Broken Masterpieces

September 23, 2004

How Kerry Chould Have Run His Campaign With Honor

In hindsight, and knowing the election is far from over, John Kerry could have run a much more honorable campaign and one that didn't possibly do permanent damage against the US efforts in Iraq. Here's my list of how he should have run this deal:

  • Should have defended his 2002 vote instead of claiming he was misled. He had access to all the information that the administration had. He wasn't misled, he just didn't dig enough. He put his faith (and so did many others) in the intelligence we had and that's that. Quite blaming others and take responsibility for your votes.
  • Along the same lines, voting against the $87 million for Iraq and the rest of the war on terror was a disaster. Instead, he should have said he wanter MORE money for troops but still should have voted for the $87 million. This was purely a vote to counter Howard Dean. Nuance just doesn't work on this one.
  • No matter the situation, Bush would still campaign on the war on terror and Iraq. Kerry just should have said he totally backs the current course and would continue the course but be even stronger, demanding more troops. This would have taken the terror issue off the table. He could have even made a big man announcement and said that he would not make this a campaign issue.
  • With terror off of the table he could have focused on a major domestic area like healthcare and pounded Bush on domestic issues without looking weak on the war on terror.

    It's all too late as Kerry has poisoned the water with our newest allies in Iraq, insulted the allies that have stood with us and tried to please the allies that are best with sticking it in our ear. The cut-and-run candidate, whether he wins or loses, has damaged the effort in Iraq. He's not only the cut-and-run candidate but the say-anything-to-win candidate (see smacking the Iraqi PM and the hints about Bush bringing back the draft).

    Posted by Tim at September 23, 2004 10:27 PM
    • Comments

    "he could have focused on a major domestic area like healthcare and pounded Bush on domestic issues without looking weak on the war on terror" [Tim]

    Want a 20 point bump? Take on illegal immigration. It could be the ultimate political human sacrifice (see http://www.johnandkenshow.com/).

    Call it cultural and economic terrorism. The quality of life here is in freefall.

    Posted by: Glenn at September 24, 2004 07:03 AM

    We were all misled and Bush has to take responsibility for this quagmire. (He hasn't, has he? I guess it's all going peachy-keen in his master plan.)

    Think of an inept baseball manager who's so sure he wants a certain farm team player for the upcoming season that his spineless scouts give him a crappy, biased report that justifies what the inept manager wanted all the time. Say then the farm team player is brought up to the big leagues, and is a dud.

    You're saying if Kerry were instead the manager, he would have made the same bad decision because the same biased, crappy report would be given to him. I don't buy it.

    Not sure what field of business you're in, Tim, but whatever it is, in that field I'd bet whenever bull-headed, stubborn executive officers hire a consultant to tell them what to do in a certain situation, that consultant comes up with the very same conclusion that the single-minded executive officers wanted all along.

    Amazing how that works.

    Posted by: Tom at September 24, 2004 08:03 PM

    You are wrong. The Iraq war is a total disaster. $200,000,000,000 and over 100 lives lost have weakened our ability to respond to other real threats. No one liked Hussain, but deposing him at what cost? Clearly, the cost was too high. Now, what about Iran and North Korea? Not to mention our domestic problems. Namely outsourcing, Social Security promises that will never be paid, and deficits that run forever.

    Please try to be realistic in the future.

    Posted by: larry slack at September 25, 2004 11:50 AM