The John Kerry Rope-A-Dope (John Kerry = Muhammed Ali)

For the last three weeks, a Republican friend of mine kept asking me, what is John Kerry’s strategy? Why was he sitting back while George Bush and company hammered him day after day in speeches and campaign ads? It seemed crazy to take ski vacations and have elective surgery while the other side was beating him silly. But now I suspect that Kerry may not be crazy, just crazy like a fox.

Is Kerry versus Bush shaping up to be another “Rocky” story, with the slick odds-on favorite being dethroned by the awkward, unpolished underdog? Of course, the truer Rocky analogy would be Al Gore. He went the distance, lost by a split decision (literally), and found inner peace without demanding a rematch.

But if Gore wears the Rocky metaphor well, John Kerry seems to be taking a page from Muhammad Ali’s stunning title win over George Foreman.

-continued-

http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_8740.shtml

....stay OUT OF THE WAY!

no, kerry isn't crazy like a fox, he's lazy like a dog. a dog who gets moving only when he is about to get run over.

i don't like it one bit. it exhibits the characteristic that there is no sense of urgency running thru his veins.

we already have such a man as president with that level of insouciance.

I disagree. The news cycle for the past three weeks has been universally bad for George Bush. Why should Kerry intervene? Bush is hurting himself.

originally the premise was

"Why was he sitting back while George Bush and company hammered him day after day in speeches and campaign ads? It seemed crazy to take ski vacations and have elective surgery while the other side was beating him silly. But now I suspect that Kerry may not be crazy, just crazy like a fox.

now it has switched to:

"The news cycle for the past three weeks has been universally bad for George Bush. Why should Kerry intervene? Bush is hurting himself.

stating that kerry is smart for laying low from personal attacks by gop campaign ads and speeches has nothing to do with him not commenting at length about bush's 911 commission fiasco or the war in iraq.

in the former, attempts are being made to define kerry and he has to rerspond least he be defined by his adversaries.

in the latter, he would be responding to current events.

these are separate issues that require both different qualitative and quantitive reactions.

you can't just, bush-like sew together two or more disparate topics and declare that a unifying principle underlies them without a better exposition of the facts to support you.

the only commonality is that kerry is doing very little, either to defend himself or to comment on current events, and if that is what you consider smart ropa-dopa tactics, i would heartily agree with you 50%, its dopa tactics all right.

but he can't swing at every punch. Kerry just doesn't have anything like the money to respond to every single ad. He has to pick his battles.

He makes the same sort of speeches he has made from the beginning and he goes on tour across college campuses.

The press has warned him. CNN literally says that Kerry is walking a fine line between criticizing Bush and appearing to capitalize on the death of American troops.

Yes, he is crazy like a fox.

Bush is destroying himself. Wait till he is finished and then smack him hard. Its the way Kerry has done it in a number of elections he has won.

+

argues that Kerry is best making a few precise hits rather than flailing away ineffectually in my mind.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Look at the primary. Everyone thought Kerry was dead, while he was really being smart on spending money and letting his opponent blow all his cash. He put the hammer down in the end.

Now as far as whether it is smart. You tell me. Bush blew 40 million in March and they trashed Kerry through and through and Kerry is ahead in the polls. By the end of the month, Bush will have blown 80 million of his 150 and Kerry will still be ahead.

Also, Bush is imploding well enough on his own. Kerry is being steady and preparing for the hammer at a later date.

Word on the street's that Bush has cut way back on campaign spending - Kerry's raising more than he expected, and the Bush people are reassessing strategy after their March blitz fell flat.

Bush is going down hill at a high rate of speed(and spending his money at a pretty high rate as well) and Kerry can just wait and deliver the final blow for several months straight. Thus leading to a landslide win in Nov. Lets hope.:)

Doesn't mean that you'll win an election. It still comes down to how you use it.

I've seen more than my share of well funded candidates, challengers and incumbents, who ended up losing on Election Day.

Remember Michael Huffington vs Barbara Boxer? Howard Dean having 41 million in the primaries?

I remember the 1990 Texas governor's race in which Ann Richards got outspent three to one by Repugnican Clayton Williams, and she kicked his butt. Clayton also shot himself in the foot multiple times by making some asinine comments during the campaign.

Steven Levitt, who's done a number of interesting papers looking into just what you describe. Now he found what we all know - that the candidate with the most money usually wins. But he looked at why that happens. And what he found in his research, surprisingly, is that the reason the candidate with the most money wins is not because the money matters so much, but because candidates who look like they're going to win have a significantly easier time raising money than do candidates without a chance. Money most time reflects the polls. Except when it doesn't - as with the Michael Huffingtons of the political world; and they're exactly the kind who wind up losing.

Bush was far ahead in the polls in the early campaign season, and his fundraising was similarly far ahead. But now Kerry's caught up -- and the money is following.