Why didnt Kerry do the following???... Tagging Bush so It sticks

[The Sushi Bandit]

Tag Bush as a torturer - (Bush has thrown away the Bill of Rights and the Geneva Convention)

Tag Bush as a Lier - War, ect. ect.

Tag Bush not honoring his promisses

Tag Bush with no mandate of the electorate (Gore won)

Tag Bush as a secret & controlling with radicals in his administration

Yes, this may seem like hindsight... but I was screaming these things all through the election.

Any democrat that trys to be "Nice" or "Respectfull" or unwilling to confront any repuk should be tarred and feathered!

[Melodybe]

1. Kerry calling Bush a fascist and the media propoganda would have helped

a lot too.

[BillZBubb]

2. That's a consistent problem with Democratic campaigns.

For some reason, we always fail to latch on to two or three important items and STICK WITH THEM. The Repugs always drive home their points ad nauseum. We laugh and say people couldn't be so stupid and buy that crap. But, they ALWAYS do. Just ask people if Kerry is a flip-flopper. They'll almost all say yes and the only issue they can name that he flipped on was Iraq.

The Democrats need to learn to be ruthlessly unified and repetitive. Keep pounding the few points until they seep into the public subconcious.

Instead we are always all over the map. Our candidates touch on every issue. Our candidates have sensible plans for all the issues. Our candidates win the debates. And our candidates lose.

[Old and In the Way]

3. Why Kerry ran a positive campaign, IMHO.

A vast majority of Republicans seem to be cultists....Bush can do no wrong. That opinion is carefully fed and cultivated by the broadcast media, too.

Let's assume he did everything you state in his campaign and let's further assume it might have been enough to tip the scales in his favor.
Now what? How does he govern when he's torched the Maximum Leader? The Republican media would be no friend to Kerry....they'd be playing up Kerry's "dirty tricks against a popular President" theme and brand him the problem. His/our agenda would be distorted and second guessed. He'd still face a bitter, vengeful, and totally uncooperative Congress and a significant group of voters who'd Clintonize Kerry. Fact is, they'd be starting investigations into impeachment proceedings on Kerry's traitorous activities in VN, starting 1/21/05.

I think Kerry looked at the political calculus and ran a campaign that would minimize the diviseness so he could govern from a mandate of change and bipartisan support. He counted on an electorate fed up with the Republican incompetence and downright anti-American, pro-criminal agenda. Unfortunately, the one variable he couldn't control was the voting machines/vote count process. There were still way too many Republicans voting Bush (and against their own best interests) and they provided the cover to allow the election to be stolen again.

[SammyWinstonJack]

4. Who would have heard Kerry if he had done what you suggest?

The MSM barely gave him any coverage as it was. I'm sure they wouldn't have given any more if he were to have call the chimp a liar, etc. In fact, it probably would have backfired. Hard to get any message out when the corporate controlled media isn't airing your message or twisting it against you. :shrug: