NYT: Bad Timing As Kerry Slips Out of Picture

[DeepModem Mom]

POLITICAL MEMO
Bad Timing as Kerry Slips Out of Picture
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JODI WILGOREN

Published: April 1, 2004


WASHINGTON, March 31 — At the very moment that President Bush has begun his general election campaign, Senator John Kerry has largely slipped from sight. And Mr. Bush has made the most of Mr. Kerry's absence.

Mr. Kerry's low profile occurs at what would seem to be a particularly opportune time for the senator. Mr. Bush has been struggling with questions about his record on terrorism, and Mr. Kerry had been riding on a wave of excitement after his capture of the Democratic nomination.

Yet Mr. Kerry was off the campaign trail yet again on Wednesday, this time for shoulder surgery in Boston, an operation expected to sideline him through Sunday. The surgery followed his weeklong disappearance to the slopes of Sun Valley.

Some Democrats said that should Mr. Kerry lose in November, he might well remember this month as the time when he seriously undermined his hopes of defeating Mr. Bush. A few invoked one of Mr. Kerry's least-liked comparisons, noting how another Massachusetts Democrat who ran for president, Michael S. Dukakis, stuck close to home in August 1988, in what turned out to be a foolish strategic move in his campaign against Mr. Bush's father....


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/01/politics/campaign/01DEMS.html?hp

[AnnitaR]

1. Bush is hanging himself...

I don't think Kerry's absence matters all that much.

One thing these folks have to remember is that you can never count Kerry out. We all thought he was dead in the water once too.

[Kenneth ken]

2. yep

I think the Bush* misadministration wishes Kerry was speaking up right now so they could turn the spotlight away from themselves; and do that "oh it's all partisan poitic attacks" tap dance they do.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

14. Good Timing

Having Kerry banging away on Bush the past two weeks would have allowed them to whine about "partisan attacks" from the Democrats. I think the spectacle of the Bush Administration imploding has been thoroughly entertaining and doesn't need anybody to push it along. I hope that Sen. Kerry had a relaxing week on the slopes before starting the campaign -- and then his administration!

[Dogmudgeon]

3. Such honorable combat!

The man goes into the hospital for surgery, and the Republican Slime Machine is cranked up to 11.

So when is Janeane going to cut that hip-hop version of "My Boyfriend's Back" ... ?

--bkl

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. I disagree with the NYT. This is probably the best time for him to

take time to get his personal matters in order before hitting the campaign trail. He's already underbudgeted compared to the Republican campaign coffers so he needs to pace himself; and the Bush Administration is hanging itself this week, so the media is doing a pretty good job of reporting information which is, ultimately, negative to Bush.

As long as Kerry comes back by Sunday, the voters won't remember this gap.

[robcon]

5. It's a marathon, not a sprint

I don't think March is critical to the election.

[Bake]

6. I agree, it's early, BUT

This was basically elective surgery, to repair a torn rotator cuff as I recall, and it could have waited until after November. Kerry has been MIA pretty much throughout the whole Clarke v. BushCo business, and before that he was on a loooooooong ski vacation. Meanwhile, Rove is running gazillions of commercials defining Kerry as a "liberal tax-raiser." And those ads are going unanswered. Is Kerry out of money? Why isn't he answering those ads?

I swear to God, after the piss-poor campaign Gore ran in 2000, this one needs to be PERFECT. We have the prize in our grasp, but we can't take it by going off on vacation. If we blow this one, I'm done with the Democractic Party.

Bake

Edited for typos

[noonwitch]

13. It's better to get it taken care of now, than in November

If he wins, he will be very busy from November on. Let Bush hang himself right now with the 9-11 commission, let the media and dems in Congress make accusations against the Bush administration, and don't go negative at all, except in the debates against Bush himself.

[rocktivity]

18. Kerry couldn't have put off the surgery

He has too many hands to shake!

:headbang:
rocknation

[bushbegone04]

58. Why didn't Kerry get it done last week instead

of skiing, snowboarding and lounging? Now he has wasted TWO weeks instead of ONE. I think it was really foolish.

I know I am one of many that is struggling to like the guy, much less hold my nose and vote for him. Why does he have to make it so hard?

[Warren Stuart]

19. I stridently disagree on most of your points

It is April, take a deep breath an relax. Bush is dangerously down in the polls, Clinton was riding higher than he was at this point. It doesn't hurt Kerry to let surrogates do his heavy lifting, much like Bush does, or did. Kerry is acting like the incumbent, Bush the challenger.

IF GORE RAN SUCH A LOUSY CAMPAIGN, THEN WHY DID HE GET MORE VOTES???

If your are done with the Democratic Party, if they don't jump through the hoops you set up, then where are you going?

C Ya.

[molly]

7. I'm not worried at all

I think his timing has been perfect.

[Garion_55]

22. You cant leave Shaq in for the whole game.

You have to pull him off the floor sometime in order for him to get a rest. what you hope for is that the other team doesnt take too much of an advatage while he is sitting. and if the game is even close when shaq goes back in, you can pretty much call it a laker win.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

8. Major NeoCon propaganda swill.

[0007]

9. Kerry's gotta have a good shoulder to bump junior back to reality

Take your time Mr. Kerry.

[Garion_55]

10. Actually the timing couldnt be any better.

Let kerry take some time off, he deserves it. let the bush people hammer him. for those people who actually care this early, we have pretty much all made up our minds. bushs' negative ads arent going to convince the die hards. its the swing voters and independants that kerry is going to have to appeal to. many of them dont even pay attention to the election until convention time or debate time. thats when kerry has got to be on the ball.

right now, the bush people have clarke to worry about. they have been getting slammed. they also have iraq to worry about. 9 dead people in one day. 5 of them soldiers.

kerry can afford some time off, its way too early for it to matter.

[Palacsinta]

11. And all those negative ads will lose their punch..........

if they keep running them and running them on the same themes. What else do they have? Nothing!

[agingdem]

12. Other than us...

no one is paying attention to anything other than the Clarke revelations. Kerry doesn't have to say a thing...Dowd (NUT), Broader (WP) and Cohen (WP) are doing it for him.

[Snellius]

15. The vacation to Aspen was stupid

It played right into the hands of the right-wing reactionaries -- and a favorite Bush family sneer -- that the Democrats are ruled by Eastern elitist, intellectual, Brie-eatin', Chablis-sippin', hot-tubbin' yuppie snobs. While Bush was getting bashing by Clarke, Kerry managed to counter any potential benefit to his candidacy, by showboating on his snowboard and looking like the haughty society-boy he is being characterized as. Especially with so many Americans out of work and overwhelmed with expenses. Even Jon Stewart found plenty to make fun of about Kerry's little R&R.

[BiggJawn]

21. So how are we gonna respond to Chimpy's traditional "Month Off"?

If we're being critical of our candidate for taking a vacation or getting rotator fixed (is it painful? I have no idea.) this early, before the campaign has even "officially" started (neither guy is their party's "official" candidate yet)
Then I hope we're standing out there screaming with torches and pitchforks when the Boy king takes his month off in Crawford, foto-opping with a chain saw...

Of course. I always do that, "Gee...I wish *I* had a job where you get almost 8 weeks of paid vacation your first year with the company..."

[RamboLiberal]

29. Bush will not take his month off this year in Crawford

I've already read that and know this from the gut.

But boy is he going to be cranky IMHO.

[BiggJawn]

43. No month off in Crawford? Man.....

That blow monkey's gonna be clawing at his back something awful, isn't it?
Maybe he can sneak in a week of toot and booze at Camp David or something?

[FlaGranny]

39. Rotator cuff is very painful and

you can't lift your arm up above shoulder level, usually. It hurts to do almost everything. Getting dressed is a chore, or taking a shower or washing you hair.

I think it has always been more or less "traditional" for a candidate to take a little time off after the primaries. Kerry will also probably take some time off after he's elected in November, but I'm willing to bet a bundle, he won't take a month off his first year of being president.

[Demeter]

48. It's Painful

I have two friends who had this surgery--and it took a good year to recover. And even so, the pain is less, not gone.

[BiggJawn]

62. Then it's something you wouldn't want to put off, then?

Guess maybe he should have delayed his prostate surgery, so Karl Rove couldn't us that, either...

[BigBigBear]

32. As opposed to Bush

who's ruled by weapons-industry think tankers and Saudi sheiks thanking us for removing the "threat" of Saddam from their neighborhood by raising oil prices.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

36. Gee...wasn't that when Clarke dropped his bomb under oath?

[West Coast Democrat]

51. The Kerry's Weren't Vacationing in Aspen

they were in Idaho.

[Snellius]

54. Sun Valley? Aspen? Saint Moritz?

Sorry, wrong resort but same deal. There's obviously nothing wrong with taking a well-deserved respite, but if Kerry doesn't confront these blatantly affected faux pas, he's going to play right into Rove's game plan.

[bushbegone04]

59. Maybe he aggravated shoulder in ski fall

That's what I'm starting to think - why would he have taken a week to indulge in leisure and lots of physical activity with a shoulder ailment? Now he's wasted two weeks instead of one.

[Yavin4]

16. Clinton Was Also Down In The Polls At This Time in 1992

The campaign won't start in ernest until Kerry picks his running mate.

[lancdem]

27. Yes, there are still a lot of undecideds

Clinton was way down. And the latest poll actually has Kerry up by 3 points, with and without Nader.

BTW, I'm not sure I agree with the premise of the article.

[TomNickell]

17. Fortuitously...

It turned out OK, I think. Dems needed to stay out of the way during the Clarke hearings, lest they appear to be making political points from a tragedy.

The negative ads need to be countered with counter ads. They can do that without Kerry. Dunno if they have.

I'm guessing that the recent poll changes have more to do with Kerry being out of sight and Bush being very visible than the negative ads. Some people will support whoever they last saw on the TV, even if it was in a bad light.

And, Clarke's charges are so strong that they have probably produced a temporary negative effect. People are unable to accept the accusation and so turn against the messenger.

[gristy]

61. Good point!

And, Clarke's charges are so strong that they have probably produced a temporary negative effect. People are unable to accept the accusation and so turn against the messenger.

I hadn't thought of that.

[rocktivity]

20. BORG JOURNALISM! (Resistance to the GOP is futile...)

I think Kerry went on vacation precisely because he knew the Clarke book and the the 9/11 hearings were going down. Letting Bush take the heat without comment was exactly the right thing do to. It's a no-win situation for Kerry when you stop and think about it: he comments, he's a partisan parasite; he doesn't comment, he's an ineffectual weakling.

The shoulder injury was unfortunate, of course. But in the light of Bush flip-flopping on testifying before the 9/11 commission, it was a bit of a blessing in disguise, because the focus remains on Bush and his credibility. The Bush camp must be feeling frustrated that they can't deflect attention from their situation by having Kerry to kick around. This article is most likely an attempt to flush him out.

:headbang:
rocknation

[mikey_1962]

23. Its only April... I am not worried

[BabsSong]

24. What's the excuse for all the other Dems disappearing as well??

They must all be in for shoulder surgery--correct?? Kerry okay. But what's the excuse of the rest of these people not making some hay while the sun is shinning by starting attacks on all sectors of the ecnomy while Bush is preoccupied with this little 9/11 mess. Why spoon feed him one little attack at a time so he can slam us back. There is something wrong with the way we are handling all this so the news article is partly correct. Only they shouldn't have unloaded on Kerry; they should have asked "where the hell are the Dems".

[demgrrrll]

26. Nagourney has been a fairly reliable reporter for the right. I think The

Howler has some information on him from the 2000 campaign in their search engine.

[Demeter]

50. Somebody Has To Pay Attention To the Government of the Country

God knows the GOP aren't. Too busy CYA.

[spanone]

25. I disagree. Last week Kerry didn't have to lift a finger.

the rethugs were shooting themselves in the foot without Mr. Kerrys help. He was ABOVE THE FRAY.

[demgrrrll]

28. Here is a link to one of many Howler articles on Nagourney's poor

reporting.
<http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh102703.shtml>

[sampsonblk]

33. Kerry's Numbers Went Down

I gloated all last week. We all did. But Bush's numbers went up after Clarke's testimony, and Kerry's went down or stayed the same. And the numbers of people who think Kerry "will say anything to get elected" are going up steadily.

It looked like a bad week for Bush. But when the report card (polls) came out, it was the other way around.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

38. According to what polls and based on what data?...

...That's a question we've all got to ask ourselves when those phony-baloney polls get published because they're all owned by outfits that can be traced back to the GOP or GOP-supporting parent companies.

If you're using polls for a report card you're making a big mistake.

[FlaGranny]

57. Thats VERY interesting - how can

people say Kerry will say anything to get elected, while he isn't saying ANTHING? Hmmm. How does that work?

[John_H]

30. I've been warning for months that too many of Kerry's top people are

The same people who helped Gore make his strategic decisions, and Kerry dissapearing during the time he could make big time headway on the issue that Chimp wants to be central to the campaign fits oh-no-I-might-make-a-mistake thinking we came to know and love in 2000.

[Merlin]

31. You people who blow this off have really short memories.

I have lived through the campaigns of McGovern, Carter(2), Mondale, Dukakis, and Gore. I have had to live through the

YEARS

of hell that followed under Republican administrations.

In every case, our nominee was celebrated as a great man. When he failed to respond to the other side, as Kerry is doing now, we all said "Oh, this must be part of a brilliant plan." But it wasn't.

My friends, you are seeing the stupidity of our party's "Pros" in action. They are failng us once again. In their naivete, they have allowed Bush to win the all important battle of first impressions.

This is a catastrophic error on Kerry's part. And what's more, it's compounded by the attitude of the fools on this board who are so willing to kiss our nominee's ass that they won't raise their voices against this insane stupidity. So the Kerry people keep coasting along in the arrogant bliss.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

34. I personally think that Kerry is waiting for another bomb to explode...

ripping away even more of the NeoCon charade. He's way too experienced to allow the NeoCons any advantage.

I go back to the Nixon-JFK campaign, and yes, I do remember the strategic errors made by candidates over the years. If I remember correctly, the same things were being said when Kerry was out skiing...and that was when the Clarke missile hit.

[Merlin]

41. A lot of good the "Clarke missile" did. Bush has gone UP in polling.

Why? It's simple. Because the average American pays no attention to complicated national news. But they DO watch TV commercials."

Don't bathe in the naivete of believing most American voters are as smart and informed as you are. They aren't.

You say you remember Kennedy-Nixon. Do you remember Humphrey-Nixon? McGovern-Nixon? Carter-Reagan? Mondale-Reagan? Dukakis-Bush? Gore-Bush? Do you remember how confident we were when they were losing that they were "way too experienced" to let the Repubs win?

That's the kind of thinking that cost us elections then and will cost us this one now.

We had better yell loud and clear to the Kerry campaign that we expect them to get their heads out of their asses and WIN this thing.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

45. Speaking of naive, why do you believe the poll numbers?...

Aren't they owned and/or operated by conservative organizations that claim that they're nonpartisan?

I also thought I plainly stated the following: "I go back to the Nixon-JFK campaign, and yes, I do remember the strategic errors made by candidates over the years." Most people would understand that to mean exactly what it states...that I recall all of the campaigns and campaign errors made by ALL candidates, GOP or Dem, since 1960.

Let's go over your list in detail, shall we? Maybe you don't remember them as clearly as you think you do:

Humphrey was painted with the same brush as LBJ...escalation of the war in Vietnam. Nixon talked about getting the U. S. out as quickly as possible as long as it was an honorable peace. Humphrey was never ahead anytime during that entire campaign. It was only later that we all realized that Nixon was an evil man, very similar to today's version in the White House.

McGovern faced an incumbent legally-elected president who would stop at nothing to discredit anything having to do with the McGovern campaign. He also never led during the presidential campaign.

Carter's campaign was cursed by the double-whammy of a poor economy and the way the Iranian Hostage Crisis was perceived to have been handled. Reagan came out like gang-busters and looked good from the beginning for a country seeking a change in leadership.

Mondale was running against a VERY popular incumbent, Ronald Reagan. Nothing else need be said.

Dukakis ran a very poor campaign against Bush I. Enough said.

Clinton beat Bush I, and then beat Dole.

Gore was a victim of election theft by the NeoCons on a grand scale.

***"Do you remember how confident we were when they were losing that they were "way too experienced" to let the Repubs win?"

Actually, I remember thinking that the captive press raked Gore over the coals and heavily influenced the campaign...I don't ever remember the Dems as "overly confident".

[Merlin]

63. Your memory is flawed.

There is one thing every single one of those campaigns has in common (I'll skip Humphrey's because I was in Vietnam then and didn't witness it first hand).

In every single instance, the Democratic candidate rolled over and played dead under the assault on their character and their record by the Republicans.

Don't you remember?

Don't you remember just 4 years ago when Al Gore failed again and again to respond to Bush attacks against him. People asked "why isn't Gore more aggressive?" and "what is Gore waiting for?" The fact that he only tied a snearing, swaggering, stupid ex-drunk from Texas is evidence enough of a failed campaign. Furthermore, Gore himself has admitted he placed too much faith in campaign advisers urging him to use restraint. He himself regrets the way he ran the campaign.

What the hell more do you need? Do you really want to let yourself be lulled into believing we're winning again when we're really losing?

I don't!

Oh, and YES I do believe the poll numbers. I know a little about statistics, and I know that in general they reflect sentiments accurately. Not every time, not every pollster, but in general they're right. And right now they all say Bush is leading in the battleground states where he's run these attack ads.

I urge you, and others who believe as you do, not to sit back and let this campaign go to hell in a handbasket, but rather to speak out and urge the Kerry people to get the heads out of their butts and get on the attack.

[Lorien]

56. I agree Merlin

seems like the same old losing strategy to me. For three long years we've been waiting for the Dems to wake up, set the agenda, guide the dialog, and put the repugs on the defensive. They've shown no sign of a "secret brilliant strategy" yet. Good Lord, I hope they DO remove their collective heads from their backsides SOON!!

[Merlin]

67. Thanks Jen6.

I've been through this before. The campaign insiders are isolated from reality. Their hyper-intellectual, goody-goody approach so far is a disaster.

Did you see their ad "responding" to Bush's attack ads? John Stewart ridiculed it the other night. He said something like: "Did you notice? The Bush people attack Kerry. And the Kerry people attack... the Bush AD!" The Kerry ad was a study in how NOT to respond to charges against you in a campaign. It was completely defensive. And to top it off, they ran only one of them for every 10 Bush ran. Pathetic!

[Onlooker]

35. I think you're too harsh

The people in the Kerry campaign must be weighing a lot of different factors. By not taking advantage of Bush's problems, Bush cannot easily put his problems in the political arena. Right now, he just looks bad, and he can't distract Americans by accusing the Dems of political cyncism.

The Kerry campaign is also observing how the Bush team handles these problems. If another problem regarding Iraq arises, and one surely will, they'll be able to hit the Bush harder. They're also saving money, which they must do because Bush is so well financed.

Kerry needs to hit hard, but he must do it right, and he must to it when the timing is right. Whatever he does now, will not get him a long term advantage. If Kerry hits hard, he can do a little later on, provided his hits are on target. If he does not hit hard, then he'll surely lose the race.

[Merlin]

40. Oh, please. That's nothing more than a bunch of lame apologies.

Get real. Could you possibly rationalize any more? This is the same EXACT crap I heard countless times when our candidate let himself be put on the defensive.

You are just plain wrong to excuse this kind of profound political incompetence.

Let me ask you a simple, common sense question. What do your gut and your reason both say about the importance of "first impressions" when you meet somebody. Pretty damn important, right? Pretty damn hard to reverse that impression later on, right? Requires the somebody to have to dig himself out of a hole later on, right? Right! That rule applies equally well to politics.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

46. You need to climb down off of your high-horse...

...you're beginning to act a little too pompous for me.

[Merlin]

66. Well EXCUSE ME!

Too pompous? Or too accurate?

If you think I'm going to apologize for making reasoned, astute, relentless objections to a flawed strategy that is already losing us this election, you're nuts. If you don't like it, don't read it.

[w4rma]

44. I tend to agree, Merlin. Seems like procrastination to me. (nt)

[Bandit]

37. It is still quite early

I'm sure we will hear more from Senator Kerry before November.

[Merlin]

42. But FIRST IMPRESSIONs have been made. Kerry has been DEFINED.

You're riding the same high horse the Kerry people and party "Pros" are riding. But this is the REAL world, not the world of your--and their--imaginings.

In the real world, first impressions are vitally important. Even fools know that. Even those people who pay no attention to complicated national news--or, in other words, way more than 1/2 the US voting population--know that.

First impressions are very hard to change later. How hard is that to understand?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

47. Nonsense. Most Americans aren't even paying attention to the race...

...and won't until after the party conventions.

Geez...take a chill-pill. How hard is that too understand?

[Merlin]

64. Boy, I sure wouldn't want you as a campaign adviser.

You're right, they aren't paying attention to "the race." But they are making up their minds.

What part of poll results do you not understand?

What part of the importance of first impressions do you disbelieve?

Where is your evidence to prove your apparent belief that a candidate can sit back on his ass and permit his opponent to define him with attack ads?

This is WAR, DAMIT! And I want to win this one badly.

How hard is that to understand?

[DeepModem Mom]

49. I do think we might need some new blood in the campaign --

the thinking behind the MoveOn ads, for example, seems to represent new-think, rather than older-think -- and I hope the old hands are including some new-thinkers as they plot their strategy.

[VeniceBeat]

53. Say-lah-vee!

What's done is done, right? We might as well hang it up and psychologically prepare ourselves for another four years of Republican Kleptocracy, right?

Get real!

What are you doing in your OWN PRECINCT to raise turnout?

I work a precinct polling station here in Venice Beach, highly Democratic, and only an average of four voters out of 25 names per page signed in. 4 out of 25! The last four elections!

You can bet yer donkey I'm going to make contact with registered voters in my OWN PRECINCT and encourage them FACE TO FACE to get themselves to the polls on election day.

This place is great but ya gotta put yer feet in the street! Contact your local Dem organization for details.

Remember what Tip said: "All politics is local."



Carry On.

I am VeniceBeat and I approve this message.

[Merlin]

65. How about reading the message before you object to it.

I don't disagree with much that you said, except your implication that I think the campaign is over already.

Do you really think I'm spending this much deodorant challenging the Kerry campaign approach because I think it's a lost cause?

And Tip was wrong. All politics is NOT local. The TV ads are the NUMBER ONE THING in determining how the UNDECIDED voters eventually come down. That's not local. That's the campaign itself making strategic decisions about what to do.

Yes, of course local efforts are essential. That's a no brainer isn't it. But so is an intelligently run, aggressive, hard-hitting campaign.

[Chicago Democrat]

52. The NYTimes sucks! It didn't used to!

When did the NYTimes become a shill for the GOP.

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

55. Comparing

a vacation in March to August? :eyes:

A few invoked one of Mr. Kerry's least-liked comparisons, noting how another Massachusetts Democrat who ran for president, Michael S. Dukakis, stuck close to home in August 1988, in what turned out to be a foolish strategic move in his campaign against Mr. Bush's father....

[GOPBasher]

60. I don't think this is a big deal.

We're still over 7 months from election day. Does anyone seriously think that a week out of the limelight is going to kill Kerry in the long run? I think that author just needed a story.

[Merlin]

68. Dream on.

First, it wasn't just 1 week. It's been more than 3 weeks.

Second, critically important undecided minds are being made up NOW based on all important first impressions.

Third, and most pathetic, the Kerry people had to know this was coming. They have just completely dropped the ball.