Comments on: Kerry Should Stay Invisible

By: Boyd

Boyd — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

âNot the incumbentâ [is] an insufficient basis for electing a wartime president.

Is it? Is it impossible for Bush's appeal to sink so low that Kerry, being the only viable alternative in the election, wins the election by default?

By: GP

GP — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Kerry is doing the right thing now by keeping quiet. Bush's presidency is spiraling downward by the day. The week of Reagan gave a temporary reprieve, but negative Bush stories started up this past Monday again: Rumsfeld hid prisoners, 9/11 comission says absolutely no connection with Osama and Iraq, Cheney is under investigation for bribes while at Halliburton. There is nothing Kerry (or anyone for that matter) could say to make things worse for Bush right now. And if he were to do so now the public could focus more on Kerry trashing Bush, than on Bush trashing himself. When a ship looks like it's about to sink, it's best to watch from a safe distance.

Also, many of the biggest events of the day are balls in the air that could dramatically change come the fall. So politically he doesn't want to be on the record right now that could not be true in the fall.

But come fall, Kerry will no doubt come out swinging. He's a fierce campaigner who really hits his stride towards the end. By keeping quiet now (at least from the big media) he is spending his time developing his campaign skills. By all accounts his focus and stump speech delivery has vastly improved. So by the time the fall comes around he will be able to campaign in his sleep.

Bush however is so caught up in the daily dramas of his presidency that he has no time to prepare his campaign. Kerry by staying quiet and working the grassroots now will be a better situated campaigner in the fall when the public finally tunes in to the race.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Do people really think this electorate is going to be swayed that much by what Big Media chooses to report? Voters have been burned before (1992), and have, in turned, burned Big Media back (2000, 2002).

Hell hath no fury like an American electorate that no longer trusts the "news."

By: McGehee

McGehee — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Voters have been burned before (1992), and have, in turned, burned Big Media back (2000, 2002). That last should read, "burned Big Media back (1994, 2000, 2002)."

By: McGehee

McGehee — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

By keeping quiet now (at least from the big media) he is spending his time developing his campaign skills. The man's been in politics how long? And he's still developing his campaign skills?

By: SwampWoman

SwampWoman — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Rumsfeld can barbecue up all the inmates at Abu Ghraib and serve 'em to the press and I still wouldn't vote for John Kerry.

---