Kerry doesn't have to go negative on Bush

[Spinzonner]

they just have to hammer the inconsistencies between what Bush runs as and what he governs as.

The differences between his rhetoric and his actions.

The flip-flopping on issues such as the Dept of Homeland Defense, Steel Tariffs, and now Global Warming.

The distinction between his so-called compassion and the callousness of statements like 'Bring It On' where are troops are at risk

His out and out lying - not mere misstatements - like not letting the WMD inspectors in.

The strategy needs to be based upon what's demonstrably true about Bush that people can remember and see with their own eyes and ears that prove the warm and fuzzy Republican characterizations of him are BS.

Bush has to be made to eat his own words and deeds without anyone to chew it for him first.


And, as Adlai E. Stevenson said:

"If the Republicans will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them."

[Thrill]

1. He does need to go negative

Negative wins in politics

[MrSlayer]

2. It would seem quite easy to use his own words against him.

There must be a ton of footage of Chimp lying his ass off.

[Jacobin]

3. True. Only if he wants to win

[tedoll78]

4. Agree -

Attack - but hang Bush with the rope that he himself hath provided for us.

Kerry's advertising folks could take a lesson from the Daily Show's writers. I know.. some will laugh, but the stuff on that show is really, really damaging. Mockery *works*! If Kerry can turn the Chimp into a walking national embarrassment, he can win this thing in a landslide.

[existentialist]

7. Going negative, . . .

I don't know what works in the rest of the country, and South Dakota is not a swing state, but everyone agrees that it generally does not seem to work here.

This is enough so that I am careful of what I say about Bush when I try to persuade people to vote for Daschle and Herseth (and South Dakota may well be a swing state with regard to majorities in both the House and the Senate.

I think it is clear that it is better for Kerry not to go negative unless he has to, and that those of us working for Kerry have a little more latitude than Kerry himself does personally.

[lastknowngood]

5. You can't point out the shrub's disastrous reign without going

neg. If Kerry stays positive we get 4 more years of the shrub. Listen there are no undecided voters, if Kerry doesn't fire up his base by calling the shrub some perfectly true names and pointing out his lies some will stay home. If he won't stand up for himself what's the chance he will stand up for anyone else?

[BillZBubb]

6. What you describe is going "negative".

Any time you attack your opponent--truthfully or falsely--it's a negative. You are trying to subtract from his/her support.

A positive campaign would only focus on the candidate and his strengths and proposals. It is an attempt to add support to oneself.

If Kerry hopes to win he must do both. In fact, I'll go so far as to say if Kerry doesn't go VERY negative on Bush* starting very soon in this campaign he will lose.

[Democat]

8. That is the problem with the Kerry strategy so far

He needs to try to bring down Bush's numbers, not just increase his own.

Bush is running a two-fronted attack, building himself up while tearing Kerry down. Kerry is running a mostly one fronted attack where he builds himself up without doing any serious damage to Bush.

After the convention, Kerry is going to have to attack Bush if he wants to win. Fuck being nice, we're fighting for the future of the country.

[3trievers]

9. negative works

Playing by the rules rates a Mr nice guy reputation but also comes with an also ran second place finish.The smear boat liars ads have paid off in spades and have put Kerry on the defensive.John McCain,the great paragon of virtue and supposed Kerry buddy has sold his soul and will engage in the smears he deplores before this campaign is over.The McCain ad that was pulled should have played as long as possible with John Kerry disavowing any knowledge of its origin.Swing voters seem to have a misguided love affair with McCain and would be offended by the Bush dirty trick team.Just my thoughts from our elections in Canada.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

10. The rhetoric /actions chasm has been duly noted

The Kerry Edwards team has already set up this theme as the standard to judge them by.
The Seattle Times endorsement of Kerry basically said the same.
They will definitely portray them as.. well... LIARS after all this hot air this week.