Defeating Kerry
Andrew Sullivan:
"All the signs are that the Republicans plan to disinter the old 'l-word' campaign against Kerry. Liberal, liberal, liberal. To which the best response is: dated, dated, dated. The Finklestein strategy is very tired. Like an ad campaign that has lost its punch, it might backfire badly - making it look as if the Republicans are simply negative and still living in the past. A much smarter move, it seems to me, would be to paint Kerry as simply all over the map. Show not just how liberal he has been - but how conservative he has tried to seem in the past as well. Use his war votes - against the Gulf War in 1991 (but against it in letters to constituents) and for the Saddam War in 2003 (but against the $87 billion to make it work) - to cast doubt on whether he really is decisive enough to be president at a time of war. Make him look weak and vacillating rather than extreme and liberal. That makes the case for Bush's war-leadership indirectly - and therefore more effectively."
I think the opportunist label has validity going back to his first entry in politics. Friends say he joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War as a vehicle to launch his political career. He then had no compunction about slandering his fellow vets with absurb charges of genocide. It is more than ironic that he now wants vets to help him become President. This is one vet that will never vote for him.
Andrew Sullivan:
"All the signs are that the Republicans plan to disinter the old 'l-word' campaign against Kerry. Liberal, liberal, liberal. To which the best response is: dated, dated, dated. The Finklestein strategy is very tired. Like an ad campaign that has lost its punch, it might backfire badly - making it look as if the Republicans are simply negative and still living in the past. A much smarter move, it seems to me, would be to paint Kerry as simply all over the map. Show not just how liberal he has been - but how conservative he has tried to seem in the past as well. Use his war votes - against the Gulf War in 1991 (but against it in letters to constituents) and for the Saddam War in 2003 (but against the $87 billion to make it work) - to cast doubt on whether he really is decisive enough to be president at a time of war. Make him look weak and vacillating rather than extreme and liberal. That makes the case for Bush's war-leadership indirectly - and therefore more effectively."
I think the opportunist label has validity going back to his first entry in politics. Friends say he joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War as a vehicle to launch his political career. He then had no compunction about slandering his fellow vets with absurb charges of genocide. It is more than ironic that he now wants vets to help him become President. This is one vet that will never vote for him.
Comments
Post a Comment