September 4, 2004

SIMPLIFY, SIMPLIFY:

Strategy Shift (Jake Tapper, 9/04/04, ABCNEWS.com)

With 59 days to go until the presidential election, the campaign of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. — trailing by double-digits in two recent national polls — has made a shift in strategy.

While decrying Republican attacks on Kerry's military service and fitness for office as unfair and personal, the Kerry campaign is also attacking the military service and fitness for office of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. At the same time, the campaign almost seemed to be ceding the national security issue to the president as Kerry focuses on domestic issues.

"In the last four years, George Bush has served the American worker in the same way he served the Texas National Guard: He was absent without leave," said John Wagner, a local AFL-CIO executive, at a Kerry rally in Akron this morning.

Added Akron Mayor Donald Plusquellic: "The simple truth is that John Kerry was in Vietnam and George Bush wasn't. It's as simple as that. … George Bush was hiding in the woods in Alabama and John Kerry was defending our country."


That headline is a tad verbose--we'd have gone with: "Strategy"

After all, what does going negative replace?

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 4, 2004 7:36 PM
Comments

It replaces having to make a moral argument for something, which Kerry is unable to do.

Posted by: pj at September 4, 2004 10:00 PM

The rally this morning was two blocks from my house. Looking down South Main you could see a row of police in orange vests on the sidewalks, one on each block from Wilbeth (the corner where the stadium is) down to Waterloo, which is probably a mile or more -- and I don't doubt that they were similarly spread out in the other directions too. It was an interesting sight.

Me, I left about 10:30 and spent the day riding roller coasters.

Posted by: Guy T. at September 4, 2004 10:13 PM

So I understand that any random naval lieutenant should beat the president, but shouldn't some random grunt who served incountry beat Kerry?

Posted by: David Cohen at September 4, 2004 10:29 PM

Bush and Cheney have been in office for the past four years. While one may legitimately disagree with many of things they have done or failed to do, it is difficult to argue that they are 'unfit for office.' Especially when you base that argument on things that happened before a significant part of the electorate were born. For better or worse, Bush/Cheney will be evaluated on the basis of the last four years. On what basis should we evaluate Kerry? His dubious military record? His obscene comments after he got back? His laughably thin performance as Teddy's designated driver for the last 3 terms?

Posted by: Bart at September 4, 2004 10:57 PM

Bart:

excellent point. The GOP didn't get too far arguing that President Clinton was unfit because in a democracy you're essentially blaming the people themselves. It's also why we think all our wars were victories.

Posted by: oj at September 4, 2004 11:39 PM

If I'm not mistaken, Bush "hid in the woods" in 1972. At that very moment, Kerry was slandering his brothers-in-arms as genocidal maniacs.

Posted by: Peter at September 5, 2004 8:00 AM
« GENIUS/LUNATIC/GENIUS/LUNATIC: | Main | AN ICEBERG?: »