CONASON: "Hammer Bush Harder"

[nostamj]

After the euphoria
John Kerry and his advisors had better not get too cocky over their victory in the first debate. They still need to shore up their weaknesses and hammer Bush harder.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason


<snip>
This first debate didn't conclude the campaign argument over foreign policy, national security, terrorism and Iraq. For many voters, and especially for most undecided voters, that argument may have just begun on Thursday night. While Kerry made a better impression on those voters than Bush did, he may not have yet won their votes.

If an inept Bush struggled to score against Kerry in debate, that doesn't mean the debate revealed no weaknesses that the Republicans will exploit in the days ahead. Potentially the most significant of those is the contradiction between Kerry's denunciation of the war in Iraq as a "distraction" and "diversion" -- the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" -- and his declaration on Thursday night that American troops aren't dying there "for a mistake."

Instead he must offer a simple and straightforward response: Yes, the president went into Iraq the wrong way at the wrong time. But I will clean up the mess he has left us, and do so with competence and the assistance of our allies. The president misled us into a war he wasn't prepared to finish, but I will lead us out with honor.

He will also have to address himself more directly to the continuing complaint about his vote against the $87 billion appropriation for Iraq. His explanation that he misspoke won't work, and he can't keep turning it around on Bush as he did during the debate. Kerry missed the opportunity to tell Americans something that perhaps none of them know: that the President repeatedly threatened to veto that same $87 billion bill. The reasons behind that veto threat, which included protecting tax cuts for the wealthiest voters and refusing to provide medical care to National Guard and Reserve families, would almost certainly appall most swing voters. But Kerry inexplicably neglects to talk about the presidential veto threat. If the bill was so critical to protecting American troops, Kerry could demand, why did the president threaten a veto?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/10/02/debate/index.html

[patricia92243]

1. I don't think the other debates will focus on the war.

[nostamj]

2. well, the next is a 'town hall' so it could be anything

the next 'formal debate' will be on domestic issues.

but, I don't think Conason is talking about what he should stress in DEBATES in this piece...

[H2O Man]

3. I agree.....

the costs of the war is an important part of the domestic debate. Kerry needs to connect the price of a gallon of gas and heating oil to the Bush policy in the Middle East.

[peacetalksforall]

4. Listen to Joe - wise factual straight arrow original

[papau]

5. Bush veto threat meant 87B for Army not as important as tax cut for rich -

at least in Bush's opinion.

I think that fits in with a domestic issues debate.

[librechik]

6. Kerry Camp should read this! good advice on the 87B dilemma

I would put it "My friends, the president has made an issue out of my vote on the 87B. What he won't tell you is that bill was so flawed that he himself threatened to veto it several times.

Bush misleads America when he pretends that Congressional legislation is a simple matter of yes or no, black or white. In the 21st century, things are seldom as simple as he would like you to believe. "

[nostamj]

7. on the 87B...

Kerry, imho, needs to make this point:

Bush threatened to VETO the bill I supported because I wanted the wealthiest in THIS generation to make a sacrifice in paying for this war.

Bush would only sign a bill which will force your children and your grandchildren to pay, if not with their lives, then with their futures.

There was never any question the 87B would be approved. I voted in protest over WHO would pay the bill.

And, what you need to ask Mr. Bush, who is so concerned about 'funding the troops,' is WHY hasn't that money been spent? WHY are our soldiers will without the promised armor?