Monday, May 03, 2004
The Bash-Back Kid
See my post dated April 28 (Vietnam War Record Spat) - I read somewhere (can't remember where) over the weekend that Kerry has adopted an intentional strategy of bashing back whenever the Republicans start to smear his character. His theory is that it Dukakis and others lost by letting the attacks go un addressed.
I'm not fully convinced. This could quickly devolve into the kind of thing that will turn off voters and squeek Bush back into office. I think the question has to do with the manner of bashing back. I think Kerry could strongly refute charges without stooping to their level. For instance, do we really have to make an issue of Bush being a rich, spoiled coward who was too lazy to even show up for his war-time exemption duties? Isn't it enough just to attack him for being single-minded and stupid (and EVIL, of course).
Maybe I'm splitting hairs. I'd much rather see the stories about Bush's alcoholism and frat-party days. The guy is a real piece of work. The problem with focusing on the national guard issue is, well - what if he WAS there? I mean, we don't really know: it's hard to prove a negative. Meanwhile, there are so many other character flaws we DO know about. For instance, why not make an issue out of Bush being a BIG FAT LIAR? That's public record.
Bush is such an embarrassment. Did anyone watch Saturday Night Live this weekend? I know that we always satirize our President. Clinton having sex, yadda, yadda. But a satire about the President being a simpering idiot - which hits home because it's pretty much true - is really a sad state of affairs.
Anyway, I think a better strategy for Kerry would be to assess the made-up distraction like the Vietnam war record flap and just point out that taking character assassination from Bush is like taking advice on integrity from Tony Soprano - basically, the "yeah, I OWN my flack jacket, Mr. Bush" - is a line that works well and he should have stuck with that - and forget trying to go after the really petty middling stuff (because, after all, an honest draft-dodger might run for President one day, and I might even vote for him or her....).
I'm not fully convinced. This could quickly devolve into the kind of thing that will turn off voters and squeek Bush back into office. I think the question has to do with the manner of bashing back. I think Kerry could strongly refute charges without stooping to their level. For instance, do we really have to make an issue of Bush being a rich, spoiled coward who was too lazy to even show up for his war-time exemption duties? Isn't it enough just to attack him for being single-minded and stupid (and EVIL, of course).
Maybe I'm splitting hairs. I'd much rather see the stories about Bush's alcoholism and frat-party days. The guy is a real piece of work. The problem with focusing on the national guard issue is, well - what if he WAS there? I mean, we don't really know: it's hard to prove a negative. Meanwhile, there are so many other character flaws we DO know about. For instance, why not make an issue out of Bush being a BIG FAT LIAR? That's public record.
Bush is such an embarrassment. Did anyone watch Saturday Night Live this weekend? I know that we always satirize our President. Clinton having sex, yadda, yadda. But a satire about the President being a simpering idiot - which hits home because it's pretty much true - is really a sad state of affairs.
Anyway, I think a better strategy for Kerry would be to assess the made-up distraction like the Vietnam war record flap and just point out that taking character assassination from Bush is like taking advice on integrity from Tony Soprano - basically, the "yeah, I OWN my flack jacket, Mr. Bush" - is a line that works well and he should have stuck with that - and forget trying to go after the really petty middling stuff (because, after all, an honest draft-dodger might run for President one day, and I might even vote for him or her....).
Comments:
Post a Comment
