Kerry Missing Message Mantra
Kerry is portrayed as not having had a clear and consistent campaign message. The legitimacy of that portrayal is based in part on Kerry's own personal style of analysis and reflection, but much more so on the fact that Bush had such an extensive, ongoing, abysmal record to criticize. The Bush style lends itself to simplistic mischaracterizations ( I still fail to understand how Kerry could be both a "flip flopper' and the most consistently liberal member of the Senate), repeated in that mantra style by all the talk show cohorts and other sycophants. Kerry might have been well served by using more of the honest characterizations of Bush's failings, like "consistency is no virtue when you are consistently wrong".
posted by Tom Blake | 1:19 PM
6 Comments:
Kerry did a remarkably good job of selling what the majority of the people did not want to buy. His very good performance in the debates allowed him to turn a would be disaster into a credible final race.
John
Well 49% of those whose votes were counted bought it and he got more votes for President than any other person in American history, except, unfortunately GWB.
But how many of the 49% were really votes for Kerry as opposed to votes against Bush? That's not the same thing because those anti-Bush voters would probably vote for anyone else who looked as presidential as Kerry. But someone from a red state that could carry his own state and campaign as well as Kerry (that's not asking much)would have won the election. The Democrats must go through a painful lessons learned process from this campaign or learn to live as a minority party. I think the Democrats in my lifetime will do the latter, and that's why I joined the Republican Party several years ago. Although, I have to admit, I've had no impact on making that party more liberal.
John
The smallest change that could have elected Kerry would have been to swing 100,000 more voters in Ohio, without turning off any of his votes elsewhere. I think the Republican Secretary of State and cohorts in Ohio had something to do with obtaining that small margin. I wonder where was John Glenn - was not he popular enough to energize some swing voters.
In order for a Democrat to carry a Southern State, his appeal would have to be Republicanized enough where it might de-energize enough mainstream Democrats in a blue state to swing it to red. Just being a southernor is not necessarily enough. Gore couldn’t carry his home state TN in 2000 and Edwards would probably not have been able to win Senate re-election in NC. The Democrats didn’t have anybody better than Kerry. I know you liked Wes Clark, but the primaries showed he had no voter appeal. Maybe Democrats can groom the right person from the South or maybe that person will just emerge on his own, as Clinton did. Or maybe the candidate will be truly unique - like Hillary or Barach Obama - and luck out by being the right person at the right time.
Were you a Republican in 2000? What did you think then about your party’s choice of Bush? Did you have any effective say in the nominating process in 2,000 or in 2004? Is a 55 to 45 Republican advantage in Arizona so surmountable that Democrats should throw in the towel?
Is McCain a fluke or does he actually repersent a significant wing of the Arizona Republican Party?
I know it is personal, but everyoine knows I voted for Kerry. Would you be willing to disclose who you voted for President and the reasons for your choice? If you decline, I respect that.
Of course I voted for Kerry, but that question is so far from my point, I don't think you understand what I am saying. At the general election in Arizona (a state that for a while was in play by desparate Kerry campaign leaders) there were no choices. It was not worth the $0.74 it cost me to vote twice by mail (Jan usually turns over her vote to me, with the exception of John McCain who she can't stand because of his wife). I would not have stood in line 5 minutes if the state did not let me vote by mail. The libertarians had more candidates than the Democrats. Most races were between a Libertarian and a Republican. Except for Kerry in the Presidential race, the Democrats who ran were unknowns or persons of questionable character. The Democratic candidate for Attorney General was so bad that leading Democrats endorsed the Republican candidate even though the Republican won his primary race by appealing to the religious right on moral issues and anti-immigration.
My point is simple: the Democratic Party is dead in Arizona. When I look at the political map and see the solid swath of red states, I have to come to the conclusion that the Democratic Party is probably dead in many of those states, and is dying in the rest.
Your focus in your comments is on the Presidential election. That's not where the health and relevance of the party should be measured. It should be measured on the state and county elections. I would like to see an analysis of the red states to determine if the Republican Party is even more in control at the state and county level than it is at the national level. I believe it is, and that says much about the relevance of the Democratic Party.
Even at the national level, the Republican increase in the House and Senate indicates the Party is unhealthy. So I don't blame the Republicans or the religious right for electing Bush, I blame the Democrats. And the Democratic Party had better respond by greatly incrreased inclusion, even at the risk of losing some people to Ralph Nader.
John
Post a Comment
<< Home