Faith in Kerry: Is it justified?

I thought I'd write a diary gauging the recent mood I've felt and sensed among others here following the downturn in the polls and the after(?)math of the swift boat liars.

I have to confess that it was not long ago that I thought that Kerry's handling of the Swifties was political genius; waiting until they're discredited, condemning MoveOn's ad at McCain's request while W refused to, and tying, (successfuly it seems) Which brings me to my main point: when the Kerry counterattack was mounted and the days that followed my faith that Kerry and his campaign really knew what they were doing blossomed. I was really confident that they had everything sized up and a response for every predictable move Rove & co. would pull. Today, I feel less strongly. I still have faith, but today "faith" is a much better characterization because I feel like I believe it but I couldn't muster a knockout argument to back it up. Going into the RNC the polls are trending back towards even and Bush has taken the lead in a good number of them. Given the risk of the protesters, or just a simple post-convention bounce, Bush doesn't quite seem to be "exactly where we want him."

Or is he?

Obviously, nobody in the Kerry campaign would complain if their candidate held a 5-point lead in the polls and an 100-point electoral college advantage. But doesn't this situation, as of the end of the RNC, place Kerry exactly where he has proven to be the most effective: in striking distance coming down the homestretch?

With Kerry leading, as he was, by little more than the margin of error, I feel like we got a fairly conservative campaign. Now, when he is going to have to kick off his slippers, I really feel he has a chance to really take advantage.

And I don't necessarily mean going dirty, although a few 'swift' attacks at W's soft underbelly might not hurt. I mean taking the gloves off and start campaigning like your life depends on it, even if it's still the same points on the same employment and healthcare issues. There's a lot of ammo left, Kerry has barely begun to unleash what he can on Bush.

How will he go about doing it? I don't know, that's really the point of this idea of having faith in the Kerry campaign. Despite the little downswing in recent days both in polls and mood, I feel a renewed faith that Kerry/Edwards are going to grab this elephant by the tusks in a devastatingly effective way in the closing weeks of this campaign and we'll be back to asking ourselves whether or not Kerry will be able to win 350 electoral votes or not.

Viva la Kerry!

•  Tip Jar

  Do you have faith in Kerry's capaign?

  I think there's good reason to take either side. This past week may have given us cause for concern, but I'm waiting for the rebound with baited breath. And going out to do my part to make sure it happens (at least in Oregon where my road trip is headed in a few weeks to get folks registered to vote).

  by nussbaumski on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 11:15:48 AM PDT

  •  Bush is behind the SBVT attacks

    The latest Annenberg Survey indicates the plurality of Americans believe that Bush was behind the Swift Boat Liars attacks.

    Worth the read.

    by Coldblue Steele on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 11:47:47 AM PDT

•  I was a Dean guy

  But I have been impressed with Kerry. He is a scrapper, and with all the talent on our side I have great hopes.

  My hopes that the dumbass press and american people will wake up though is still in the air.

  by SnarkyShark on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 11:21:07 AM PDT

•  If Kerry loses

  he will be the last compromise Dem I support.  

  Maybe if Kerry actually stood for something, he could use that to change the subject.  Kerry has about 3 days to end this Swift Boat story completely, if not, he is done.

  by BigNTasty on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 11:31:53 AM PDT

  •  About 72 hours to abnormal?

    To paraphrase Karen Hughes' weirdly meaningless title.

    I'm quite literal, literal to a fault actually, so I naturally wonder why you choose 3 days?

    That would imply to the very literate that he's near a mortal wound, the thousandth cut cometh in 72 hours.  I think a first aid kit would do, perhaps a proactive sword that cuts first, but in no way do I believe he is as clueless and standless (how's that for coining a goofy word?) as you would indicate.

    by Cathy on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 12:25:40 PM PDT

    •  I choose 3 days

      Because that would make about 1 month where Kerry has been able to do nothing but argue whether or not he is a pathological liar. (Because that is the way that bush and Co. have successfully framed this - "He made up the whole Vietnam story!")

      And frankly, I don't think a Prez candidate can survive spending a month trying to convince people that he isn't a lying mental defficient lunatic.

      At this point in 2000, Gore was doing a better job of managing his campaign.

      The tone on this board reminds me of the tone on Blog For America on January 8th or so - complete and utter denial, and inability to even ACKNOWLEDGE that the campaign has hit a major snag that could spell the end.

      by BigNTasty on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 07:43:22 PM PDT

•  Damn

  
     I just wrote a diary about my feelings. Didn't know you had just done it....lol. Oh well.

  by usmeagle69 on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 11:34:20 AM PDT

•  I read these diaries

  and I don't really understand them.

  What did you think, Rove was just gonna quit?  Of course, it's tighteened in the shallow and transient horserace poll, but the eseentials - right track/wrong track, reelect, approve/disapprove, Bush is no where.

  I think you guys need a better understanding of polling.

  BTW, you may have noticed a spate of bad news for Bush coming out on the eve of the Convention.  Hard to ignore.

  by Armando on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 11:39:29 AM PDT

  •  My point

    boiled down to it's essence is this:

    Kerry has experienced a downswing, not only in the polls, but in mood in recent days. That's just my opinion, but reading diaries recently that's what I pick up.

    What's thrown me off with the swifties is that I thought Kerry handled them brilliantly and yet the general public doesn't seem to agree. Maybe I do need to get a better grasp on polls and wait a few days for the Kerry response to be picked up as well. Point taken.

    Finally, I also wanted to get across that it may be a good position for Kerry to be in where he needs to kick into high gear rather than try not to make a bad move. He's known to be a fighter and a great closer and I look forward to seeing that first hand. That's all.

    by nussbaumski on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 11:55:02 AM PDT

    •  What Kerry should have done

      What's thrown me off with the swifties is that I thought Kerry handled them brilliantly and yet the general public doesn't seem to agree. Maybe I do need to get a better grasp on polls and wait a few days for the Kerry response to be picked up as well. Point taken.
      ---------------------------------------

      I have said for two weeks that Kerry was not handling the situation well at all.

      As long as the attacks are in the media and repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over again and everyone gets to see the Swift Boat ads repeatedly it hurts big time.

      It doesn't matter if Kerry links the ads to Bush, it doesn't matter if the attacks are lies and are shown to be lies.

      As long as the public hears the attacks repeatedly the SBVFT have won.

      What Kerry should have done was minimize the SBVFT and respond with his own behind the scenes ads in each of the swing states. Thus, Kerry would be responding to the attacks, but not making the attacks the biggest news in the race for weeks.

      by ECH on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 12:19:42 PM PDT

      •  Disagree

        And you simply are ignoring the fac that the story is now hurting Bush.   But, I've noticed, you seem intent on seeing this all negatively.  Now you would say I'm the opposite. But I qwould disagree - I was quite worried about Kerry throught July - I've just seen things that make me feel differently.

        Final word, I say it elsewhere - what Kerry needs is coherence on Iraq - that's the Achilles Heel.
        

        by Armando on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 12:41:16 PM PDT

        •  I see no evidence in the polls

          That this is hurting Bush at all.

          His favorable ratings have gone up in most of the polls and he is doing better in almost all the battleground states and the horserace polls.

          I have been hearing for three weeks that this has been hurting Bush, but I have seen no sign whatsoever that it actually has been hurting him.

          by ECH on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 12:51:37 PM PDT

          •  Sure

            the polls that say that over half think
            Bush is behind the Swifties, that they think it's a bad thing - that 2/3 beieve Kerry - that's all good fro bush.

            Sheesh, will you at least wait for the next poll?

            by Armando on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 01:05:59 PM PDT

            •  That doesn't matter

              All that matters is if the public opinion turns against Bush because of his actions and views him less favorably and I have seen no sign of them doing that instead I have seen the opposite happening.

              by ECH on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 01:22:37 PM PDT

              •  Nonsense

                You have no basis for making that statement.  Bush's numbers are static - Kerry's took a slight hit - thus the difference.

                Look, if you are just gonna spout it off - without looking at ther data, what's the point?  BTW, JamesB3 already handles those duties.

                by Armando on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 02:06:39 PM PDT

              •  This comment

                is totally off base. Bush's job approval numbers are infinitely more important than his favorables, and his favorables are pretty darn bad for an incumbent at this stage of the race. In most polls, even Kerry, with a somewhat diminished spread, has a better spread than Bush does.

                by mattb25 on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 02:10:52 PM PDT

          •  For 3 weeks?

            Where the hell did yopu hear that?  When did the story turn?  You are just flailing now.

            BTW, it's been a week. The polls that scare you are just up to the worm turning.

            by Armando on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 02:08:20 PM PDT

          •  You are mostly wrong, IMHO

            Sometimes you have to look at the Bush and Kerry numbers as separate entities. The Swifties seem to have put a temporary dent in Kerry's numbers (though certainly nothing disastrous) but Bush isn't getting ANY TRACTION, and he's now through half of the most important month of his campaign (August 15-September 15). Bush's job approval number, which is more important than his favorability number, has actually ticked down in the two most recently released polls (Gallup and NBC/WSJ). With the exception of the LA Times, which has Bush picking up 3 points, zero national polls have statistically significant gains for Bush.

            Bush was supposedly gonna be fleshing out an agenda in August, and that never happened. People don't feel any better about George, the direction of the country, or his policies. Right now, the only thing people are thinking about in regards to Bush is that he's running a smear campaign. That may not have shown up in the polling yet, but it also may account for why Bush isn't moving. We're in a period of "national pride" during the olympics, that almost inevitably--even though we never expect it--produce a little bump for a sitting president. Bush has also spent $45 million on ads this month, including some of his first positive advertising since March. And the Repubs took what may have been their single most damaging shot at Kerry, and frankly, it nicked him, but didn't sink him, and we don't know yet that any long term damage has been done.

            You also have to have a historical perspective. You can look at an Annenberg poll that shows Bush leading amongst vets 56-38, and think it's a disaster, but in fact, what it actually shows is Kerry taking a larger percentage of vets than any Democratic candidate in recent memory. Do you have any idea how fucked Bush is if he only wins 55% of vets? He won the group nationally by well over 20 points in 2000 and lost the popular vote. Moreover, the same survey suggests that the Kerryc campaign has basically succeeded in discreding SBVT, and also suggests that Kerry's favorables amongst Vets have retained a bump from the convention.

            I know you think that the response to the Swifties could have been better, and I don't wholly disagree, but you're not listing a realistic alternative. Kerry could not really have minimized this thing--this story was a classing for the age of 24/7 cable news. Is it fucked up? You bet. But sadly, it's also reality. Kerry hitting back with an AWOL ad would have done more harm than good right now. There may be a place for such an ad later in the campaign, but now it's it. It would have ceded the moral high ground, just before the RNC, basically giving Bush a free pass to spend 4 days slamming Kerry with no potential public or media backlash. The media is bad enough right now, making a moral equivalency between SBVT and Moveon; I'm not sure you realize the full extent to which Kerry would have been trashed for complaining about the Swifites, while running  a 527 attack ad against Bush. As far as the SCLM is concerned, it doesn't matter that there's factual evidence that Bush was AWOL and factual evidence that the Swifties are lying. We live in the era of equal time. Yes, we need to work to change that, but we also have to realistically understand the current dynamic.

            You've also got to keep in mind the timing. The response to this thing would probably have been different if the convention weren't upon us. But it is, and that's significant. Because Bush isn't going into it having laid the foundation for his new "agenda"; rather, he goes into it with 50% of the public thinking he's personally responsible for a smear campaign against a man who served honorably. There's a reason why many Repub strategists are publicly stating that Bush needs to get away from the issue. What the Kerry campaign has been engaging in is an act of priming. Bush is now much more hard pressed to be overly negative without doing himself some damage.

            It hasn't been a perfect August. But if you think that Bush's position in this race is strong, you're absolutely incorrect. Kerry also has some work to do. But the dynamic is still against George--he's the incumbent, and folks don't like him or his policies. That's a tough fight to win. The "my challenger is unacceptable" has not been successful for incumbents running in competetive races. It didn't work against Jimmy Carter; it didn't work against Ronald Reagan; and it didn't work against Bill Clinton. Not saying it can't work, but it's not a strategy I'd want to bank on, even though it creates lots of nervous folks along the way.

            by mattb25 on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 02:09:33 PM PDT

    •  A good lesson for

      all of us in how the public will react to something was there in the Gore/GWB "debates."  The instant response on the first one was that Gore had won, but within days he was declared the loser.  Anyone who looked at the content of the "debate" heard one man who knew his stuff and another who was a complete idiot.  But what they saw was far different.  A decent looking man who kept things simple against a man with clown make-up reciting too much policy detail.

      Within 48 hours of the SBVT campaign, it was easy to see that this would resonate and hurt Kerry even if a clear majority end up believing that the SBVT are a bunch of liars.  Kerry's failure to hit back hard and quickly is what put doubts in the minds of the public.  The most interesting poll number on this cited by someone on some show (McLaughlin) is that before SBVT, 42% of voters viewed Kerry's Vietnam experience as an important component of his resume for POTUS.  That number is now down to 21% (forgive me is the numbers are not exact, but the drop is of this magnitude).  For someone like Kerry who staked his whole campaign raison d'etre on "I was in 'Nam," this is devastating.

      Instead of growing a spine, DEMs once again looked for a gimmick to undercut the "I am a war preznit."  As bad as this has been with Kerry, I shudder to think how bad it would have been with Clark -- at least Kerry has his public office experience to fall back on -- and Clark would have been so much easier to paint as a "flip-flopper" than Kerry has been.

      Remember Rove doesn't have to destroy Kerry only create enough doubt about his credentials and blunt the difference between the two on Iraq & WOT and then let the "don't change horses in the middle of the stream" tendency of Americans to kick in.  If they can keep Iraq on the steady slow simmer it's been on all along, (they've already got Abu Ghraib off the burner without scorching GWB), the economy propped up with whatever slights of hand they have been using, and none of the big BushCo scandals break out before election day, this thing may be a wrap.  

      by Marie on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 12:32:20 PM PDT

      •  Well

        I thoroughly disagree with your post.  On just about all of it.  You seem to believe that fighting back blindly is the right strategy, rather than fighting back intelligently.  You also mistake that a poll  result in August means nothing to the poll result in November, particularly on the Swift Boats.  I think Kerry played this extremely well, I've said so in numerous diaries.

        by Armando on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 12:43:54 PM PDT

        •  Didn't say or believe that.

          You seem to believe that fighting back blindly is the right strategy, rather than fighting back intelligently.  

          Will say that waiting until the house is fully engulfed in flames before turning on the fire hoses doesn't save the house.  What makes you think that quick action is "fighting back blindly?  Isn't one of our criticisms of GWB is that he sat for seven minutes in a classroom instead of acting like his was in charge of something like this country on 9/11?  Kerry has staked his future on his ability to respond quickly and act effectively and decisively -- we hear this over and over again from his campaign --the SBVT was a test on display for the entire country for Kerry and he maybe got a C.  And if you think this mid-term was a hard exam, wait till next month to see what Rove has cooked up for the finals.
           

          by Marie on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 01:10:07 PM PDT

          •  Apples and oranges

            Discrediting needed to occur and throught the SCLM, not just you and me convincing each other.  And that's exactly how it happened.

            2/3 of the  electorate believes Kerry now on this.  Give it time, the election isn't tomorrow.

            by Armando on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 02:10:10 PM PDT

            •  This is only the opening shot

              by Rove.  The SBV claims were so obviously politically driven and offered way to late for anybody to take them seriously that it's not surprising that 2/3 of the public don't believe them.  Rove never expected this to produce a knock-out punch, but it sure gave him a good read on how the Kerry campaign is operating.

              Let's also not forget that memories play funny tricks on us.  By October most people may only remember that there were questions raised and not that the SBV were throughly discredited because by then they will have received more information that will have to be filtered in and consolidated with the earlier stuff.

              At this point you think that Kerry won this skirmish, others may see a draw, and I see a slight advantage Bush.  What happens from now on may adjust the score regardless of how any of us rank it at this time.  If you're right, Kerry has some wiggle room left if Rove hits him a few more times.  If I'm right, additional Rove hits only increases GWB's margin.

              Since we are both speculating at this point, let's table this for about three weeks.

              by Marie on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 04:40:28 PM PDT

              •  Well then it was a dumb play by Rove

                because he can't go negative and his 527s can't either - not on the personal. On issues - even there he has to be careful.

                Kerry OTOH has a much muhc freer hand. That is why I think that strategically Kerry comes out in a better position.
                

                by Armando on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 07:28:46 PM PDT

              •  Well then it was a dumb play by Rove

                because he can't go negative and his 527s can't either - not on the personal. On issues - even there he has to be careful.

                Kerry OTOH has a much muhc freer hand. That is why I think that strategically Kerry comes out in a better position.
                

                by Armando on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 07:29:00 PM PDT

      •  More lessons....

        A decent looking man who kept things simple against a man with clown make-up reciting too much policy detail.

        And sighed a bazillion times, showed up at the second debate like he'd been sedated and couldn't agree fast enough with Gov. Bush about everything, followed that performance with the wonky reference to Dingle/Norwood and the perfectly stupid affectation of physically getting in the face of Bush.  That was the most embarrassing thing Gore did in all three debates. The media is at fault for the perception that took hold after the first.  It was his least bad performance, the grasp and knowledge he showed should have outweighed the gaffes, but he went on to gaffe his way through to two more debates and that was when Al Gore sealed the perception that he would twist and turn and be whatever the critics thought he ought to be and looked as though he was writing the script for Rove:  I really don't know who I am.  Earthtones. Slathering in makeup because they'll hammer me if I sweat.  I'll go comatose, if you think aggression is bad.  I'll go aggressive since you slapped me for going comatose.  Al Gore blew it!

        Instead of growing a spine, DEMs once again looked for a gimmick to undercut the "I am a war preznit."

        Maybe it was a gimmick to bottom line primary voters (I actually disagree, but will concede for argument's sake.)  But "I was in 'Nam" is not a gimmick to Kerry.  There's an entire political history as to why his Viet Nam experience is a factor in all of his campaigns.  It's personal, not gimmickry.  It's the place where the "soulless pol" always finds his soul.  They've not taken this card away from him yet.

        And the "don't change horses in mid stream" argument was well in the can no matter who the "spineless" DEMs put in play.

        by Cathy on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 01:45:46 PM PDT

        •  It's a GREAT gimmick

          It has kept Kerry in play on the C-i-C issue.  He has fumbled on Iraq - he needs to fix that - but on character to be C-i-C, Kerry's Nam experioence is what put him in the game - I mean eez this is, in classic demoguegic term - a Mass liberal - but now he's a  Vet, wih War Hero crednetials.  He is where no one could rightfully expect him to be on this question.

          by Armando on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 02:12:30 PM PDT

        •  Gotta learn the lessons

          There's an entire political history as to why his Viet Nam experience is a factor in all of his campaigns.  It's personal, not gimmickry.  It's the place where the "soulless pol" always finds his soul.  They've not taken this card away from him yet.

          Thirty-five years after spending four months there and devoting so much time on the stage to it, makes it look gimmicky at this point.

          It's the place where the "soulless pol" always finds his soul.  

          One would hope so.  Unfortunately he hasn't given any recent signs of this -- he voted for the IWR and has not only reaffirmed that vote but added that without WMD and knowing the cost in blood and Treasure, he would support it all over again.  Everything that was wrong with our involvement in Vietnam is the same as what is wrong with Iraq, except in some ways Iraq may be more devastating for us than Vietnam was.  Once we left Vietnam, the only long-lasting repercussion was the civil war over it in this country.  Chances are not good that we will be that lucky with Iraq.  Sorry, but Kerry has become just like those fathers that sent him and his generation to Vietnam for no national purpose.

          They've not taken this card away from him yet

          Yet is the keyword.  They may have punched a couple of holes in it.  Are you prepared for when they run with the fact that Kerry denied being at a VVAW meeting that discussed assasinations and blowing up the Statue of Liberty -- denied it for decades but has recently had to backtrack on that?  We'll all band together and tell the country that Kerry didn't support those acts and argued against them, but there isn't much we can do to correct his decades long misstatement and that will be a blow that they will land.  

          by Marie on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 04:55:29 PM PDT

          •  Lessons, Lessons, we've got lessons...

            Are you prepared for when they run with the fact that Kerry denied being at a VVAW meeting that discussed assasinations and blowing up the Statue of Liberty -- denied it for decades but has recently had to backtrack on that?  We'll all band together and tell the country that Kerry didn't support those acts and argued against them, but there isn't much we can do to correct his decades long misstatement and that will be a blow that they will land.

            What's so unsupportable here?  Did he stay in the VVAW?  Did he leave?  Why?  Who is going to believe that Kerry wanted to assassinate senators?  Kerry was never part of the radical anti-war movement.  He was the clean-cut intellectual war hero who argued against it, who was on Nixon's enemies list.  If he'd been a radical capable of perpetrating anarchism, they'd have found something on him then and torched him with it in a skinny minute because he had such "profile."  And in that context, if they can still make a case that Kerry supported killing senators, they can make a case for anything.

            And as for the four months.  Kerry did more than most of the recent pols of his generation, going back to Clinton, Gore, and Bush to claim being influenced by that war.  Four days would give him genuine claim by comparison.  And the whole of his experience wasn't a mere four months in country.  

            And what of denying and backtracking.  Equivocating?  A politician running for president would do that?  

            There's gambling in the casino?  Shock, Shock.

            Welcome to the club Senator. Yes, any and every one who has ever run for the office.  

            by Cathy on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 06:35:13 PM PDT

            •  What Marie Misunderstands

              The SWIFTIES misplayed their hand completely.  The issues Marie tinks get played now just won't work - the entire ground has been sullied.  One of the reasons why this episode was net beneficial for Kerry strategically.

              by Armando on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 07:33:17 PM PDT

              •  Don't misunderstand anything --

                just disagree with your interpretation.

                Were you around here and MyDD Aug-Nov 2002?  I only lurked here back then and found a ray of hope with all the optimism -- we were going to win the thing, add to our margin in the Senate and reduce the GOP margin in the House, everything was looking great.  I wanted to believe but the polls kept telling me something different; so the polls had to be wrong, we were winning.  Only the polls weren't wrong.  The standard DEM line and as it was repeated around here was wrong and is eerily similar to what I read here now.  If I'm wrong after the election, I will cheerfully analyze and articulate what I misread, overlooked, under/over-valued and misanalized.  Only hope you will undertake the same task if you are wrong.  And blaming it on the SCLM, 527s, NRA or Rove is not what I mean.  Those will all be givens in this race and it's up to Kerry to manage his campaign with those conditions.

                by Marie on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 11:33:34 PM PDT

            •  Believe you missed

              completely what I said --

              For years Kerry has denied being at that meeting but has now retracted that denial.  That's what they hit him with.  Only the freepers will run with the content of the meeting and believe that Kerry advocated any of those acts -- but I don't relish the thought of having any of them that I meet in my life sceaming that in my face (I'm still not quite over all the times I had to hear about internet and Gore; Love Story and Gore etc. from freepers).

              by Marie on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 11:13:59 PM PDT

      •  I have to basically disagree

        It's not as simple as Rove trying to discredit Kerry (which, by the way, he has still not been particularly successful in doing). The "my challenger is unacceptable" has about a 0% success rate for incumbent presidents in reasonably competetive races. It didn't work against Jimmy Carter, it didn't work against Ronald Reagan, it didn't work against Bill Clinton. And that's because those incumbents had lousy approval and right track numbers, and couldn't offer a rationale for four more years. I'm not saying that this makes it an historical certainty, or that this situation is wholly comparable, or that the strategy can't work. But it's not nearly as easy as you make it sound.

        I think you've also got to look at this in terms of the timing, also. I think the Kerry camp would have responded differently if the RNC weren't upon us. They know that this story is out of the news starting Monday, and it it won't come back to as nearly as large extent. So they pinned it on Bush, and even though you may not see Bush's poll numbers imploding right this second, they also haven't notably improved, and neither has job approval, and neithe rhas right track/wrong track--thus far, instead of fleshing out or setting the stage for the announcement of his second-term agenda, the most frequent mention of Bush in the news is his connections, or role in, SBVT. The polling numbers on the Swifties in particular have started to turn around, and in all honesty, if Kerry taking a little hit right now makes Bush look like he didn't get a bounce, it will have been worth it. All this stuff takes time, and you may be proven right, that the whole thing was a disater for Kerry. I don't think it will, but I just don't think we know yet, and we might not know for awhile.

        I also think that this situation isn't that comparable to the Bush/Gore debates. Even though this SBVT thing seemed huge, it still wasn't on the level of attention paid to a debate; it's much earlier in the cycle; it happened at the end of August, which isn't prime-time for politics; and it comes before a major event that is about to make Bush the issue of this campaign again, as it should be.

        I'm glad the RNC is here. Every time Bush has been the focus this cycle,  he's hurt himself.

        by mattb25 on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 02:20:51 PM PDT

        •  Huh?

          Even though this SBVT thing seemed huge, it still wasn't on the level of attention paid to a debate...

          More people saw these ads than watched the debates.  I would also guess that more airtime was given to this whole thing that what the debates received.

          What you and others seem not to recognize is that this was never designed to discredit Kerry -- had that happened, Rove would have been happy -- but that would have been a home run and Rove was merely trying to get on base.  Stop Kerry's momentum form the DEM convention, put him on the defensive and raise some question marks about Kerry was all they were shooting for because by then it would be GOP Convention time.  They successfully accomplished their goals and maybe a little more since now everybody knows that Kerry was only in Vietnam for four months and that seems to average people a bit light to lay claim to having developed CIC expertise.

          Let's revisit this in a couple of weeks.  Either or both of could be wrong.  

          by Marie on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 04:25:14 PM PDT

          •  Well now

            we're talking sense. Given what you think Rove goty out of the play. I agree.

            where I disagree - the cost to Bush is high - he's perceived as behind the attacks - he is now wide open to any and all Kerry attacks without being able tell frame Kerry as negative - I think that is huge.

            I think when it all washes out - it is at worst a sligt negative to Kerry.  I think it more likely a big strategic plus for Kerry - simply on being able to attack with a free hand.

            by Armando on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 04:43:48 PM PDT

          •  My comment on the debate

            I meant more that I think the Swift boat thing was more diluted than a debate would be--it possibly stretched out a little longer, but I don't think that it matched the intensity that the few days surrounding a debate bring.

            I agree with you, that Rove's intention was simply to get on base, and maybe he did. But I do think he did it at the risk of causing some long-run damage to Bush if the Kerry camp keeps turning this thing around.

            I think alot of people on the board think that this happened at a very bad time, i.e. right before the convention, and maybe those folks will be proven right, but right now, I feel differently. The electorate has an awfully short attention span and even if the polls aren't showing the SBVT exploding in Bush's face, I don't see how it does Bush good to go into his convention with the most recent focus on him having revolved around an emerging pattern of smearing war hereoes. I think that even if some voters aren't consciously aware of it, that Bush is on a little bit of thin ice, and runs real risks if his convention is overly negative now.

            I've also always been of the school of thought that even though I greatly admire Kerry's service, and understand its centrality to the campaign, I never thought that it was gonna be a real big issue in this election, and I still don't. I believe the polls on this one. I think that for most people it's the economy first, and Iraq second. And while Iraq may seem to be a vulnerability for Kerry, the actual data show contradictions--even while slightly more people might trust Bush more on Iraq (a devil you know thing, the folks for whom Iraq is the number one issue prefer Kerry by something close to 2-1. Where Kerry really takes a hit is the people who think the WOT is the dominant issue go Bush by more than 2-1. As we move into the fall, I'd like to see Kerry talking about homeland security vulnerabilites every day. I think he can get by on his Iraq position (which I actually think is responsbile, even while I find it personally unappealing) if he can build up some stature as a terrorism expert. I also think that would make JK look prescient if, God Forbid, al-Qaeda hits before November.

            Anyway, we will see. I'm not sure how much I consider Kerry's loss of momentum a result of SBVT for truth, though that's definitely a contributor. I think Bush has maybe gotten a tiny, hidden Olympic bounce, and Kerry probably hurt himself with his Iraq statements. There's still time to correct that.

            We'll see what the GOP Convention brings. I'm optimistic about it--Bush has not done well this year when he's had the spotlight. I'm sure someone will right him a good speech, but I think he's running real risks if he tries to tell folks that the economy is wonderful; and I don't know if the ownership society thing has real potential to resonate. I still think George loses if he can't permanently raise his approval and right track numbers. Because I do think Kerry will close strong, and I think folks will like what they see in the debates. One really tangential point: Kerry is infinitely better in debates in which he's sitting down. I hope he gets to sit.

            In any event, all of your points are well taken and reasonable.

            by mattb25 on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 05:38:18 PM PDT

            •  In general, repetition

              -- more time on a single relatively simple issue is more memorable for people than a short and intense debate.  (Lots of psych research out there on this.)  Even 9/11 would be fading by now if not for the constant revisiting of it by BushCo.  GWB and Rove learned from GHB's term how fleeting a short and intense debate can be -- the war came and went so quickly that it was out of people's consciousness by election day 1992.  From 90% approval ratings to way under 40% in a very short span of time.  

              Wish I could agree with you that the economy will be the decisive factor in the election -- yeah I know that's what people report in polls but those may be like the ones where voters report that they hate negative campaign ads but almost always reward the one who runs the most effective ones -- but the economic misery index in this country remains low, particularly amongst those most likely to vote.  Don't misunderstand me, I don't think the economy is in great shape, only that the public perception based on personal experience is not bad.  The bad economic stuff will come later when the inflation begins to rear it's head and funding huge deficits become less easy and cheap.

              Sure those who object to the invasion in Iraq support Kerry 2:1.  That's because they have no choice and not because they support Kerry.  This is GWB's biggest vulnerability and essentially Kerry can do little with it.  What a shame because getting traction on this is the path to discrediting GWB on his WOT which he botched possibly more than the Iraq invasion.

              vote.  Don't misunderstand me, I don't think the economy is in great shape, only that the public perception based on personal experience is not bad.  The bad economic stuff will come later when the inflation begins to rear it's head and funding huge deficits become less easy and cheap.

              Sure those who object to the invasion in Iraq support Kerry 2:1.  That's because they have no choice and not because they support Kerry.  This is GWB's biggest vulnerability and essentially Kerry can do little with it.  What a shame because getting traction on this is the path to discrediting GWB on his WOT which he botched possibly more than the Iraq invasion.

              If history is a perfect guide than GWB should lose.  However, GHB beat the odds in 1988 and I'm not at all optimistic at this point.  I really don't think they will stop at anything to retain power -- if they can't do it the old fashioned way be simply beating the opponent, they will find other ways to get there.

              by Marie on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 06:14:49 PM PDT

              •  Well

                I definitely don't think history is a perfect guide, and it's difficult to account for the impact of potential dirty tricks. I obviously can't sit here and try to argue that such tricks wouldn't have the potential to swing the race, but I am least optimistic (maybe naively so) that if the popular will wants Bush out of there, that folks won't be willing to settle for a stolen election so easily this time around. Not that I'm really expecting riots or a revolt or anything--but I also think that there's a variety of EC scenarios under which Kerry could win, some of them involving states that would be difficult for the GOP to steal (like MO, for example). Certainly wouldn't want to bet my life on FL, but I also think that if Kerry has a solid win there (3-5%) that'll it be tougher to make it disappear.

                As for the economy, I actually do believe that it's probably the most pressing issue for most people in the key midwestern battlegrounds. Maybe not so much in states like FL and NV. I do think that the polls always underestimate the number of folks who vote on social values even though they claim otherwise.

                I'm pretty optimistic about Dem turnout, and I always take some solace in the fact that the Dem presidential candiate has won a plurality the last three times out.

                I never thought this would be a blow-out (i.e like a 10 point Kerry win), but I do think it has the potential to be a minor 1980, that breaks late to Kerry, by maybe 5 points. Most likely, closer than that, but the better the margin the harder to steal.

                Your point on repetition is well taken, and the Dems--as always--need better surrogates and better talking points; just better media coordination in general. I do think, though, that debates in "acceptability" elections may have a greater impact than usual, like Reagan in 1980. The post-convention polls seemed to indicate to me that about 54-55% of this country could conceivably vote Kerry if everything were to break right (Kerry's poll numbers + allocating about 60% of undecideds).

                I also take comfort in the pretty consistent data coming from the polls that the "swing voters" in this race are an awfully pessimistic group--much more so than the average--in their views on the direction of the country.

                I still don't think that Bush is popular enough, or has a big enough base to win this thing without some positive action to create a rationale for another term, and I think that that challenge is more difficult than Kerry proving himself to be an acceptable alternative. The country is so ADD in general, as you note, so I think there's still time for Kerry to reverse the nick in his favorables. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't more worried than I was two weeks ago, but I still think Kerry's chances are more than 55-45, but that doesn't really account for dirty tricks.

                by mattb25 on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 06:44:14 PM PDT

                •  I think it is better than that

                  I think that Maruie's theory of continual smears on Kerry's Vietnam activity, now shifting to anti-war is misguided. The Swifties screwed it up for everybody.  Look the 2nd ad is out - who is paying attention?  That dog won't hunt now.  THe Swifties messed it up, and bad.

                  After Labor Day, it is a fading memory, UNLESS, Bush tries to play dirty, when it becomes part of pattern of dirty tircks.

                  Again, strategically, a plus for Kerry.

                  by Armando on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 07:37:00 PM PDT

                  •  Knock it off Armando --

                    I have never smeared Kerry's Vietnam activities  -- I do think it's silly that he's based his whole election strategy (beginning with his entry into the primary contest) on what he did over thirty-five years ago and only makes passing reference to his anti-war activities, the activities that put him in the national limelight and were far more admirable than what he did in Vietnam.

                    From Rove's perspective, the SBV have probably served their major purpose.  However, I did hear NPR interviewing voters in OH last week -- one woman voted for Gore in 2000 but will vote for GWB this time around because of Kerry's anti-war activities.  So, maybe there are some voters to be had by reminding them of this.

                    ...UNLESS, Bush tries to play dirty, when it becomes part of pattern of dirty tircks.

                    You've got to be kidding.  Rove will use as many dirty tricks as he needs.  The push polling that their doing in OR may be just one of many that they are test marketing to use in the "swing states."  Dirty trick work -- got Nixon a landslide, and while Rove will settle for a win, GWB really wants a landslide.
                     

                    by Marie on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 11:46:59 PM PDT

                    •  Knock it off?

                      You must have me confused weith someone else.  I accused you of nothing.

                      by Armando on Sun Aug 29, 2004 at 05:57:08 AM PDT

  •  Agreed,

    Plus, cable news did a craptacular job of not debunking the damn ad themselves and fanning the flames.  

    The GOP is always at an advantage because of the media apparatus that they've built (conservative think tanks, FauxNews, Scaife papers, right-wing radio, Rove's "political terrorist" network-per Clift's piece).  

    I think the Kerry campaign could have done a few things better, but with what they're up against, it wasn't all that bad.  

    by Newsie8200 on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 11:58:14 AM PDT

    •  I thought it quite good

      Again, the Kerry failings on clearly and inarguably on the top Issue - Iraq/WoT.  That is not a transient issue - it is the one that could cost Kerry the election - though even that won't in my opinion.

      by Armando on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 12:45:36 PM PDT

  •  I agree

    People really do have to learn to read polls.I'm sticking to the results of this elaction I've made before.Kerry 55,Bush 44,Nader1.
      Some may think thats crazy but I don't think people realize all the people and agencies in the government that are determined to get rid of this administation.W's demise will be an inside job.

    by ctkeith on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 12:18:43 PM PDT

•  It makes no sense....

  I keep hearing the point that Kerry has had to face these swiftboat allegations for the past 30 years.If so why is he having so much trouble handling it now.

  I also dont have much faith in the Kerry campaign thus far. Kerry's camapign manager Cahill may not be used to the rough and tumble of a national campaign against someone like Rove. This aint Massachussets politics. This is cut throat politics and we need a bruiser like Carville at the helm.

  by chiba on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 11:40:11 AM PDT

  •  hey chiba

    you're watching to much fox.If you're going to quote from them at least give them credit.

    by ctkeith on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 12:22:58 PM PDT

    •  And give Willie Brown credit too

      He thinks Massachusetts politics is sunshine and birds singing and polite tussles.

      "Politics ain't beanbag" was about Irish pol political machines, no?  Are there any Irish pols in Massachusetts?  Are there any beans?;-)

      by Cathy on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 12:33:29 PM PDT

  •  Wow, you've got all the talking points

    I guess you don't know very much about Massachusetts.

    by JamesB3 on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 05:49:09 PM PDT

•  Tough week

  Any way you look at it, it's been a tough week. Last weekend the estimated EC count here looked to have Kerry near 300. This week he was down around 250. That is a huge drop.

  Like it or not, the SB liars have put a dent in the armor.

  I'd like to be more optimistic (like I was after reading the "for those about to commit suicide" post last week).

  But with such a strong majority of Americans believing that the country is headed in the wrong direction, why isn't BC tumbling?

  What is it going to take?    

  by bcb on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 12:07:09 PM PDT

  •  It takes alot, and it often happens late

    Bush's numbers will never fall through the floor; let's say, for example, 57% think the country's on the wrong track--probably 5-6% of that thinks that the direction isn't wrong because we haven't established a full-blown theocracy. This really is a divided country (though maybe not perfectly 50-50, like idiot cable news people like to repeat over and over)

    I think that divorcing a president, especially when there's war on, is a long, tedious process, that many of us who've always hated the guy can't really understand. But I do think the signs that it's happening are everywhere.

    All that's really changed the last week is that some soft Kerry people moved to undecided; most polls don't show Bush's numbers surging (they're up about 1 point on average, in the last few national polls. Bush's job approval isn't up at all, and neither are the right track numbers. I basically think that the combo of the initial Swift assault, Bush himself largely being out of view and out of the news, and some national pride emanating from the olympics, contributed to the fluctuating polls. I'd be surprised if the underlying dynamic of this race has been altered, but we won't know for a little while.

    Also, watching the projected EV count, while not un-important, is an easy way to give yourself a heart attack. Most of the projection sites just plug in the most recent poll, and that's not necessarily the most accurate way of measuring where a state is. I mean, I don't think anybody, even the folks on the verge of suicide, thought that CA was down to 3 points, but on lots of those sites, it was listed as "too close to call." Very minor, statistically insignificant shifts can cause what look to be huge shifts in the EV vote total. Now there's no doubt that Kerry has been dinged, but the EV projections also don't take it account the allocation of undecideds, which will most likely (though not definitely) boost Kerry a few points. Believe me, I always feel better when those EV trackers have Kerry at 300, but relying too much on that stuff without either considering the average of all the polling from the state, the overall trend line, undecideds, etc., can be a quick way to depression if the national race shifts a little bit.

    by mattb25 on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 06:54:28 PM PDT

•  It's the media, stupid

  media media media media media

  by Maryscott OConnor on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 12:17:20 PM PDT

•  Good Candidate Bad Week

  John Kerry has done a number of things for the Democratic party that no one else has done in thirty years.  He reclaimed faith, family and flag for the Democrats and shoved it down the Republican's throats.  

  They hate him for it, and so they are doing everything in their power to dismantle him.  Just like they did 33 years ago.  It didn't work then.  It might work now.  If it works it won't be because John Kerry isn't a fighter or because he somehow let them do it to him.  He's been fighting like hell, for those who care to pay attention, and he has little to no control over what the media is doing to him.  

  If the smear campaign works it's because the American people will have shown to be fundamentally stupid, venal, and bad.  Karl Rove is no genius--he simply knows how to appeal to the worst in Americans.  This past four years has brought out the absolute most vile American traits and changed our character as a nation.

  Do I have some kind of mystical faith in Kerry as a campaigner?  No, the most brilliant politician of our age was Bill Clinton and he managed to pull off what he did in spite of the Democrats being a disorganized, bickering, outgunned party.  

  No, I have some lingering faith in the American people and in John Kerry's fundamental fitness to be President and to change our party--which he has, thus far, for the better.  I have some lingering faith that we, as a group of activists, will use our righteous ire to shame Americans into being American again.

  But for everyone who gets down, or who "loses faith" in John Kerry, if you have not sent out one letter, reached one voter, made one donation today... every day, between now and the election... then you have no right to complain.  You were expecting not a presidential candidate, but a messiah.

  We have to take back our own country.  John Kerry is just our figure-head.  He's not God.

  by stephdray on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 12:31:14 PM PDT

  •  go look at where clinton was at this point

    in 92.Kerry is doing better and W has many more problems than his daddy did.Keep the faith,we're gonna win BIG.

    by ctkeith on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 12:45:51 PM PDT

    •  where

      do you have a link to any of this info, I'd love to see it, and other challengers vs. incumbents too if it's available. Thanks in advance.

      by nussbaumski on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 01:20:16 PM PDT

      •  Rimjob

        has anexcellent analysis of all this. Check his diaries.

        by Armando on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 02:14:00 PM PDT

•  Sorry, try again

  you're watching too much fox.

  No actually I'm just watching a really shitty campaign. Look, the only reason Kerry is the candidate is because the media annointed him the acceptable 'electable' one during the primaries. Now that the media has turned on him, his poll numbers drop.
  

  by chiba on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 12:43:23 PM PDT

  •  wrong again

    and I was a fanatical Deaniac.Kerry Won because of Rassmussan.The minute the man who John Kerry Saved showed up the polls turned.Go look it up.If you don't think Kerry has other rabbits to pull out of his hat you don't know how tough mass. politics are.Be prepared because the Special forces guy Kerry brought to Cambodia on Christmas Eve in 1968 on a secret mission is close to making his entrance.

    by ctkeith on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 12:54:41 PM PDT

•  Lame response

  All I saw was a lame response to the SBVT smear.  Kerry had a few surrogates go out and beg the big bad meanies to stop saying mean things--big deal.  They come off as a pack of cowering pussies IMO.  

  Even on the Daily Show, when Stewart lobbed him a softball by asking if the smear pissed him off, Kerry's response was lame.  He said he wasn't pissed, but "surprised" and "disappointed".  If he really was surprised, then he's an idiot, and if he's disappointed then he's not human.  Really, what 'Nam vet do any of us know who wouldn't become filled with bloodlust in response to some coward, who pulled strings NOT to fight in 'Nam, denigrating his service?  And since Kerry is surprised at the smear, it means he didn't expect such cowardly attacks from Rove, which means that his response wouldn't be tempered by personal reflection and self control.  If Kerry isn't pissed off about the SBVT smear, then he really is a coward.

  In contrast, Clinton came across as genuine, intelligent, and most importantly, as seething at the SBVT smear!  How is it that Clinton is more pissed of about the smear than Kerry?  

  I don't know, maybe Kerry will win, but if he does it will be because of world events and the hard work of progressives trying to boot Bush.  Left to his own devices, I suspect Kerry would morph into a Seven Foot Dukakis and soldier on to a landslide defeat.

  by Subterranean on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 12:57:37 PM PDT

•  buck up

  What incredible negativity on this board of late.  We're essentially tied or slightly ahead to an incumbent.  Please turn off the CNN and get active in your local communities to put KE over the top.  Did you expect this group, so wonderfully defined by James Carville in "The War Room", to just lie down and lose?  We're up against desperate people, no time for whining.  

  by mullen on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 02:10:24 PM PDT

•  I Have Faith in Kerry

  First, he is neck and neck with President Bush in the polls and in the electoral vote.  Second, he raised a lot of money.  Third, many of the events that could occur during the two months before the election are more likely to hurt President Bush (the economy, Iraq, the Pentagon spy, the Plame case).  Finally, there are lot of issues that break against President Bush (health care, jobs, the gap between the rich and poor, and the overstretching of our military forces).  I also think there are lingering feelings among the populace that if President Bush is re-elected we will not only overstay our welcome in Iraq, but will invade other countries, while ignoring some of the countries that constitute a real danger, including North Korea.

  A lot of the undecided voters are women and Hispanics and they are more likely to break for Senator Kerry.  

  by eafredel on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 02:13:22 PM PDT

•  Exactly Subtaranean.....

  Kerry has not been as forceful as he could to shoot down this controversey other than the "Bring it On" phrase he uses. I mean this is not some abstract policy disagreement, the repubs are smearing his war service. I'm not advocating Kerry go bazerk about the matter, but he can say with bemusement that 'this is hilarious that someone who avoided Vietnam and his running mate who had five deferments would have the temerity to question my service". The repubs cant yell and cry foul all they want but Kerry has to establish he is not going to take any of it.

   And for 2 weeks Kerry has let this hurt him. So the gains of the backlash against Bush may not outweigh the negatives that the ads hurt him. Of course its too early to tell at this point, but indications show that that will happen. I hope Kerry has some master strategy up his sleeve but I havent seen it thus far. I sincerly hope I'm proven wrong.

  by chiba on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 02:19:47 PM PDT

  •  Silly

    More forceful would have been a misplay - the SCLM had to reach the conclusion - not Kerry.

    I think it was played very very very well.

    by Armando on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 07:38:36 PM PDT

    •  Why?

      What would be wrong with Kerry calling Bush out for slandering his military service and dishonoring his medals?  What would be wrong if Kerry explained that by attacking his medals, which are supported by the official military record, the Bushies are in fact depressing the value of ALL medals awarded for combat.  What would be wrong if Kerry starkly contrasted his honorable service with the cowardly actions of Bush during the Vietnam war?  

      How about Kerry stands up for himself and says, "while my opponent was defending Alabama against communist incursions, and fully supporting the war in asia to beat back communism, I was in 'Nam killing commie gooks before breakfast!"  Ok, so Kerry would need a Family Values version, but still, I don't see how this would hurt Kerry.

      What if the corporate media were surprised by Kerry's aggressiveness and suddenly made his response the story; "Did Kerry over react to the SBVT attacks?  Today we talk to a few Vietnam vets to find out how they would react to questions about their medals and service!"  

      by Subterranean on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 11:24:16 PM PDT

      •  He did that

        And the timing was proper.

        You want Kerry to run a lab experiment of a Campaign - well I'm not for that.

        by Armando on Sun Aug 29, 2004 at 06:00:24 AM PDT