Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (35578)	3/19/2004 10:31:26 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793778

Hey, I am always willing to light up the path for the unenlightened. :>) Are you being a smart-ass or do you just not know the answer to my question? <g> When did nation-building get subsumed under swamp draining rather than being a follow on? Anyone?

To: LindyBill who wrote (35578)	3/19/2004 10:34:09 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793778

I am finding articles and columns all over the country getting on Kerry for the same mistakes. Most don't think he can cure them. Bad news for the Dems if he doesn't. Kerry's negativity feeds Bush attack machine Ruben Navarrette Jr. / Syndicated columnist - Seattle Times DALLAS — The troubling thing about John Kerry's "hot mike" incident is not that it was rude, but that it was revealing. Kerry's main strategy for beating President Bush is to go negative, negative, negative. After the likely Democratic presidential nominee was overheard last week calling unspecified Republicans "the most crooked, you know, lying group of people I've ever seen," the media called the Kerry campaign to ask for specifics. Some quick-on-her-feet aide floated the cockamamie idea about how Kerry wasn't really talking about the White House but something called a "Republican attack machine." And the media bought it. President Bush, who is himself not above ribbing Kerry for refusing to be tied to votes that he cast in the Senate, seems to have picked up on the fact that the Massachusetts senator is a real sourpuss. The other side, Bush said last week, has nothing to offer the country but "bitterness and anger." That's it, this year's presidential match-up in a nutshell. Kerry will criticize, and Bush will do his best to paint his opponent as being overly critical and much too negative. Kerry is giving the president a lot to work with. He made a crack about how the only place that people can lie around and do nothing is on the Bush economic team. He said that Secretary of State Colin Powell has been marginalized and not "permitted" to live up to his title. He said that some foreign leaders, whom he still refuses to name, were quietly rooting for him to beat Bush. Just this week, Kerry attacked Bush on a front that would have been thought of as off-limits just a few months ago: homeland security. The Democrat insisted that the administration had been "big on bluster" but short on action and that the bombings in Spain were an indictment of the Bush record in fighting terrorism. As you might expect, every scrap of red meat is devoured by the Democratic faithful. And so, quite logically, Kerry keeps tossing it out. At least Democrats don't have to worry that they have another Michael Dukakis on their hands. The senator seems determined not to be the sort of punching bag represented by the man that Kerry served as lieutenant governor. In 1988, Dukakis was pummeled by a real "Republican attack machine" — headed up by the late Lee Atwater. Remember the Willie Horton ad? This time, Kerry is doing the punching. And how. And that presents Democrats with new worries. First, the party should be concerned that voters will — over the next few months — become so accustomed to hearing Kerry go on the attack that they'll tune him out. Case in point: Kerry attacking Bush on homeland security would have, under normal circumstances, been considered extraordinary. Instead, now it could come off as just more evidence that Kerry will say whatever it takes to get elected. According to a New York Times/CBS News poll out this week, many Americans already feel that way about Kerry. Asked if the candidate says what he believes — as opposed to what people want to hear — only 33 percent said Kerry speaks from the heart. For Bush, the figure was 51 percent. A bigger worry for Democrats is that enough voters might decide that Kerry offers too much vinegar and not enough sugar. Already, it seems, Kerry lacks the three things that American voters tend to respond to: optimism, hope and a sunny outlook on the future. Ronald Reagan had buckets of it. So did Bill Clinton. In fact, the man from Hope, now on the lecture circuit, recently told an audience that Democrats should talk less about where Bush had taken the country and more about where their party would take the country if they have the chance. Bingo. Clinton is still the master politician, and his party's presumptive nominee would be wise to take the advice. Of course, Democrats haven't cornered the market on negativism. The Bush team can give as good as it gets and by November, both sides will likely be covered in mud. Here's the difference: Many voters already have a sense that Bush is fairly upbeat, optimistic and hopeful. But many are forming their first impressions of Kerry. And Democrats can't afford for that impression to be of someone who — on issues such as the economy — can't stop talking about lost jobs, diminished glory and how our best days are behind us. Ruben Navarrette's e-mail address is rnavarrette@dallasnews.com