Kerry: Bringing Civility Back toPolitics
Find a Conversation
Kerry: Bringing Civility Back toPolitics
| Sun, 07-25-2004 - 11:45pm |
<
"We need to turn back some of the creeping, un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits that are coming into some of our politics."
"I remember a time when people in political parties in Pennsylvania talked to one another and actually got things done. We have to go back to those days when we can do things properly, for the people need it."
"My prayers for you, for me, for the country, for the world, are that we keep this at a high level, with dignity, with respect and with a great idealism and courage that took our forefathers to build this great nation.">>
Only moments later...
<<Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Democratic nominee John Kerry, told a reporter to 'shove it'>>
http://drudgereport.com/teresahk.htm
Renee ~~~

Pages
How dare we, we need a first lady who does nothing, says nothing and is nothing.
Wait, we already have one.
Drudge Report... Gee, anyone going to post something from Michael Moore's site to even things out?
Bush-haters do Kerry no favors
Jeff Jacoby
July 26, 2004
A popular conceit of the left is that political hatred is a sickness of the right, one to which liberals are largely immune. "Just who are these Clinton haters," asked Time magazine in April 1994, "and why do they loathe Bill and Hillary with such passion?" It answered, in effect: That's just the way conservatives are. In its final paragraph, the article quoted historian Alan Brinkley: "Liberals tend to value tolerance highly, so there's a greater reluctance to destroy enemies than among the right."
That was a whopper even in 1994, a year when Republican leader Newt Gingrich was routinely vilified as a McCarthyite and a racist. Ten years later, with a storm of Bush hatred raging among liberal Democrats, the notion that the left is too high-minded to savage its opponents is about as plausible as the claim that the moon landings were staged in Hollywood.
The left's bitter fury toward Bush is more than just atmospherics. It is the big political story of the past two years. The visceral revulsion Bush provokes in so many Democrats fuels the passion that has had such a seismic effect on the presidential campaign. From last winter's Howard Dean bubble to the astonishing sums of money being donated to John Kerry, Bush hatred has profoundly shaped the 2004 election. It explains why Kerry is neck-and-neck in his race with George Bush. It may also be the reason he loses.
In a startling article in The New Republic last year, Jonathan Chait made what the magazine trumpeted as "The Case for Bush Hatred." He opened with a declaration that until recently would have been unthinkable in a respected journal of opinion: "I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it." Bush's policies, Chait wrote, "rank him among the worst presidents in US history" -- but "I hate him for less substantive reasons, too. . . . I hate the way he walks. . . . I hate the way he talks. . . . And while most people who meet Bush claim to like him, I suspect that if I got to know him personally, I would hate him even more."
Chait went on to make a factual, detailed case for his poor opinion of Bush. But what does "I hate the way he walks . . . I hate the way he talks" mean, if not that the facts and details don't really matter? Bush hatred isn't a considered judgment. It's a distemper; a derangement. To those afflicted with the mania, denouncing the 43d president as an evil moron may seem perfectly reasonable. But normal voters are not likely to find it a persuasive argument. More likely, they will be repelled by it.
Most Americans don't consider themselves haters, and hatred doesn't usually win elections. Clinton was detested by many conservative Republicans, but that didn't stop him from getting re-elected. Bob Dole, the 1996 GOP nominee, was frustrated by his inability to make any headway against an incumbent that he knew many people reviled. "Where's the outrage?" he fumed. What Dole discovered -- what Kerry should remember -- is that political hatred is a minority taste. However intensely it may be savored by true believers, it's a hard sell on Main Street.
The last thing Kerry needs is to be seen as the candidate of the Hate Party. His campaign has reportedly issued orders to keep the Bush-bashing to a minimum during this week's convention, and the official convention speakers will no doubt comply. But what about all the non-official speakers and activists and sign-wavers and souvenir vendors and interview-givers who will be so visible and audible to the thousands of journalists roaming the Fleet Center? How restrained is Michael Moore, the nation's premier Bush-hating demagogue, going to be at the rally he and Howard Dean are headlining on Tuesday, for example? How many celebrities will be unable to suppress the kind of X-rated rant that Whoopi Goldberg uncorked at that now-infamous Kerry gala at Radio City Music Hall? How many delegates will be sporting crude Bush-hating buttons, like the ones that say "Buck Fush" or "Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot"?
When Chait wrote his New Republic article last fall, Bush hatred still had limits. "Mainstream Democrats have avoided delving into Bush's economic ties with the bin Laden family or suggesting that Bush invaded Iraq primarily to benefit Halliburton," he wrote. But that was before "Fahrenheit 9/11," which traffics in precisely such smears. That was before Al Gore likened Bush's communications aides to Nazi "Brown Shirts." That was before MoveOn.org posted two videos on its website depicting Bush as Adolf Hitler.
Clinton-bashing got pretty intense, but rare was the Republican who was proud to call it "hatred." Many Bush-haters, by contrast, embrace the term enthusiastically. Their unabashed loathing may energize and excite them, but they are doing their candidate -- and their country -- no favors. For most Americans, hatred is a political turn-off. Any Democrat who wants John Kerry to be president might do well to keep that in mind.
"I'm George Bush and I approved this message." Kerry doesn't even mention Bush in his campaign ads.
Seeing a Bush supporter talk about negative campaigning, that's above and beyond the pot calling the kettle black. You're going to compare a minority of voices not directly involved in the political process to the entire Bush/Cheney campaign?
And why can Bush/Cheney do nothing but bash Kerry? Because their own record blows.
Kerry to Stop Bashing Bush
NewsMax Wires
Monday, July 26, 2004
"Who he is, where he comes from and what he believes: That is the most important thing to convey," said Tad Devine, a senior Kerry advisor, about John Kerry’s new campaign tactics to be featured at the Democratic National Convention, which kicks off Monday in Boston.
Rather than bashing Bush, the candidate will zero in on persuading voters that he could defend the country as a strong commander in chief, according to a report in the LA Times.
"Seventy-five percent of this week is that he will keep you safe, and 25 percent is that he is a man of conviction," one senior Kerry aide explained.
"The country does not need to be won over to the fact that it wants change," added veteran Democratic pollster Stanley B. Greenberg. "It needs to be won over to the fact that Kerry is the person who can lead that change."
Democratic strategists are fretting that many voters have received much of their limited information on Kerry from Bush TV commercials portraying him as a flip-flopper on the issues.
"Voters feel comfortable that Kerry is smart and experienced, but when you start going beyond that, the only thing that emerges is that he has a personality that seems distant, and some sense he straddles on issues," Democratic pollster Peter Hart told the Times. "Many of the positive elements of his story are just not known."
Kenneth Goldstein, a University of Wisconsin political scientist, opined that the Democratic convention represents "Kerry's last best chance" to tell his personal story.
"If Kerry does not convey a story with swing voters that … provides a partial shield for what is going to be an onslaught by Bush … it gives Bush an opportunity to complete the job of defining Kerry and chipping away at his support," added Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio.
At least one senior GOP strategist, however, sees the tactic to play down Bush and emphasize Kerry as a sign of weakness:
"Kerry is weak and they have to deal with that weakness. Part of that is the Bush campaign ads , but that ain't most of it. It is that people are looking at him and saying, 'Massachusetts liberal, flip-flopper.' So I think they are sitting there saying 'We have a real problem and we have to deal with it.' "
In any event, the convention in Boston may provide less of a venue to showcase candidate Kerry than in previous years.
According to the Times report, the broadcast networks will air three hours from each convention — the least on record.
And there’s catching up to do – as far as candidate Kerry is concerned. Surveys and focus groups consistently show that many Americans still don't know much about Kerry.
Case-in-point: a Times Poll last week found that one-third of registered voters said they didn't know Kerry well enough to decide whether he would be a better president than Bush.
During the three key network coverage hours at the convention, Democrats hope to highlight his domestic and foreign agenda, as well as flesh the candidate out.
Aiding in the effort will be daughters Alexandra and Vanessa, stepson Chris Heinz and the senator's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, and colleagues such as Sen. Joseph R. Biden, D-Del.
In the end, however, the task of humanizing Kerry will fall on his own shoulders.
"The acceptance speech is the ballgame," said Democratic media consultant Mandy Grunwald, who helped plan the 1992 convention for Clinton. "That is the moment voters tune in and make a judgment."
You haven't addressed the last post: Kerry isn't bashing Bush. He's against some policies on the stump, his campaign ads PROPOSE AND DONT OPPOSE and here I am again, responding to a post that really isn't a post, it's something pasted from a right-wing news source.
Just tell us all in your own words if possible: Why can't the Bush/Cheney campaign run on their own record? You'd think they'd learn something from the Bush 41's failed 1992 campaign.
Oh well...
Ok, now lets focus on who is running John Kerry!
"I'm a Catholic. Hasim is Muslim, and I hope there are Jews and other denominations here and maybe people who are agnostic, I don't know," Kerry said. "But here's what I know. I'm running for president of the United States of America, and I'm running to be president of all of the American people."
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04208/351937.stm
"After overhearing them, Kerry said,"What we really need to do in America, frankly, is stop shouting at each other and start listening to each other."
http://www.reviewonline.com/news/story/0725202004_new00kerrycampaigns.asp
"One man balanced his Bush sign with one hand and shook Kerry's with the other. ``Good luck to you, too,'' he said.
Kerry thanked him, and added: ``I can put more money in your pocket than the other guy will."
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/9244441.htm?1c
<,You haven't addressed the last post: Kerry isn't bashing Bush. >>
Right, he's begging the Bush-haters to pipe down and put on a nice face so they don't scare anyone and alienate potential voters.
Renee ~~~
Renee ~~~
Right, he's begging the Bush-haters to pipe down and put on a nice face so they don't scare anyone and alienate potential voters.
--
Boy, this is becomming a regular thing for us: You post blanket statements that are untrue, and I respond by saying: Where's your source for this statement? Where did his campaign tell anyone anything?
Sounds more like someone heard that 'The convention will not bash bush, but will focus more on Kerry the person/Kerry the candidate/Party Platform." or something like that.
So, what's the source you're referring to when you say that Kerry is "BEGGING THE BUSH-HATERS TO PIPE DOWN".?
The only negativity that's back-fired in this campaign is Bush/Cheney: 110 million in nothing but negative ads and Bush's own approval rating takes a 15 pt hit for it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3222-2004May30.html
"Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate.
The assault on Kerry is multi-tiered: It involves television ads, news releases, Web sites and e-mail, and statements by Bush spokesmen and surrogates -- all coordinated to drive home the message that Kerry has equivocated and "flip-flopped" on Iraq, support for the military, taxes, education and other matters."
"Kerry, too, has made his own misleading statements and exaggerations. For example, he said in a speech last week about Iraq: "They have gone it alone when they should have assembled a whole team." That is not true. There are about 25,000 allied troops from several nations, particularly Britain, in Iraq. Likewise, Kerry said several times last week that Bush has spent $80 million on negative and misleading ads -- a significant overstatement. Kerry also suggested several times last week that Bush opposed increasing spending on several homeland defense programs; in fact, Bush has proposed big increases in homeland security but opposed some Democratic attempts to increase spending even more in some areas. Kerry's rhetoric at rallies is also often much harsher and more personal than Bush's.
But Bush has outdone Kerry in the number of untruths, in part because Bush has leveled so many specific charges (and Kerry has such a lengthy voting record), but also because Kerry has learned from the troubles caused by Al Gore's misstatements in 2000."
~~~~~~
<< Right, he's begging the Bush-haters to pipe down and put on a nice face so they don't scare anyone and alienate potential voters.>>
And Terry McAulliff has expressed concern that the Bush-bashing could get out of hand. "We are not Michael Moore"
Why I'm nitpicking this, I have no idea.
So McAullife said it and not Kerry.
If the Dems really wanted to tone it down, they'd deny Gore any right to speak. I have a feeling Gore will do exactly what Bush lovers hope (Since they have no chance on their own records/candidates) and that's be so extreme, he'll turn voters off.
Eh, fat chance. No one in the democratic party is going to be as 'Extreme' as Bush has been.
Pages