Why Can't Kerry Hit Back With "I Threatened To Veto It Before I Passed It"

[DrFunkenstein]

Why Kerry hasn't hammered this FRIGGIN' OBVIOUS point is beyond me. How hard is it to explain that there were two versions of the bill, the first asking to roll back tax cuts for rich folks to fund it (Bush poo-poo'ed it), the other to be funded by driving the deficit $87 billion deeper.

I don't understand why the Kerry campaign has let this get off the ground, let alone go unanswered in the debates. Considering it is the cornerstone of the "flip-flop" attacks, you'd think it might be useful to get on top of this FRIGGIN' OBVIOUS point.

[bowens43]

1. Kerry has explained it many times.

The bushbots will still think it a good point.

[DrFunkenstein]

2. Doesn't Count Until It Enters Media Groupthink

Which is why I'd go with the short and sweet blurb.

[Roland99]

18. But Kerry has NEVER brought up the VETO issue.

Not once in the two debates and neither did Edwards!!

[phish420]

29. No he hasnt...not once

and its pissing me off BAD. It is so simple, but he just says 'I made a mistake about how I talked about the $87 billion, HE made a mistake about invading Iraq. Which is worse?". THATS NOT AN ANSWER JOHN!!! That is what turns away undecideds - a non-answer. He DOES have to say a. the reasons why he voted for the first version and b. the fact that Bush threatened to veto the first bill before passing the second.

[sandnsea]

3. On your flip-flop

How about "I voted for Bush... before I voted against him"

And maybe working in 2000 and 2004 in there. For everybody who would like to take that shoe and slap themselves in the head for ever thinking Bush was qualified to be President.

(NOT ME. I didn't even vote for Reagan)

[DrFunkenstein]

6. On Your "W"

I can't believe you missed the obvious "W is for Wussy"!

[sandnsea]

12. lol, yeah but

It's not mine. Somebody else on DU had it and directed me to the web site and I took it. I guess it's okay or they would have taken it down by now.

[Roland99]

19. True for me...

I did vote for Bush in 2000 before I voted against him in 2004!

[sandnsea]

26. Oh smack, smack, smack

You know how they got you don't you? Your "open-mindedness". That's how they always get the swing voter to vote for Republicans. By making them forget what the last Republican administration did and convincing them this new guy isn't a Republican like the old guy was. YES THEY ARE. They never change, never forget it. So there. And I'm so glad you're on board this year!

[Roland99]

28. Well...

I've voted Republican since 1984 (except for Clinton in '92)

No way in hell I can do it now. Kerry matches my thoughts and viewpoints more than anyone I can remember since I was in high school.

[BUSHOUT]

4. I don't see how your line is any less confusing to people....

I believe the media has SLOWLY gotten the explanation out there of what was going on.....
Now everytime bushco pulls that line out I think it's gotton a sorta "Oh no, not THAT again" quality to it.

The public are sick of these one-liners. Tagging Kerry with a name isn't goign to win them the election.

I think by not trying to give an explanation to the stupid accusations has proven to be a smart move. It took the wind out of thier flip flops.

[King Coal]

5. Don't you mean?

You threatened to veto it, before you voted to pass it.

[DrFunkenstein]

8. I Was Having Kerry Speak In Bush's Voice

Since Dubya can pretend that Kerry said whatever he wants, why not let the door swing both ways?

[ProfessorPlum]

7. This question has been driving me bananas too

They have missed the opportunity to straighten this out THREE times in a row so far. What can be so hard? How about:

"There were multiple copies of that bill, some of which were responsible, others of which put the burden on our grandchildren. The one I voted against put the cost on our national "credit card", and I voted against it knowing it would pass anyway. The President threatened to veto versions that his rich benefactors would have to contribute to."

It is just so easy, and what's more, it is true. WTF?

[Snivi Yllom]

9. your line makes him look weaker

It makes the statement that he threatened to use a veto but eventually caved.

[GrndLkNatv]

10. Well has anyone noticed this????

George Bush Yesterday:

"Our goal is not to reduce terror to some acceptable level of nuisance," Bush said. "Our goal is to defeat terror by staying on the offensive, destroying terrorist networks and spreading freedom and liberty around the world."

George Bush on August 31st:

"I don't think you can win it, but I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world," Bush told NBC's "Today" show. "Let's put it that way. I have a two-prong strategy. On the one hand, it's to find them before they hurt us. And that's necessary. I'm telling you. It's necessary."

Which equates to what Kerry said yesterday:

"Democratic challenger John Kerry on Monday, saying the Massachusetts senator would prefer to reduce terror to an "acceptable level" rather than eradicate it."

So what is the president saying??? Can you explain how he says you can win the war on terror and also says you can't? Can you explain how the president says you can't win the war on terror but you can make it hard for terrorist which equates to being just a nuisance to the U.S.?

[bullimiami]

11. ive said this before as well

kerry should say

they keep howling about this as a "flip flop" but forget to mention the repug senate voted against it before they voted for it and bush threatened to veto it before he signed it.

[sandnsea]

13. There you go

That's the line.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

22. I agree. Very good synopsis. eom

[drbtg1]

14. This inability to effectively communicate worries me

His staff really needs to let him know they need a "lowest common denominator" explanation. His latest "Which is worse?" line isn't cutting it. It still implies Kerry did something substantially wrong, which he didn't and shouldn't let voters think he might have.

Suggested line: "What does it mean? it means there were two versions. One, which Bush wanted, which would have put the cost of the 87 billion on the back of your children and grandchildren. One, which I supported, which would have rolled back those KEN LAY TAX BREAKS to pay for the 87 billion responsibly. I think Ken Lay and his buddies are better able to pay for it than your children and grandchildren. They'll just have to cut their Ferrari and caviar budget. :)

But guess what? If Congress voted for the responsible version, Bush would have vetoed it. The president had the Senate votes he wanted for his version, any one senator's vote didn't matter here for the troops. But a presidential veto is a lot more serious than one senator's vote. And for this president, to threaten not a vote but a VETO, it shows the Tax Breaks for his buddies like Ken Lay are more important to Bush than the troops."

Straightforward, complete, simple to understand, pokes fun at the rich, and it has a good catch phrase people might remember.

[ProfessorPlum]

15. Excellent.

Mail it to the campaign. JK can work it in before tomorrow night.

[drbtg1]

16. Thanks for your approval

Do your know of an appropriate email address? I've checked their site some time ago but no dice.

[drbtg1]

27. Never mind

I found a place on johnkerry.com to send it.

BTW, if the Kerry Campaign isn't monitoring the DU boards for suggestions, they're really being foolish.

[yodermon]

17. I think (hope)

he's been saving that one for later. He should have said it in the 1st debate, though.

ALTHOUGH.. does the Kerry kamp know something we don't, in terms of How the Rovian repukes might counter that argument, and that's why he's been laying low?

[ClassWarrior]

20. GW*'s veto threat means he thinks tax cuts for the wealthy are...

...more imporant than body armor for the troops.

One sentence.

24.

[drbtg1]

24. One sentence won't cut it

Nobody in the real world heard of the veto threat, so it won't have credibility. It needs context. I know sound bite length is optimal in a society that has been weened on the teat of MTV and has the attention span to show for it, but in the debate, any answer gets a minimum of 30 seconds. Use it and end the issue once and for all.

[sonicx]

21. Kerry and his advisors are stupid for not mentioning the veto

He's had numerous times to bring it up. at the debates, at press conferences, at rallies, at interviews.

WTF is wrong with them?

[wadestock]

23. GOD YOU ARE SO RIGHT!!!!!!!!!

I have NEVER gotten it myself.....what the freek is going on@#$%^%$#???

A WELL CRAFTED TV COMMERCIAL COULD ICE THIS WHOLE THING FOR KERRY.....

BASED ON YOUR POST I'LL BE SENDING OUT A DOZEN EMAILS IN THIS REGARD....

HOW THE FREEK HARD IS THIS???

1. The vote for the "war" was never a vote for a war. It was a vote to authorize the use of force....100 different variations were possible including more aggressive inspections backed by US military might. Show an actual hardcopy of the language on TV....so people for once and for all realize that it was NOT a vote for a "WAR".

2. The points you've made

3. End the commercial by playing the video of Bush in debate #2 when he said, "The UN was never going to get rid of Saddam"....and ask the probing question....

"Do any of these votes matter anyway.... when we have a president that already has made up his mind?#$%$#@!"

[undercover_brother]

25. I have been screaming this for months now

[phish420]

30. Me too brother...nt

[David Zephyr]

31. Kerry: President Bush, You SENT the Troops to War Without Armor!

Bush: You voted against the $87 million which provided body armor for the troops, Senator Kerry.

Kerry: Excuse me? You sent the troops into war without body armor to begin with. You coming back to Congress for money for the body armor AFTER our soldiers were being killed because YOU failed in the beginning is proof that you had no plan for your war, that you rushed to war.

And it was you and Karl Rove who insisted on linking $7 Billion for a no-bid lucrative contract for Halliburton to the body armor bill. I voted for the body armor when it was presented in the Senate SEPARATELY from the near $20 Billion give-aways to your corporate donors.

So, let's get the entire body armor argument straight. You sent the troops to war without the body armor to begin with. Period