To my way of thinking if (when?) George Bush beats John Kerry in November the reason why will come down to ONE word:

ORGANIZATION.

Here's a perfect example from today's Columbus Dispatch:

Effort to extend unemployment benefits dies in Senate
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Mary Dalrymple
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON — The Senate rejected an election-year effort to extend federal unemployment benefits by a single vote yesterday.

Democrats tried to attach the benefit to a corporate-tax bill. On a 59-40 vote in the GOPcontrolled Senate, they fell just shy of the 60 votes needed to overcome objections that extending the benefits violated last year’s budget agreement.

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, was the only senator who missed the vote. Kerry was campaigning yesterday in Kentucky.

The amendment would have offered emergency federal unemployment benefits for six months, temporarily giving 13 weeks of extra assistance to people who exhaust their state benefits — typically 26 weeks.

Kerry spokesman David Wade said, "John Kerry has fought again and again to extend unemployment benefits for workers left behind in the Bush economy. The reason we haven’t succeeded is because George Bush opposes extending unemployment insurance and so do his allies in the Republican House of Representatives and 39 Republican senators."

Steve Schmidt, a Bush-Cheney campaign spokesman, said: "Today he (Kerry) had the chance to actually vote on that question but was too busy playing politics when he would have made the difference in the Senate."

Mr. Schmidt, you are SO right.

A few facts:

The Republicans point to Labor Department figures from last month that the economy created 300,000 jobs in April and the unemployment rate dropped to 5.6 percent.

However, since December 2003, when the extended unemployment benefits ended, about 1.1. million people have exhausted their benefits and are not eligible for any additional unemployment assistance. Each week, an additional 90,000 people use up thier state unemployment benefits. When these people fall off the unemployment list, the rate of unemployment drops---whether or not those people actually found a job or not.

John Kerry has been running around the country and running off at the mouth about how Bush has killed jobs and done nothing for the unemployed. Yet when it was HIS chance to stand up and make a difference he was out on the campaign trail instead of casting a vitally important vote in the Senate and doing his job!

I am extremely disappointed with the Kerry campaign. I cannot fathom how his staff in Washington or his campaign staff could have blown an opportunity for Kerry to be the Senator whose vote could have aided desperate people for whom an additional 13 weeks could be the difference between getting back on their feet and getting evicted.

There is no way that Bush's staff--as politically astute and savvy as they are---would pass on a chance to enhance their candidate's image. Apparently, Kerry is not similarly blessed with such competent people around him.

A few months ago Aquilla asked if Senator Kerry should resign his Senate seat so he could devote all his time and energy to the campaign and the people of Massachusetts would have a representative fully committed to meeting their needs.

Well, I guess Aquilla was right after all. If I were an unemployed person in Massachusetts who could have used a 13-week extension of benefits, I would certainly be madder than hell.

And probably reassessing my vote for President in November.

The Question for Debate:

Is the Kerry Campaign on course, drifting into bad weather, dead in the water or sunk like The Titanic?

Is the Kerry Campaign on course, drifting into bad weather, dead in the water or sunk like The Titanic?



In keeping with the nautical theme, I'd describe the Kerry campaign as a rudderless ship wandering around the open seas looking for an iceberg to hit. Nighttimer is right about missing this vote - it is a horrible political blunder on Kerry's part. Surely the Democrats in Congress counted the votes before this happened and either knew they were one short or it was very close. Normally both parties know what the tally is going to be prior to the vote on important legislation.

Having answered the basic question posed here though, I'd like to expand a little on this topic and kind of tie it into the question I raised about Kerry resigning in the thread referenced by Nighttimer. What may very well have happened here is Washington politics and it was orchestrated by the Republican Party. I would bet that had Kerry been in Washington for this vote, it would have passed by a huge margin, like 81-19 - something like that. But, with Kerry gone and on the campaign trail, just enough Republican Senators voted NO to send this bill down by a single vote and give the President a major club to bash Kerry with. I think the President supports extending unemployment benefits, I'll have to check that for sure (next time I dine with him ). Were I advising him right now, I'd immediately turn around and introduce another bill for the 13 week extenstion, call for it's passage and it would sail through Congress. Now we have two clubs for Bush and imagine the political ad that would make.

Where was John Kerry when the Americans out of work needed his help? ABSENT

Where was Senator Kerry when the vote extending unemployment benefits to Americans looking for work failed by a single vote in the US Senate? - ABSENT

President Bush fixed the problem. While John Kerry was out campaigning, President Bush was hard at work and standing up for the American people. While Senator Kerry was ABSENT, President Bush was on the job and guided emergency legislation through Congress to extend the unemployment benefits. President Bush made sure it passed without requiring the ABSENT Senator Kerry's vote.

John Kerry - ABSENT

President Bush - A leader you can depend on.

Hehe... Not too shabby.

Kerry is doing what he and many Americans see as the most important issue at hand. Changing the leadership of our country.

I feel that removing GWB from office is much more important then extending unemployment benefits.

Kerry's campaign is pretty simple right now. Wake up, read the paper, and see what foot GW shot himself in this week.

Kerry need not say another word prior to the election. The smoke that resides in my butt from the Bush team is all I need to feel or hear in order to make my decision.

Kerry is doing what is right and what is paramount. Campaign to replace the Bush administration. If congress can't run itself without 1 Senator from MA, then I guess that we have bigger problems on our hands.

Keep it up Kerry. I don't really like you, but I trust you.

I think that I'll have a good old American hotdog for lunch. hmmmmm, please pass the Ketchup, Heinz preferably.

GM does make a point, but at some point Kerry is going to have to offer some clear vision too- just sitting back and continueing to let GW be the scumbag he is will probably not win the election IMO

Is the Kerry Campaign on course, drifting into bad weather, dead in the water or sunk like The Titanic?

Good topic.

I really don't have a whole heck of a lot of input from my own perspective, but I read a very interesting article over at Zogby's site.

The Election Is Kerry’s To Lose By John Zogby.

In it, he solidly states that Kerry is poised to win the election.

He details four specific reasons as to why he feels this way:

1. Kerry beats Bush in his poll, and ties in a three way race with Nader
2. There are very few undecideds
3. The economy is the biggest issue, and people relate better to dollars in their pocket than increase in GDP
4. Kerry is a good "closer"

I don't particularly know if I agree with him, but it is definitely an interesting read from someone who has done their research.

Mike

I read Zogby's piece and he makes some very good points. Zogby certainly knows polling, but I'm not sure he has a handle on the political dynamics.

As to whether Kerry is ahead in the polls or not, that depends on which pollster you ask, but in any case, things can and probably will change a lot by election day, so what the polls say right now doesn't mean a lot except as a point-in-time snapshot. The Investor's Business Daily/TIPP poll as reported by NewsMax is showing Bush up this past week despite the scandals.

True, there are very few undecideds, and normally undecideds do break to the challenger.

The economy is the biggest issue, but Iraq is big too and how things go there, good or bad, could tilt the election.

Yeah, Kerry is a good "closer" but never "misunderestimate" Dubya or Karl Rove.

I still say Bush to win. I wouldn't give him two to one, but much better than even odds.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/12/opinion/12KOHU.html

(you may have to join)









Don't despair Kerry voters! I think Kerry (while not flawless) is doing best to 'lie low' while Bush takes the heat. If Bush takes him up on his offer to debate in front of the country, and Kerry softens his image, I think the election is won

I'm not the most unbiased source, but I'll do my best to try and be fair about the guy that I voted this past week in my state's primary.

It's awfully hard to screw up an election this early in the season, and I honestly don't believe that he has royally messed up or made a major media gaffe to warrant such a conclusion. Undoubtedly, there will be embarrassing stories that will crop up, they will always do during election season. There will be some serious anhills made out to be the Himalayas. At the same time, I thought Dean was all big and going strong, only to find out otherwise, so maybe I don't have my finger on the pulse of the media and the voting population. Any and all polls that I've seen show very a close race, and you don't have a traditional 5-10 point lead by the incumbent at this stage in the game. He's very much in this and the S.S. Kerry is steaming right along.

I think you are right nebraska29 regarding the embarassing stories. Almost every bad thing I hear about Kerry on WABC and the like constantly refer to the SUV comment, the $87 billion comment, and most recently today, something do to with a barbeque restaurant in the middle of nowhere. Kerry could have handled all of these things a lot better just by explaining himself or using some more common sense with regard to his image. To answer the question originally posed, I think the Kerry campaign is going pretty badly, especially considering how many people are upset with Bush and the war and the economy etc.

Is the Kerry Campaign on course, drifting into bad weather, dead in the water or sunk like The Titanic?


I believe the SS Kerry is wandering aimlessly. Of course, it is still way too early for that to be fatal for his campaign, but unless he gets an agenda, I doubt the American people will turn to him in a time of crisis.

This particular issue is a huge gaffe by Kerry. The opportunity to cast the deciding vote to extend unemployment--and he is out of town? I think Bush should hire Aquilla and run with his idea

I think his latest ad "A Lifetime" (depicting a brief history of his family) is a step in the right direction. He needs to focus on why HE will be an effective leader. He needs to give people a reason to change horses in the middle of a war.

Can he correct his course? First he needs to set one...

No doubt about it. It would have been much better had Kerry been there for the vote to extend unemployment benefits. I see it as a course deviation, and a course correction is called for.

But I will continue to believe that Kerry is far more interested in the well-being of the working class than the President is. Bush has proven himself to be a friend of corporations, but the rank and file, even the white collar workers have not been befriended by him as the outsourcing of American jobs, both technical and low-tech, continues.

Sounds like a blunder on Kerry's part. Then again, there arenn't that many senators who have a 100% attendance record. Kerry isn't the first senator to run for president, nor is he the first to miss a floor vote. With that being said, he should've been there to cast a vote and make a moral point with voters. He could've used the moment to highlight how even with more employment inrecent months, that the new jobs are shifting towards industries that feature little to no healthcare coverage. He also could've pointed out that with increasing employment, hourly wage and salary growth are stagnant. Undoubtedly, he missed a golden opporturnity. Then again, how many not in D.C. are going to care??

By any standard, Bush has had a horrible last two months. You know things are going south for him when in that same edition of the Columbus Dispatch, on the editorial page there were two--count 'em---two columns by hardcore conservatives (Robert Novak and George Will) that called for Don Rumsfeld to resign or be fired.

But Bush's troubles haven't translated into momentum for Kerry. The polls are still reflecting a dead heat with one or the other edging his opponent by a nose. Perhaps there is something to the notion that we're so focused on the president's problems, Kerry is being ignored. That, along with the Bush campaign's television ads slamming Kerry's record has driven Kerry's negatives up and forced him to play defense.

So, maybe this perceived lack of momentum on Kerry's part is right exactly where he wants to be. Kerry will emulate Muhammad Ali's "rope-a-dope" strategy and while Bush may bruise and pummel him a bit, Kerry will be able to hold on and come out swinging in the fall when voters really begin to focus on the election.

Maybe so and maybe no. Right now the only drama surrounding Kerry is who will he pick as his running mate. It's the incumbent, not the challenger, who typically sets the agenda and defines the issues to be debated. There is a reason these campaigns are called a "race." The guy who gets out fast and far ahead at the start isn't always the guy who crosses the finish line.

But perception is reality and particularly so in politics. I worry that Kerry's meandering campaign in May could come back to dog him in September and October.

As most people don't pay attention to the campaign during the summer, I think it is a little early to be talking momentum, for either side. I think we need to wait until August or September for that.

Okay, I must have my head buried in the sand here. I just don't see how Kerry is for the common man, and Bush isn't? I am as common as one can get too. Not dirt poor, but not far from it. (of course, I am willing to be honest here, and admit alot of our financial problems are of our own making). I don't believe that we are any different than most Americans. I support George Bush. Now, I realize to many that makes me an idiot. What I can't for the life me seem to get across to people is, I'm not following his lead, he is following MINE. To some if you are a George Bush supporter than you are sheep. Hey folks, this is my own thinking, just finally someone else who believes like I do. Say what you will(and many will say a lot), but these are MY feelings, not GWB being forced upon me by the Republican Party.


I believe Kerry understands the poor man, about as much as I understand the rich man. I don't. IF everyone would be honest, it's much easier to get used to the good things in life, than it is to go backwards regardless of why one is going backwards. When was the last time either gentleman had to decided whether to pay the car payment or his utility bill. I'd bet the answer is the same for either. So please don't give me the line of Kerry cares for the common man and Bush doesn't. They have both forgotten what it is like to be common.

Neither man is the middle class guy next door. Sometimes privilege allows a person to see their own position in life and they begin to feel that the system should work for more people than just those who are in their same stature in life. Franklin Roosevelt wasn't poor by any standard, but his policies were more towards the average working person, as oposed to Hoover and his Kansas vice president who wouldn't toss the farmers a bone. Roosevelt is a great example of how a person can come to understand the plight of others despite their privileged position in life. As for Bush, I think he was born in privilege, but sees himself not at home in the country club or on the golf course. He's the anti-elite elite. When he makes an excuse for a bungled policy, he appears honest like your neighbor apologizing for his boy who broke your window. When Clinton or anyone else apologizes, you don't get the same kind of feelings. I don't doubt that you like the president because of his sincerity and policies that you feel are attractive. It is my personal opinion that he talks like the average joe, but supports policies that stick it to average Joe. Bankrupty reform pill, prescription drug importation-two things that he sided with industry on and said forget the average guy who doesn't own a billion dollar a year pharmaceutical company. He talks average joe, but walks corporate all too often.

You make a good point, Lethalletha. John Kerry is about as common as a 3 dollar bill. There are all of the stories of him dismantling a house in europe and flying it to idaho and rebuilt, a river diverted so that it would pass in front of his home there, his 50 million dollar Gulfstream V Jet, $1000 haircuts, that he flies his stylist across the country for, etc... Now, of course, this dosent make or break an election, but i think it does show a little of his true side;his true ambitions. john kerry (and i am definitly not saying george bush is some "saint") is a pure political robot. theres a funny saying that goes.."if you dont like Kerry's stand on an issue today, wait a week!" just a little rhetoric, but to an extent, i think its true.

Bush and Kerry are no different when it comes to their "care for the people". I (not the GOP believes for me) believe that george bush - for the most part - says what he means, and means what he says. whenever i hear kerry speaking, i cant help but think about a cloud of haze clinging to every word that exits that monotone mouth.

for what its worth, in this early part of the election, i think kerry is dead in the water. the democrats/liberals who claim to be the "intellectuals" of this country sure do have a hard time putting out an "intellectual" presidential candidate. i wish they would, though, i would actually like to have to debate with myself about whom i would rather vote for, than a candidate's inconsistencies deciding it for me (good job kerry!)

I believe Kerry is sailing along smoothly, with a few waves every once in awhile. But that is to be expected.

What are people worried about. The election is almost 6 months away and Kerry doesn't have close to the money to spend on the election as Bush does. Bush has spent $60 million plus to just keep even in the polls with Kerry.

The 30 second and 60 second ads by Bush are just enough to fool the uneducated and unread citizens of our country. I don't listen to any of the ads from either candidate. I do a little research to really see what the truth is. Of course the majority of American voters believe what they are spoon fed by the ads. And who has spent the most on the ads?

If the majority of the voters CARED ENOUGH to learn the truth about the election issues the election would not even be close.

Yes I am satisfied with the Kerry campaign. Just have a little patience. Old George will continue(as he has in the past)to shoot himself in the foot. This is Kerrys to win and Bushs to lose.

Kerry and his surrogates (Moveon.org, George Soros' pet project, and so on) have spent over $60 million bashing Bush since the start of their primary as well.

Those Democrats crying foul over GW Bush's campaign chest seem to ignore the fact of how much money Moveon.org and it's like have spent on bashing Bush and promoting Kerry....

Yes, Republicans have a few similar organizations but they are neither as numerous nor even have a portion of the funds to match any of the Democrat orgs out there.

Neither side has more money really, both have about the same amount of cash to spend on ads and have done so.

Heh, I'll take the opposite of Popeye and say... despite months and months of trashing his image during the Democratic primaries, strange how in recent polls he is still ahead of J. Kerry on just about every issue lately.... but hey, nothing definative can be drawn from any polls till perhaps September, maybe late August. Funny, saw an article yesterday (Yahoo reuters I believe) about one word to describe each candidate, back in Febuary about 18% or so used the word honest to describe Kerry, the poll was done in May, not a single person used that word to describe Kerry...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...idential_poll_1

Ever stop to ask yourself why this is the case?

Bush can't run on his achievments, and that is why he is misleading the country regarding Kerry's background and it isn't working according to the polls. Thank God.

Yes I did notice there were some good news for Bush in that Yahoo news site, such as:



Now now only is Bush a "liar" but also "incompetent". That definitely is progessing in the right direction.

Honestly, I don't like either man, as they are both elitist who have been handed the world on a plate. Sad that in America, we are electing people that would be royalty in other countries. Where are the Reagans? Trumans? Eisenhowers?

Anyway, I digress....Kerry has some series problems, number one is appealing to more conservative areas of the country. He needs states like Ohio, PA and Missouri. Being a Masshole does not help, but his voting record and his history of being a liberal stalwart is something he is going to have to watch out for.

But I don't think that is even his strategy. I think at this point, he is looking for the "anyone but Bush" vote. He understands that he is not going to appeal to voters in the way Reagan or JFK did. He wants to hang in there and hope voters see Bush as marginally worse and thus swing his way. I think there's a good chance that it may work, as there are a lot of undecideds out there that are likely to swing his way (if they stay undecided). Kinda a sorry way to elect a president though. Oh, McCain, where are you?!?

See, here's the difference between your logic and mine. I think Bush is honest, sincere, and says what he means, but I think he's an idiot. His honest ideas don't work. He stands up for his beliefs, which are wrong.

Kerry is a Democrat, Clinton was a Democrat. The main idea of Democrats are that you do and say what your constituency WANTS you to do or say. Clinton read the polls, and what the polls told him to do, he did, because that's what Americans wanted. (I don't necessarily agree with this stance of Democrats, because I think it's inherently flawed, but it's no worse than the Republican 'My way is the best way' approach).

For that matter, there are MANY cases in the history of this world where someone steadfastly stood by ideas that were incredibly wrong, and caused a lot of problems because of their refusal to back down.

Don't forget the grassroots that Dean got excited and passed on to Kerry. I get daily email feeds from both the Kerry campaign and Dean's efforts. (Yes, he's still trying to get the sitting GOP politicians to retire early.) With fundraising, goals are being met and exceeded. With meetups, they still go on. With getting some of the newly excited young people to run for office, several have started down that road.

Nobody can change this country's course by depending upon media exposure. Media will do its usual trashing and ignoring, depending on what's currently hot.

The currently hot thing is Iraq. It's hurting the Bush campaign and taking attention away from the Kerry campaign.

Meanwhile, actual voters are getting on Kerry's wagon. That's starting to show in the polls, but I still think the real significance of the grassroots will not be known until after Election Day.

Then pundits can explain it all to those of us who attended the meetups.

Regarding the unemployment comp extension, hey, when I was unemployed, Colorado got some of that kind of money. Know what our great Republican governor (Owens) did? He passed half of it out to businesses!

You know, to give tax breaks and thus create jobs.

Eh, that didn't work. All it did was accelerate the drop to zero income and bankruptcy.

Thanks Guv! But seriously now, handing federal money slated for the unemployed to the states doesn't mean the unemployed actually get the money.

Now what does *that* remind you of? Some Third World country handling Foreign Aid?

So I guess the UC extension was an iffy thing at best. What we really need is more job growth and less outsourcing to foreign nationals, and very little importation of foreign workers (if any). Kerry's definately more to this side than Bush. Kerry's not as hard on this as I am, but then I've been converted from moderate to hard-nose on the issue of jobs for US citizens FIRST.