Kerry Campaign Dead End

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-10-18 04:12pm

The Kerry camp has one of the biggest problems controlling the press and structuring an image that I have seen since the '88 Dukakis campaign. This one photo might be cute if it were not the latest in a long series of flubed photo ops that Kerry has been involved in (e.g. The Nasa Sperm Suit, The Tarmac Football Catch, Windsurfing, ect).

You really have to question why Democrats running for the President continue to go back to Bob Shurm to run their campaigns? Shrum's record is beyond incompetent. Why do they continue to believe in the guy?

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-10-18 04:15pm

Let me make myself clear:

I'm not attacking Kerry here. It's a honest question for those that support him. What possible reason could the Dems have for continually going back to Shrum when he has lost the last 4 Presidental races he has run - when he allows images similar to the one posted to circulate freely in the press? Why?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-18 04:16pm

Why did they elect Kerry, an empty suit, when we had candidates who were not retards? Simple answer: Retards who prefer to 'play it safe' with knowns.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-18 04:27pm

SirNitram wrote:Why did they elect Kerry, an empty suit, when we had candidates who were not retards? Simple answer: Retards who prefer to 'play it safe' with knowns.

Frankly, the Democratic feild wasn't a great one to pick from in 2004. Dean and Clark were the only ones that weren't a total quack or another careerist jelly-fish. Gephardt is the ultimate empty suit, Leiberman simply a careerist politician, Clark might have been decent (I was hoping he'd get picked) but had too much baggage and not that good a campaign, and Dean simply didn't have the campaign and was too far left. The rest were quacks and joke candidates. The Democrats simply didn't have a good strong candidate.

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-10-18 04:40pm

SirNitram wrote:Why did they elect Kerry, an empty suit, when we had candidates who were not retards? Simple answer: Retards who prefer to 'play it safe' with knowns.

You mean 'nominate' dont you

Seriously though look at Shrum's record:

George McGovern for President 1972/ Senior Speach Writer (McGovern Lost Race to Nixon)
Carter for President 1976/ Press Secretary ( Fired / Quit after being critical of Carter in public)
Ted Kennedy for President 1980/ Press Secretary(Kennedy Lost Nomination to Carter)
Gephardt for President 1988/ Senior Campaign Advisor (Gephardt Lost Nomination to Dukakis)
Bon Kerrey for President 1992/ Senior Campaign Advisor (Lost Nomination to Bill Clinton)
Al Gore for President 2000/ Senior Campaign Advisor (Gore Lost Race to Dubya)
John Kerry for President 2004/ Senior Campaign Advisor (*In Progress*)

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-10-18 04:47pm

Bon Kerrey for President 1992/ Senior Campaign Advisor (Lost Nomination to Bill Clinton)

That Should Read 'Bob Kerrey" my bad.

Shrum's record is consitantly bad. You would think that a weak Dem candidate (i.e. Kerry) would say to himself...

"Humm, I really think I need a high power political advisor to craft my image to really help get my message out. Somebody like that could really help me focus and run my campaign! Wait! I know I'll call..."

...but the line is busy so he endups calling Shrum...

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-10-18 06:47pm

I've raised this question before. Most of the blame for the Kerry campaign's idiocy belongs squarely on Schrum's shoulders, including not responding immediately to the Swift Boat Vets. I don't have any idea why the Democrats let him anywhere near their campaigns; he's like a Republican mole.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-10-18 08:59pm

Didn't they recruit Carville?