Burnt Orange Report

One thing that Mark Shields misses about Reagan is that when one actually counts the number of slams against an opponent, Reagan is the most negative campaigner of the modern era (Bush I, surprisingly enough is the least).

Lesson: You can be relentlessly negative if you can enumerate a clear policy.

In 2000, I heard a Q&A by Bush, and when asked why he wanted to be president, he started to stutter.

Why does ANYBODY want to be president?
If Kerry had some manufactured flip answer, he'd be criticized for insincerity.

In 1992, I didn't give a ƒû¢# why Bill Clinton wanted to be president. He was a Democrat, he had a pulse, and I knew he's do a lot better job than Papi Bush. He got my enthusiastic support and my vote. My only regret is that I can't vote for him yet again.

Mission statements are getting to be passé. They are mostly BS anyway.
This pseudo-controversy sounds like the silly nitpicking by ivory tower liberals which did little to help Al Gore in 2000.

Well just being a Democrat with a pulse does not win over swing voters. And as to a manufactured flip answer? Kerry would only need one if he didn't know why he was running, so that leaves us still without a reason. Is it so impossible to say why? And if you don't know why, then should you be running?

How about:
I'm running cuz I think I can do better than Dubya.

Swing voters will pay more attention to candidates' positions on policy, the gut perception of them as leaders, the quality of people they will appoint to their administrations and to the federal judiciary, and their ethical backgrounds.
Hair style and accent will probably influence more voters than existential questions.

Kerry is the nominee. Deal with it. Elitist navel gazing won't win elections.

Well, you could look here:

"I'm running for President to make the country we love safer, stronger, and more secure. I'm asking every American to be a Citizen Soldier again committed to leaving no American behind."

Did anyone ask (or care) why Bush wanted to be President in 2000?

I've gotta say, I find this line of inquiry to be asinine. "Because I'll do a better job than the other guy" is a perfectly fine reason to me, and I think Kerry has communicated that all along. What more do you want?

a guy with a pulse that understands the rest of america and doesn't have 18 summer homes in his wife's name?

Charles,

It's easy to cite his webpage. My fear is that Kerry hasn't effectively communicated that message to the American people.

Kerry is the nominee. Deal with it. Elitist navel gazing won't win elections.

Um, Tim, when did I or Byron say he wasn't? Maybe someone still thinks I'm a stupid "deanie baby, hehe ain't that cute" or something. I found your comment the opposite of enlightening. I am not a mindless fuck. And even if I had chosen not to get in line on your time schedule, I don't think it would be yours or anyone's place to demand that we do not question the nominee. Because I'm sure that wouldn't have happened at all if Dean had been the nominee. yeah.

And to Charles. Can you or anyone actually tell me what the hell that line on his wepage actually means. Can you translate into a broad vision that everyone is talking about? I mean, the first line is about security, the second line makes it sound like we are going to become a national milita and attack our social inequities by marching into the classroom or something.

Kerry brands himself as the Real Deal. What is that? Where is he coming from, what motivates him, what is this Real Deal that he is supposed to be?

If he wants a mandate, people need to be voting FOR John Kerry, not AGAINST Bush. The latter gets him elected, but combined with the first, it gets America on Our side on the Issues.

I think this question is fine if you want to hear a comprehensive answer. However, if all you want is a soundbite, it comes across a little like asking Miss America one of those stupid questions about the one thing she would do if she could. And unfortunately, that is what the great majority of people will hear, the soundbite.

I agree he needs to get his message across better to the people. He needs to switch to a positive message while he has a (slight) lead. I think the more negative Kerry goes, the more Nader becomes an option.

"He needs to tell people how he'll make a difference in their lives, and how he will make them safer and more prosperous. Finally, Kerry needs to connect his heroism in Vietnam to his vision for America. It's one thing to be a war hero, it's another to apply the lessons he learned in Vietnam to making America a better nation."

30 years ago John Kerry appeared on the Dick Cavett show as a Congressional candidate, and to describe the evils (firebombings and massacres of whole villages) he claimed American forces were committing in Vietnam.

That night he had no answer why he did nothing to stop these atrocities he claimed to have witnessed during his tour of duty. To this day, he has no intelligible answer why he never stepped up to the plate during his service, to at least protest these "horrors" he so broadly proclaimed as an anti-war vet, once he was back on American soil and trying to build name ID.

If Kerry tries to bring up his war heroism, Rove will gladly make the interception and run with it. The American public will turn on the evening news and watch a fun little reminder of the "heroism", Fonda-esque rhetoric and fumblings of John Kerry's interest in Vietnam. Too bad for Kerry that the public will be unimpressed with his contrary stances, if he chooses to play up that period of his history.

Of course, the retort should be to point at Bush's National Guard service and the questions that were raised there. Unfortunately for Kerry, that issue is DOA, and way too complex to prove to the voters. Bush can simply take a good 30-second TV commercial to destroy the Kerry credibility as a war hero.

Possibly the whole scenario could play out to a net positive for Kerry. Just piss off all the battleground middle-state swing votes towards both candidates and make them stay home in November. The positive soundbite that impresses Americans to vote Kerry is not going to come from the heroism issue. The sticky point is to ask, will it come at all?

Byron and Karl, I'll say it again. Kerry is running because he thinks he'll do a better job than Dubya, and from where I sit he's communicated that all along. I honestly don't understand what the fuss is about.

While not a bad question to ask, at least for campaign reasons, I don't believe that the reason is a sense of entitlement. If that were the case, he would have run for president much sooner than he has.

"He needs to tell people how he'll make a difference in their lives, and how he will make them safer and more prosperous."

Yes, that's true. I think most voters vote for a candidate based on their personal conditions or perceived conditions. Having a theme like "Two Americas" certainly is an easily digestable theme. If Kerry doesn't answer the question (and probably quickly), I think he could be in real trouble, providing there's no more scandal and imploding by the Bush administration, which is looking unlikely.

But I think there's a difference between not having a reason and not communicating it well. And I think Kerry more suffers from the latter than the former. But in the end, a problem with communication becomes a problem of absence. One reason Dean appealed to people was that he talked a LOT about daily life. In particular, his focus on the importance of small business appealed to me.

Right now, though, Bush has no positive message. His recent ads in particular have been nothing but attack, a very strange tactic for an incumbent.

In the end, I think Kuffner's right: Doing a better job with the economy, the budget, and foreign policy is probably enough. As Kerry comes out with proposals like spending caps (whether you like the idea or not), he's communicating that message of better performance and accountability.

I believe Kerry is hoping to win this election by points and not too many. Attempting knockout punches on huge issues like Iraq could backfire and cost him a victory. Better to play safe and hope to eke out a victory, than to propogate big controversial stands on the issues of the day and make problems for yourself. My two cents.

In every government there is a point when someone realizes that there needs to be a power change. When someone stands up and says someone can do a better job and that person should be me. John Kerry has done that. He has plenty of motivation for being president, one of them being he's a Democrat that knows how important it is to put an end to the Republican chokehold.

And if dethroning Bush wasn't enough of a reason to run for president Kerry has really good ideas: Return the taxes to a reasonable rate for the top 2% and lower taxes for 98% of Americans; to ask young Americans to give two years of service in exchange for fully-paid instate college tuition; to establish a public education budget that will meet the needs of this country; to bring back America's foreign allies and to find a peaceful solution to Iraq.
Restoring America sounds like a pretty good reason to run for president if you ask me.

John Kerry is our nominee and I think we should do everything possible to make sure people start hearing about the reasons why he should be our next president.

Great question, Byron, but now's a helluva time to ask. And much as I respect them, that goes for 'Kos and Mark Shields too.

The problem is, if Kerry can't communicate his vision now, we Democrats are screwed. We'll either end up losing, as in '88, or winning with little mandate, as in '92. Neither possibility is likely to move US politics away from the far right.

We Democrats should have been asking these questions back in February, when another candidate could've picked up the pieces if Kerry couldn't articulate his vision for America. (To be fair, several Kossacks - and not just Deaniacs - were asking this question back in Feb., but it never seeped even into the wider blogosphere, let alone mainstream pundits like Shields.)

And Kuff, I think you're confusing what it takes to convince us hardcore Dems with what it takes to convince swing voters. Of course Kerry thinks he can do a better job than Bush! So what; so did every other candidate from Lieberman to Sharpton! I'd bet most swing voters want something a bit more specific. (Love your blog, BTW.)

I believe Kerry is hoping to win this election by points and not too many. Attempting knockout punches on huge issues like Iraq could backfire and cost him a victory. Better to play safe and hope to eke out a victory, than to propogate big controversial stands on the issues of the day and make problems for yourself.

I agree, don; I just think it's a bad strategy - like a football team using a prevent defense to try to ride a 7-point lead from halftime to the end of the game. The way I see it, this is basically what the Dems tried in '02 to such disastrous effect. Luckily, the way the Bush administration has been imploding lately, it may nonetheless work for Kerry - if you don't mind conceding Congress to the Rethugs for at least two more years.

Kerry has really good ideas: Return the taxes to a reasonable rate for the top 2% and lower taxes for 98% of Americans; to ask young Americans to give two years of service in exchange for fully-paid instate college tuition; to establish a public education budget that will meet the needs of this country; to bring back America's foreign allies and to find a peaceful solution to Iraq.

That's not bad, Marcus, but I don't think even most Democrats could tell you that, if they were asked what Kerry stands for. That's more or less what Kerry's campaign should be saying. (We can say it all we want, but we can't be expected to replace Kerry's campaign - we don't have the big microphone and he does.

I'd make a few tweaks to that message: replace "top 2%" and "98%" with "people making over/under $200K (or whatever the correct figure is) per year," so the average voter would know just how far (s)he is away from that dividing line (nearly 40% of Americans believe they are or will someday be within the top 1%!); de-emphasize the national service soundbite outside the youth market (it's a good plank, but it's one a so-called "compassionate conservative" like Bush could easily co-opt, and it's not particularly exciting anyway); and last but not least, don't talk about "finding" a peaceful solution to Iraq; propose a peaceful solution! But the most important thing is to start campaigning on something - and soon.