Subject:  I know what Kerry's problem is!

Dear Bart:

The grass-roots end of the Kerry campaign is working beautifully--the polls
and attendance at the rallies bear that out. But as far dealing with the mainstream
media, they're not only kicking Kerry's ass, they're using HIS shoes!

How can Bush's "Mission Accomplished" stunt be used against him now that
Kerry has been photographed in a powder blue jumpsuit? How can he question
Bush's military strategy now that he seems to have agreed with it? Why did he
use the words "sensitive" and "war" in the same sentence? Why didn't he point out
that Bush has used "sensitive" and "war" in the same sentence himself? Why didn't
he take the lead against the Smear-Boaters For Bush instead of relying on his
not-so-rapid response team? And why did he brag about his daughter winning a
scholarship when he must know that she'll be criticized for being too rich to need it?

All of these gaffes could have been avoided if the Kerry camp understood
that the mainstream media hates him as much as the GOP does. Everything he
does must be done bearing in mind that their mandate is to render him a
laughingstock. And everything he says must be said bearing in mind that it
will be spun in any way possible to help the Pretzel-Dunce.

Which brings us to Kerry's problem. As I said, the grass-roots aspect of the
campaign has been a success, and no doubt reason why is because it's so
POSITIVE. People are enjoying going to the rallies without being searched or
signing oaths, and hearing about the good things that can happen once he's
in office. But just because that's effective locally doesn't mean it will
also work nationally. Kerry's unwillingness to confront Bush when he comes
up with crap like "the sensitive war" seems to be rooted in his desire to
keep things "positive," to keep himself "above" the slime that the Bush camp
has been spewing. That's fine, but that doesn't mean he should keep his
mouth shut when he's called out. HE ought to be doing the initial rebutting,
and THEN turning the matter over to his response team. And he ought to be
rebutting a way that's immediate, concise, spin-retardant, and slams the ball
back into Bush's court. Most important, if he orients his statements around the
facts, he WON'T come off as "negative" or "stooping to their level."

For instance, this is what he should have said about the SMEAR-BOATERS:
"This is obviously a politically-orchestrated attempt to divert attention from the
problems with Mr. Bush's military record."

THE SENSITIVE WAR: "If I'm too sensitive to be commander in chief, then Mr.
Bush must be, too, because he also mentions "sensitivity" in a speech he gave on..."

WHAT I KNOW NOW: "What we know now is besides the point. The point is, what
DID Bush know then? And why did he violate the resolution by using force?"

THE JUMPSUIT: "Everybody has to put on that suit in order to enter that
section of NASA. I put it on for safety reasons...not POLITICAL ones."

See? No insults, no negativity, but he defends his honor AND hits Bush back.
Tell me the undecideds and grass-rooters wouldn't eat that up. And tell me
how the media could spin it without pointing out one of Bush's faults!

I absolutely agree with you that Kerry's lead should be wider. It isn't because he's
helping the media to plant seeds of doubt in the undecideds, which is turn is starting
to destabilize his base. And I think it's time for him to do some "house cleaning"
with his campaign staff--either he's got some incompetents, or a GOP mole!


Kerry is a decorated war hero and Bush is an AWOL deserter, but Kerry is
spending time trying to defend his decision to fight when the others chose not to.

It's like Pauly Shore saying he did more for the Army than Wesley Clark.

It's a joke that Kerry should've stomped a looooong time ago, but he doesn't have
anyone on his team with a smart mouth and a knack for making Nazis eat shit.

  return to

Privacy Policy
. .