WHY W. MUST BASH KERRY NOW

New York Post ^ | 2/18/04 | DICK MORRIS

[kattracks]

February 18, 2004 -- THE 2004 presidential election may be decided in the next two months. For three years, George W. Bush has sought to define himself by his accomplishments as president. Legion though they are, he has only achieved a stalemate: His job approval is only a break-even 48 positive and 48 negative in the most recent Fox News poll.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Certainly it's true that Dole was defeated before ever he was nominated . . .

[samtheman]

The writer is correct and certainly the whitehouse has done a fairly poor job at starting the Bush campaign so far. But this article ignores the most important element: the economy.

Barring a major terrorist/war incident, Bush lives or dies on the economy.

[Always Right]

Barring a major terrorist/war incident, Bush lives or dies on the economy.<> No, you have to run an effective campaign. In 1992 the economy was well on its way to a recovery and the economy was going well prior to the election. Clinton was just too effective at making people believe it wasn't. Kerry is doing the same thing this election. Our economy is going strong, but Kerry is looking at just one aspect, job growth, and making everyone believe the economy is in the tank.

[Carry_Okie]

Bash Kerry TOO effectively now and you get Hillary.

[Elkiejg]

While I might agree with Morris, I certainly don't trust him. That being said, I will never understand the concept of the Bush/Rove team's approach to the dirty politics of the RATS. They just don't seem to understand this is not Texas and the plan they used successfully down there of "compassionate conservatism - reaching across the aisle" hasn't and won't work. We out in the country are fighting the battles for him - but if the President doesn't stand up for himself, where does that leave us?

[AmericaUnited]

I long for the Lee Atwater days....

[binger]

[longtermmemmory]

We come not to beat the Democrat candidate, we come to write the epitaph of the democrat party we kill off.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Bush will strike when the time is right. As soon as Kerry wraps up this nomination, he faces five months between his "big win" and the convention's coronation.

That's a long time for Kerry to play defense.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"Bash Kerry TOO effectively now and you get Hillary."

This is what Rove fears the most. Right now Bush is doing the right thing. Go to bases across the country, tell the troops they are doing a great job and get press from it.

The economy is taking care of itself. EVERYONE knows that with RATS in office, interest rates will go up, taxes will go up, inflation will go up as will unemployment and welfare roles.

The Bush team will present a positive image and will not be sucked in by the RATS. Once Kerry is annointed at the convention(I still believe that Kerry will jump the shark after Super Tuesday) then watch the fur fly.

[Brilliant]

Not W. Cheney needs to do it. Where is he? Some undisclosed location? Get off your butt!

[Russ]

We tend to become impatient along about this time in an election cycle. The Democrats have had the airways all to themselves for months while the press has had a feeding frenzy over WMDs, National Guard service and anything else they can think up to bash Bush over the head with.

The Bush reelection team are not a bunch of amateurs. They know that right now it's too early to be wasting money and time on going after the other side. With all that's been piled on Bush and to have his approval rating at around 50% is remarkable. I'd say the Democrats are the ones who should be worried.

[trebb]

I can't see the wisdom of starting too hard or fast - it will be a whole lot more effective to really blitz him later on and pile it on so thick that there is no way for the public to get the nasty taste of Kerry out of their minds before the election. Too much, too soon, and it will be forgotten merely because the media will continue to do its best to bury the truth with false accusations against Bush.

[dawn53]

Whatever Dick Morris' recommendation is, the President should do just the opposite!

I think Kerry's record will be brought to light, but if Bush starts personally attacking Kerry like Kerry has been personally attacking Bush, it won't work, IMHO.

People turn off to heated political rhetoric, a calm, reasoned message is much better accepted and will contrast the two men. Heated political rhetoric energizes the base but does nothing to attract swing voters.

They are swing voters because their minds are not made up (as weird as that seems to me), they want to hear the facts and then decide. I don't think yelling and bashing is what gets their votes.

[Vigilantcitizen]

Yep...Rove and co. know that Americans have short attention spans.

[OpusatFR]

Nope. All the GOP has to do is turn it around and begin the "no solutions, no ideas, all they have to run on is dirty tricks and the politics of negativity and hate."

All the stuff about Kerry isn't out there yet.

[mabelkitty]

No clear nominee yet.
Why start bashing everyone without focus, when we have all the money just sitting there gathering interest. 24/7 media coverage of the Democrats, and they still are only able to bring W. down to break-even.
This is stupid on Morris's part.

If Edwards becomes the nominee, those Judicial Memos will be freed toot-sweet - he has one manipulating the appointment of a judge to satisfy his trial lawyer constituency.

[tkathy]

Bush and Co. have to get going. Unfortunately, I think they may be distracted by the war on maniacs.

[Notasoccermom]

"Bash Kerry TOO effectively now and you get Hillary."

OR John Edwards. Quit bashing now and just quietly take notes. WE need Kerry to be the candidate.

[Therapist]

I want Hillary. As in laid out and gutted by W in the election.

[alwaysconservative]

After knowing that Morris voted for Gore in 2000, and that he's been wrong, wrong, wrong on every issue since that time, I read his articles with interest. After all, they are perfect examples of what the Republicans should NOT do. LOL! He is completely poll-obsessed, and we are seeing that polls are worthless at this stage of the election.

[PogySailor]

Morris is wrong as usual. Kerry is starting to crack already on his own. Edwards showing in Wisconsin yesterday has the pundits buzzing. And check out this article. There is a lot that can happen in the next few weeks as the Clinton's make sure that Kerry is weakened.

I believe that the Bush campaign is correct to hold fire until the smoke clears from the Democrat primaries.

[hellinahandcart]

This is the same man who said in 2002 that Bush should stop campaigning for Republican Senate candidates, because people didn't like it and there would be a backlash.

I don't know how Dick Morris earns a dime, frankly. He's nearly always wrong.

[hellinahandcart]

And I see you've still got a bug up your butt regarding Cheney. You really should have passed it by now.

[Common Tator]

When it comes to advising Republicans Bill Clinton's favorite pollster is not the man whose advise I would follow.

Most people debate me on the issue, but it is true. In 1984 Ronald Reagan had a job approval rating lower then Bush's. Just before the conventions in july of 1984, Mondale held a 10 point lead. But once Reagan started the campaign it was over for Mondale. After the conventions Reagan was 10 points up. Trying to define a candiate before the voters are paying attention is a waste of money and time. Dean blew 40 million spending money before voteres were tuned in.

Winning elections can best be done by peaking your support on Election day. If Bush were to go after Kerry now, he would be able to take him down . .. perhaps as low as Dean had Kerry down in December. But could Bush keep him there until election day in november? That is doubtful.

The contest ends on election day. Any candidate that has a brain will hold back his best strategies until fall, then come on strong late in the campaign.

As Mondale found out it does not do a damned bit of good to be way ahead in February and lose your butt in November. In fact in 1988 Dukakis was way ahead of Bust 41 in late spring. In july Dukakis had a 20 point lead.

The best thing is to let Kerry continue to trash Bush. Anyone with an I.Q. larger than your shoe size can see that the constant bashing by Kerry hurts his campaign.. even among Democrats. Why do you think keerry lost 15 points in Wisconsin in the final week. He was out their trashing. Trashing will cost anyone an election.

If he would have just kept his mouth shut the last two weeks Kerry would have won Wisconsin big time. Edwards with next to no money and no free media, very nearly beat Kerry by playing nice guy.

Lots of people on Free Republic need to learn that Attack dogs never get elected.

Much of the independent vote, is determined by likability. Edwards is likable. Kerry is not. Edwards got the the center. Kerry is an attack dog... he got a bunch of the base and not much else.

The only chance an attack dog has is if his opponent counter attacks. The base always wants the object of attacks to do just that. But if you are dumb enough to counter attack an attack dog, you lose. The most you can hope for is a even split.

It is much like sports.. the guy who responds to fouls, usually ends up getting the penalty.

Attack dogs just never work unless the person attacks reponds in kind. They are usually a desperation measure. Bush has the funds and the staff to turn this around any week he wants to do so.

But Morris's crap that Bush needs to define Kerry now is just plain stupid. Kerry between now and the conventions will be on both sides of tons of issues. Bush can use that to come out of the conventions with a big lead.

The best Dick Morris ever did was give Clinton a non majority win. Bush is following the example set first by Nixon and then copied by Ronald Reagan... It is a strategy that twice has won 49 out of 50 states.

Morris is consistently wrong. Anyone who predicts is often wrong. But Morris is more wrong than nearly any pundit that covers todays political scene. Just ask Senator Lazio how accurate Morris's predictiions are.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Yep. By February, Dole was behind in every match-up poll and never lead from then on.

[GB]

And what's wrong with that? I've said before, if Hillary's going to run, then by all means, let's engage the battle once and for all and get it over with. Sorry to quote Kerry, but "let's get it on." Unlike some here, I've always been fired up for the notion of running against Hillary, I'm not quaking in my boots about her, because I agree with William Rusher, there has been no potential presidential candidate in the history of this republic more destined to be destroyed in a national election than Hillary.

[proud American in Canada]

"But so has his subsequent strong anti-war position."

No it hasn't, not among people who don't follow politics on the Internet.

[GB]

I do not think going brutally negative on Feb. 18 is the way for Bush to go. That would be a patently wrong, patently destructive strategy.

However, I do think Bush needs to engage the battle ... now. Last night was a blip, Kerry's going to be the nominee, I don't care whatever else gets dumped about him. It is going to be Bush vs. Kerry. Take it to the bank ... which is the biggest reason it's going to be Kerry, because Edwards is about broke and has tapped out his biggest contributors (trial lawyers).

Bush needs to be running against John Kerry's record right now ... indirectly for now, directly after Kerry sews up the nomination which will probably be Super Tuesday IMHO. Those who think that Rove and company have this all under control and will be able to turn it on at the time of their choosing and yell "liberal, liberal, liberal" and we'll be home free are about as overly optimistic as those who think having Kerry on the ballot will mean a 49-state landslide for Bush. There ain't gonna be a 49-state landslide, we're going to be in for another late night on 11/2.

The reason Bush has to engage the battle is that this situation is not comparable to Reagan or Bush pere.

The reason it is not comparable to Reagan and Bush pere is that those people did not have a good 40 to 45 percent of the electorate utterly and totally polarized against them to the point of hating them down to the very molecules of their bone marrow, and did not have that 40 to 45 percent of the electorate willing to crawl naked over a mixture of broken glass, rusty nails and fiery coals with both legs and an arm amputated and six bullet holes in their back to vote against them, with absolutely no chance in this or any known solar system of having their minds changed.

I have it thrown back at me by my liberal friends that "the right hated Clinton" ... how we hated Clinton pales in comparison to the hatred the other side has for Bush, not just politically but as a human being, and when we discuss this election and the proper strategy we need to always take that into consideration. Me ... it's made me more cognizant of the fact that we need to work 24/7 for this, total committment, starting NOW!

[wita]

Here is a little tid-bit my aunt sent me. Can't verify its authenticity, or haven't tried to verify, might be the better choice of words. For all I know it could be the usual internet drivel, and if so I apologize in advance for any stress I might cause a candidate I wouldn't vote for if he was the last living candidate on the face of the earth, by virtue (and I use that word loosely) of his membership in that most dangerous body of elected officials, the us senate, who couldn't bring themselves to convict an impeached president because they would be convicting themselves.

I would like to add my two cents about my John Kerry experience. During my career as an Air Force pilot, I spent two years flying a small twin engine prop plane around the Pacific from my base in Okinawa, Japan. On one trip we had to fly Senator Kerry, his congressional aide, and a Navy Captain (Vietnam, A-4 fighter pilot) who was also in Kerry's party to various locations in Vietnam and Cambodia as part of the MIA/POW talks.

When I met him, he was wearing a shirt with a picture of his sailboat on it. I told him I had a small 27 sailboat in Okinawa, he remarked "Oh I never sail on anything less than 135 feet." When we first flew him into Phnom Penh, he went to the back of the airplane and grabbed the pizza that was put aside for the crew and passed it around to his staff. He was never offered any pizza because they were supposed to have lunch with the Cambodian government once we landed. The pizza would have been our only meal that day.

Then when we picked him up in Cambodia, he was an hour late getting to the airport. We could not start the engines and therefore the air conditioning until he arrived. Phnom Penh at that time was over 100 degrees with 95% humidity and we were basically sitting in a greenhouse behind the cockpit windows. When he finally did arrive, we were wringing out our clothes from the perspiration. He walks out of the air conditioned car, into the airplane and asks us "Could you guys get the air conditioning running, I'm a little warm?" The other pilot had to physically restrain me from going back there and picking a fight.

Then we took him into Noi Bai airfield in Hanoi. After we picked him up the next day (he stayed the night in Vietnam, we stayed in Bangkok) we taxied out, ran up the engines for takeoff, and noticed that our prop rpm was vibrating all over the place. We taxied off to the side to look at it, but there was a good possibility that there was an engine malfunction and the engine may fail if we took off with it. Well, Mr. Senator sticks his head up in the cockpit and says "This plane WILL take off, I have a press conference in Bangkok in three hours!" (Maybe this is an indication of how he will run the FAA). We ran the engines again, and did not have the problem, so we took off and made it back.

During the flight, he told everyone how he had taken a Cessna (a small General aviation plane) up with a fighter pilot, and the fighter pilot remarked that Kerry was one of the best pilots he had ever seen. I don't know about other pilots out there, but it's hard to imagine a little, single-engine prop plane pilot being able to show the "right stuff." After Kerry left the plane, the Navy Captain came up to us, apologized and said basically that "he knows Kerry is a jerk" and that we should be glad we don't have to deal with him every day.

[Rokke]

If Morris says it, believe the opposite.

[TheGeezer]

In 1992 the economy was well on its way to a recovery and the economy was going well prior to the election

I disagree. Bush 41 had been suckered into a huge tax increase that grievously abetted the downturn in 1990 -1991. The economy was still tanking during 1992, just about to explode with internet technology in 1993 - 1994, which carried Clinton through his failed presidency.

[prognostigaator]

"John Kerry is now entering any candidate's period of maximum vulnerability: the time after he becomes well known among the voters, but before they have enough positive information on him to be resistant to negatives. "

"Before a candidate achieves wide name recognition, attacks against him don't matter much. Until the voters know who he is, they have no mental file in which to store negative news. The charges or accusations just wash away. "

"But once he becomes widely known, voters develop an intense and understandable curiosity about the man who might be their president. They quickly absorb and process anything about him that is floating around in the information ether. And the negatives (or positives) stick for the rest of his political career. "

Given all hanging chads minus the northern panhandle vote, Algore would have been elected.

As VP for eight years, he was well known to the eligible voter. Despite the stigma of being associated with Bill Clinton, he still appealed to the majority of the voting public, garnering more of the popular vote than George Bush.

Why?

I believe it was because the Sore-Loserman ticket was more appealing in its context. The youthful Gore coupled with a wise looking older Lieberman.

Appearance to the uninformed , undecided voter counts.

Although George Bush does not have to stand on a box, [Daschle],his physical appearance does measure up to the tall lanky Kerry.

What does set them apart , however , is appeal. And that is George Bush's trump card.

He is Commander-in-Chief in America's time of need in this war on terror....

Kerry, a 9/10 guy [in long hair, a hippie at home in a VW bus, opposing a 9/11 man, George Bush is the defining picture which Dick Morris is painting....

[GB]

Given the current culture ... Lord, sometimes I actually wish the '60s were back, in hindsight they were pretty tame compared to now ... do you actually thinking painting Kerry as a VW-driving, dope-smoking hippie is going to register with today's electorate? I mean, people will be turning 34 this year who were not alive during the decade of the '60s, all that is history book stuff to them.

John Kerry is going to be a formidable candidate and this is going to be a brutal, close election that will go well into the night on 11/2.

[GB]

Worst thing about Bush pere is that he never, from start to finish, appeared to show any fire in his belly or passion for being president of the U.S. That's what turned voters off more than any economic or political considerations, IMHO. He might have still been able to pull it off if he'd run against someone with less formidable political skills than Slick, but unfortunately that's who he drew.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

...Bash Kerry TOO effectively now and you get Hillary...

Bring It On. As "tolerant" as the left thinks voters are, this nation will never elect its first woman President at a time of war.

[maica]

Whatever Dick Morris' recommendation is, the President should do just the opposite!
*****

I was reading this thread to see if anyone else had this idea! LOL!

Morris is a weathervane for what NOT to do!!!

[prov1813man]

With all that's been piled on Bush and to have his approval rating at around 50% is remarkable. I'd say the Democrats are the ones who should be worried.

Excellent point. This is Ali-Foreman. W sits onthe ropes and takes a 24/7 pounding from the left delivered by it's big media arms. The best the left gets out of this barrage is break even and we haven't even begun swinging yet. Kerry's wife already looks punched out, lurch is soon to follow...

[maica]

It is much like sports.. the guy who responds to fouls, usually ends up getting the penalty.

I bet myself that this was a Common Tator comment before I saw your name! You have such a fabulous way instructing the reader. Just a note to say you are much appreciated.

[Democratshavenobrains]

I agree with Morris. Bush should be making jokes and offhand remarks about Kerry's Leftism.

[Democratshavenobrains]

Yeah, but the Dems ALREADY whine that the Bush administration is bashing them and "questioning" their patriotism when they are doing no such thing. We might as well get some of the benefits from exposing these morons.

[maryz]

Howie Carr (on Boston radio station WRKO) ran a couple of segments a few weeks ago, just asking people to call in with stories about John Francois "Do you know who I am?" Kerry. Your story would have fit in perfectly!

[lasereye]

The economy was still tanking during 1992

No it grew over 7% in the 3rd quarter of 92, and strongly in the fourth also.

[Milligan]

I think the economy is okay. The Dem's rant, "This is the worst economy in thirty years!" Yea..1973 was bad but not as BAD as the late '70's. Carter had the worst economy since the Great Depression except people received unemployment benefits. Double digit unemployment and long gas lines. Do I see that in Bush administration? No! The unemployment rate is about 5.9%..still that's not bad especially after 911. Are we rationing out food yet? No! So Bush economy is okay!

[TexasCajun]

President Bush doesn't need to bash anyone, just run a single ad showing Kerry's 'NO VOTE' and pictures on every proposed military system we now have that he voted against.

[AmericanVictory]

We agree that Morris is extremely perceptive and brilliant in his insights, however despicable morally he has been in the past (he has had a religious conversion, he has said, and, since then, we don't know of any similar immoral behavior).

Now Bush could solve all of this by taking a leadership role in working with us on energy independence from new entrepreneurial technology centered in the U.S. that would enable us to pressure both the Ayatollahs and the Saudis, in the face of our four or five year path to oil independence, to change dramatically or lose their main source of revenue.

Will he do so? We doubt it. Not because he is not capable of leadership, but because he is so "well advised" and surrounded by those who will lose badly when this occurs, big ethanol, big oil, and, to a certain degree, big auto.

Ironically, Bush makes much of small business, but is not in a position to encourage small businesses with the solutions to become big. It is only big business as it is, that is to say, business that ships jobs overseas rather than creating them here a la Xerox at its founding. The Democrats, on the other hand, are even more useless in this regard as leaders. Not only do they too wish to avoid angering their donors from big ethanol, oil and auto, but also the unions that are locked into such maturity of technology plus, as good redistributionists they do not favor wealth creation, as opposed to taking from one and giving to another. Thus, they do not want to see small companies with breakthrough technologies that will solve problems and their inventor/entrepreneur owners become very, very rich and create whole new areas of industry that will solve problems but displace the present wealthy donors and their unions in the process.

[samtheman]

In 1992 Clinton didn't get a majority of the vote. If there had been no Ross Perot, Clinton would have lost in '92.