.

[Darth Wong]

One campaign ad I'd devise would run a clip of Bush's scaremongering State Of The Union address prior to the Iraq War, the clip of David Kay before Congress stating flat out: "We thought we would find WMD in Iraq. Turns out we were all wrong" and juxtapose both with photos of flag-draped coffins.

"Vote Kerry on November 4th. The future depends on it."

That would be political suicide, since everyone would attack you for not respecting American troops... AGAIN! Kerry already has a bad reputation for stabbing the military in the back, so he can't use the whole Iraq War thing in the election. He really is tied in a straight-jacket from which he has to figure out a way to fight back.

I don't see how such a campaign would be viewed as "stabbing the military in the back". And Kerry should really go after these absurd "stabbing the military in the back" accusations.

[Master of Ossus]

I don't see how such a campaign would be viewed as "stabbing the military in the back".

You don't see how using flag-draped coffins to further your political agenda could be misconstrued as opportunism at the military's expense?

And Kerry should really go after these absurd "stabbing the military in the back" accusations.

Probably, but his response has been pathetic, and if he hasn't responded thus far then it may well be too late--he may not have the charisma to explain his actions.

[Darth Wong]

I don't see how such a campaign would be viewed as "stabbing the military in the back".

You don't see how using flag-draped coffins to further your political agenda could be misconstrued as opportunism at the military's expense?

No more than using 9/11 to further Bush's political agenda. And that doesn't seem to be hurting him. Few people are accusing him of "stabbing 9/11 victims' families in the back."

And Kerry should really go after these absurd "stabbing the military in the back" accusations.

Probably, but his response has been pathetic, and if he hasn't responded thus far then it may well be too late--he may not have the charisma to explain his actions.

Well, that goes back to the issue of his incompetent campaign manager.

[Master of Ossus]

No more than using 9/11 to further Bush's political agenda. And that doesn't seem to be hurting him. Few people are accusing him of "stabbing 9/11 victims' families in the back."

True, but that's because for whatever reason veterans are much more vocally opposed to Kerry's actions than the 9/11 victims' families have been about Bush's.

Well, that goes back to the issue of his incompetent campaign manager.

Right, but that doesn't change the fact that it might be political suicide for him to launch such an ad campaign. I really don't know what Kerry needs to be doing, at this point, but somehow I can't see an ad that would be immediately savaged by pundits helping his cause.

[Stravo]

What Kerry needs to be doing is really simple.

He needs to lay out what Bush has promised and what he has delivered. Bush wants to ding Kerry on his senate record and accuses him of hiding behind his Vietnam war record. Well Bush has been flag waving like a mad man and pointing to 9/11 while not addressing what he has done for us aside from dragging us into a war.

Hit him with numbers and facts, the two things Republicans aren't very good at.

[Darth Wong]

No more than using 9/11 to further Bush's political agenda. And that doesn't seem to be hurting him. Few people are accusing him of "stabbing 9/11 victims' families in the back."

True, but that's because for whatever reason veterans are much more vocally opposed to Kerry's actions than the 9/11 victims' families have been about Bush's.

That's because Kerry has allowed his detractors to convince them that he has an anti-military agenda. When you are convinced that somebody is out to get you, you will invent a negative interpretation for anything he says.

Well, that goes back to the issue of his incompetent campaign manager.

Right, but that doesn't change the fact that it might be political suicide for him to launch such an ad campaign. I really don't know what Kerry needs to be doing, at this point, but somehow I can't see an ad that would be immediately savaged by pundits helping his cause.

That's why the ad campaign has to directly target these accusations while simultaneously targeting Bush's mistreatment of military personnel (for which there are more than enough examples to attack). You have to go for the one-two punch: attack the accusation and then give the audience a plausible explanation for the ulterior motives of the people making the accusations, ie- they are trying to cover up for their own misdeeds.

[Master of Ossus]

That's because Kerry has allowed his detractors to convince them that he has an anti-military agenda. When you are convinced that somebody is out to get you, you will invent a negative interpretation for anything he says.

Yeah. I'm not arguing that Kerry deserves the image he's managed to cultivate, but that doesn't change the fact that if he released such a campaign now then it would be hammered. At this point, it really doesn't matter why he's so screwed. The point is to figure out what to do now that can un-screwify him.

That's why the ad campaign has to directly target these accusations while simultaneously targeting Bush's mistreatment of military personnel (for which there are more than enough examples to attack). You have to go for the one-two punch: attack the accusation and then give the audience a plausible explanation for the ulterior motives of the people making the accusations, ie- they are trying to cover up for their own misdeeds.

That would be tough, but potentially very effective--a much better strategy than his current "No-risk, no chance of rewards" stuff.

[Elfdart]

I'd run the clip of Dubya saying:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

Then a voice and caption will say:

"Aren't you tired of this kind of stupidity? Put an end to it by voting for Kerry."

Splice in a clip of an average voter smacking himself in the forehead, and it's gold.

I should have taken that job a friend offered me and spent the last eight years writing ad copy. I would have made more money and I can come up with better stuff than Kerry's people, for fuck's sake. Shit, I'd get Bush to vote for Kerry!

Wong, you miss the point. It's not to call Bush stupid so much as to ridicule him and show he's unfit for the job. They should bust his balls for his stupidity, cowardice and dishonesty. Maybe they could get John Vernon (Dean Wormer in Animal House) to say "Cowardly, drunk and stupid is no way to be President."

The commercial that almost won the 68 campaign for Humphrey (Humphrey trailed throughout) was a guy turning on his TV and seeing the words "Spiro Agnew for Vice President?". The guy (you don't see anything but his hands) starts laughing, then laughs louder as the announcer says "The election is no laughing matter.".