Does Kerry need better answers on IWR and Gay Marriage?

...I thought Kerry did very poorly today on the IWR and Gay Marriage questions.

It's okay for a primary debate, but I think if Kerry is going to be debating Bush, he needs to pick a side on IWR and on Gay Marriage...

For IWR, I think he either needs to say something more like "Bush misled me and the American people" or something more like "I take responsibiilty for my vote."

For Gay Marriage, he needs to be able to say "I (do/do not) support Gay Marriage" or "I (do/do not) support an amendment to the Constitution."

Is it really that hard to take a side? Next to Bush, his wonkish and nuanced long-winded answers aren't going to look very good. He needs to be able to state his position in a sentence or two.

(edited to change brackets to parentheses because they weren't showing up)

Note, I wholeheartedly disagree with his stance. I am either marriage for all, or civil unions for all... we all get the term or none of us go...that being said,

GWB doesn't have much of a platform, and he's going to play on the conservative bible-belter's fear. If Kerry said, "I'm all FOR gay marriage" then that would give Bush the ammunition to pull the conservative vote in by saying, "Vote for me if you don't want dem queers gettin' hitched."

I think Kerry is playing it smart on this one. Equal rights for all, and Bush, go play somewhere else with your divisive bullshit.

I'm still not sure if he is for the ammendment and that is a BIG issue for me if he is for it.

Then they will stay home instead of voting for Bush on election day.

in order to be elected.

and make sure my gay brother has no rights at all.

/sarcasm OFF

.... He's already responding to the general election imperative, not the Democratic party's constituent demands.

But my personal preference on the gay marriage issue is to oppose a Constitutional Amendment in any form. I feel it is not appropriate to use the Constituion to TAKE AWAY rights.

I also don't agree woth your characterization of how Kerry did with these issues in the debate, or how he would look next to Bush. Kerry looks good in debates, IMO, but next to Bush, Mortimer Snurd would look good.

He'll still beat the holy heck out of Bush.

I'm talking purely about politics here - not the substance of the issue. Let's face it this a tuff issue for everyone (including AWOL) but especially Kerry. AWOL has this talent for sounding strong and resolute even when he's lying and passing the buck. It's almost subliminal but his style makes people think he's a straight shooter. Kerry needs some of this.

It's his delivery. If he wants to take a nuanced stance he better figure out a way to say it clearly. People will zone out and think he's making stuff up - it's what makes people distrust politicians.

AWOL equivocates and gives bullshit answers to every question but he sounds like he's being straightforward.

You are right. Bush always sounds like he's being strong and unequivocable even when his answers make no sense or are absolutely contrary to his actual position. Kerry should say he is against gay marriage - but against amending the constitution. This is not a slam dunk issue for AWOL who has now staked out the most extreme position. Kerry needs to be strong about how he talks about this issue. The rhetoric counts. Something like "I'm not in favor of desecrating Thomas Jefferson's document in order to exclude some of my fellow Americans from their pursuit of happiness."

Pro civil unions, supported Bush but didn't agree with the way he prosecuted the war.

He needs to stand up and say, "Hey, look I don't support a constitutional amendment because I don't support gay bashing. That being said I don't support gay marriage -- I'm certain that I've made this pretty clear. I believe it should be up to the states to decide weather or not to support gay marriage. This is a states issue -- let the people of the states decide. I think having a constitutional amendment is a radical idea -- I'm pretty shocked a conservative is offering it. I support keeping the Federal Government out of people's personal business and leaving issues such as this to the states."

Something like that but maybe a little more condensed. It appeals to TRUE conservatives and libertarians as well as liberals. It gives enough to everyone without taking all that much away. It also, and most importantly, highlights that it's a radical idea and that it is an anti-conservative idea. Bad for Bush, good for Kerry. If he wants to play all the bases then that's what he should say.

also pointing out the GOP hypocisy of being for states rights - then pushing an amendment to the constitution. Put the heat on the Shrub. Turn it around on 'em.

in regards to strategy. GOP thinks they own this issue but it can be a loser for them. In my opinion AWOL has panicked and adopted the most extreme position. He would have been better off laying back. If Kerry plays it right (following your model) he can make this a positive or at least neutralize it.

I agree. This can play right into Kerry's hands and win the hearts and minds of diehard libertarians and traditional conservatives. It makes Kerry look more moderate without changing his point of view, but at the same time being clear and taking a stand. This is important because regardless of what Kerry says Bush WILL take a stand on the issue one way or another. If Kerry wants to win he has to minimize the "flip flop" attached to him. He has to come out and say EXACTLY Point for Point why he is against the Iraq War. He has to come out where he stands on the issue now, and even if we should have went in on the first place regardless of weapons of mass destruction. (I'm really interested in that answer.) He needs to be as precise as possible.

He's improved since he started campaigning but he still has some way to go before he's ready to stand toe to toe with Bush. His greatest problem will be getting the voters to "know" him, and he can't have his message muddied because the Republicans are going to do their damnest to do just that. (This is one of the reasons Al Gore lost. He didn't articulate his message.) He should study Edwards very carefully. He is able to convey his message very well. Kerry is better at general politicking, Edwards is better at actually connecting with the people and getting his message out. He needs to find away to merge his strength and learn from how Edwards conducts himself then use that to make himself even stronger.

Gay marriage is more of a battle of words rather than crystal clear policies. After all, "marriage" and "union" offer the same legal benefits, and only the tricky issue of cultural relevance is up for grabs.

John Kerry's position is very clear: He is for civil unions, against gay marriage. At least he's admitting the latter part, unlike Howard Dean (sorry to bring him up, but he is the supposed straight-shooter). He voted against DoMA because he thought it was rampant gay-bashing. He even addressed a GLBT gathering to explain that even though he was not for gay marriage, he voted against DoMA because he felt it was an unnecessary show to intimidate or marginalize gays in law. He signed Barney Frank's letter in '02 because he felt that the Mass. court was threatening civil unions as well as gay marriages, and he felt that the former had to be protected even if he didn't agree with the latter. As for his statements on NPR, he has explained that he has yet to take an assured stance because there are many possibilities still being worked out in the Mass. Supreme Court. I think those positions are quite clear enough.

Period. Civil rights. If the Dems would simply have the courage to frame the debate in that manner, then the rest is simple. Then the whole constitutional amendment comes down to an effort to suppress the civil rights of a group of citizens. That's outrageous. Nobody could support such a notion ... well, nobody rational.