I'm loathe to post a "What Kerry should do" diary because I hate it when all the other armchair John Sassos do it. But I can't help wondering why Kerry isn't spending more time conjuring up what the next four years would be like if (perish the thought) Bush is reelected (I hate even writing it). It seems to me to be the most straightforward way to tap into the right track/wrong track sentiments.
The campaign seems to have just discovered this obvious line of attack. From the WaPo:
Kerry's speech was part of a new effort by his campaign to convince voters that sticking with Bush for four more years would be risky, contrary to the Bush-Cheney campaign's portrayal of the president as the safer choice at a time of global uncertainty.
Polls show the race remains close, but Kerry's aides believe they have found a winning line of attack -- that Bush stubbornly refuses to face reality about the bad choices he has made at home and abroad and is distorting the consequences. At each stop, the senator has begun saying Bush is in a "state of denial."
Noam Scheiber at TNR cites this with approval, but thinks Kerry should go further and conjure vivid images of Nov 3 remorse:
During the last few weeks of the campaign, probably the best way for Kerry to consolidate support among people who believe the country is headed in the wrong direction but aren't yet sold on him--a group polls have shown could be more than five percent of the electorate--is to start asking, rhetorically, how people will feel if they wake up on November 3 and hear that Bush has been elected to another four years in office. Clinton used this tack toward the end of his 1992 campaign to underscore his "change versus more of the same" theme. (Clinton's exact words were, "Just imagine what you're going to feel like if you wake up on the morning of November 4 and the newspaper reads, 'Four more years.' Imagine what it would be like. ... [Then] think about what you'll feel like on November 4 if you have helped to create a new America, to bring back the American dream and bring the American people together.") It seemed to work pretty well back then. Given the intense opposition to George W. Bush, I suspect it's likely to work even better this time around.
I say, why stop there? Why not use fear? Doesn't it seem as brutally obvious that people need to be afraid of what these dangerous incompetents might get up to if given another chance, without the accountability of an election??? Leave it to Wes Clark, at an event in FL yesterday, to hit it on the head:
"If a man misleads the country that bad, if his judgment is that bad," Clark said, talking about President Bush's management of the war in Iraq, "what will he do the next four years?
"He's a risk to our safety in the United States of America."
Del Sandusky, one of Kerry's crewmates who was also at the event, echoed the theme:
"John Kerry is a warrior and Bush is not," Sandusky said, his voice rising. "John Kerry is the solution; Bush is the problem. It ain't going to get any better with Bush. It's going to get worse."
So, why stop at Nov 3? What about Dec 3? And Nov 3 2005? And 2006? And 2007 if we fucking live that long???
I know primary season sour grapes are frowned upon, but I still think it's a shame Clark didn't get a more prominent place on this ticket. Here's a bonus quote that could only come from him:
"John Kerry is a tough-minded guy. He will keep America safe," Clark said. "When George Bush was a cheerleader, John Kerry was playing hockey."