What is Kerry's message

Earlier on CNN, the political editor - Bill Schnieder (?) commented how Kerry does not have a clear message of why he should replace Bush. He went to give examples of the clear messages that previous presidents had:

Kennedy - youth
Nixon - order
Carter - morality
Reagan - leadership
Clinton - empathy
Junior - character

(never mind what we think about it, the above definitions based on what the predecessors lacked)


He than talked about how Bush ran on the idea of uniting the country but instead is dividing it and that Kerry has mentioned it but he cannot run on a theme of uniting while at the same time attacking this administration, thus dividing.

It is acceptable that most of us - 80% or so - have already made up our mind on how we are going to vote, so the battle is on the undecided, independent and Greens.

So I wonder whether we can brain Storm some ideas and I think that we need to frame them in a positive, rather a negative one. For example, I can think of Edwards "two America" theme and turn it into "One America." One America where we all are given the opportunities for education, health care and dignified jobs. One American where we do not have a huge gap of income in the private sector. It is accepted that - not sure, 20 years ago? - the highest paid employee's salary would be 50 times that of the lowest one in the organization. Now it is 400. And while so many people get paid million of dollars, our infrastructure and schools are decaying.

One America where all have access to the same health coverage that members of Congress have. After all, we pay for that.

I think that it is futile to concentrate too much on things that happened in the past: Vietnam, 9/11, the decision to go to war in Iraq. These things happened and while we want to learn what we did right and wrong, it is waste of resources to dig and roll them again and again.

Iraq
I think that Kerry is right in wanting to remove the U.S. as the sole fighter in Iraq (OK, Britain, too), but I would not go to the U.N... as the only place. If the goal of the war and the end is to stabilize the Middle East, I would go to the neighboring Arab Countries. Some of them have large military forces, some have lots of money. They all share some history and culture, as well as religion and language. This will take the oil interests out of the equation.

Social Security funds
It is accepted that there are plenty of funds going in, but that they are "borrowed" for general purpose. Also, many people pay more in SS taxes than in income taxes. I think that we need to eliminate this as a separate line of funding and expenses. It is now, what 7.5% of our income? Let's just add this to our income taxes and remove it as a separate line. This will make it progressive. So if someone is now in the 15% bracket, the tax withheld would be 23.5%, and so it goes.

And then we use it to provide for retirees on a need basis. This way no one can scream that "this is my money." Just as we all pay taxes to support our infrastructure and our safe water and public school and the retirements of members of congress, so we will support retirees.

Health care
After the Clinton attempt back in 1993, no one wants to touch it, even though we all know that the system has deteriorated. I really would like to follow the retirement path, where most employers replaced a pension fund with self-managed 401K. The problem with this is that one has to work for an employer that offers this path.

I think that we need to take employers from the business of offering health insurance. We should either purchase our own - and fully deduct the cost of this, the way our employers do - or contribute to a government-run pool. This could be an intermediate step before we go the Canada way.


What I am trying to say is that Kerry should not let the Republicans define him and his agenda. He has to stick to the issue of a new future for American, where each can develop his/her potential, where a government is not the provider but the facilitator and the protector of all. Where we use the offices of the government to secure our present and future, as contribution workers and as senior citizens.

And whenever someone tries to ask him silly questions about his ribbons or about his SUV, he needs to give his stock reply. He needs to be in control of the interview, not the reporters. Politicians are supposed to be very good at this.

What do you think?

But that's what most people are using to define the debate, so I don't know what the hell he's going to do.

I think we need to get our good name back. Everyone hates us. Maybe he could work with that, somehow. He could be the guy that the world is willing to work with- although I guess he kind of already tried that in saying that other world leaders wanted him in and Bush out, and got called on it. Maybe he should look into it, and back it up.

to make the message simple. There are just so many things in so many areas that need to be changed this time. It's not just the economy like with 41. It's not just the war in Iraq. There is so much. Basically we need someone to tell us the truth, someone who will be honest and level with us but that isn't going to 'sell' because the truth isn't pretty. How about something like a government of the people, by the people and for the people. A government that will listen to what the people need and not the corporations.

It's hard to pick one as an overriding theme. Honesty? Intelligence? Openness instead of secrecy? Respect of the world? Fiscal sanity?

If it weren't, then I would opt for a theme which stressed power to the middle class--the so-called, "Average Joe." This would be accomplished mainly through a rewrite of the tax codes. The top rate might be moved up to 40%. The "death tax" would be reinstated with a large exception (maybe 3 or 4 million). In 2006, the capital gains rate could go back up to 20% (which is definitely not too high). And corporate tax breaks would be reviewed and tossed out when appropriate. Eventually, I would like to see a three- or four -tier tax code with very few deductions (maybe just charitable and mortgage) which heavily favors the middle and lower class but is not prohibitive for the wealthy.

Health care for the middle class and everyone is controlled by the insurance companies who set the rates for hospitals and doctors. These rates should be set by a citizen's committee composed of health care professionals, citizens, and others appointed by the government. After all, I would rather have the government (even as bad as it can sometimes be) control health care pricing than the for-profit insurance companies. And the government should guarantee every child (and I mean every child) health care (including dental) until the age of 18 or so. And the government should be allowed to negotiate with drug companies for prescription drug pricing.

As for the war, I believe that General Clark should be VP and would help immensely (although I like Edwards more). And definitely having a viable plan to get out of Iraq and fight the terrorists is a must. Maybe Nader could help in this regard if his 6-month plan is viable. The U.S. should concentrate on intelligence gathering since the religious flakes and others who make up the terrorist networks work almost exclusively underground.

The Average Joe. The middle class. Maybe it's a theme.

As for terrorism, I suppose we can say that we want to reinforce our homeland security - not the office. Our local police and fire fighters, and our coast guards and border patrol, instead of sending so many of them miles away from home. Many of the army reserve and the national guards are police people and fire fighter in their "regular" jobs.

And I think that this can catch the eye of the voters. After all, most Americans are isolationists and the attack did occur on our shores. And many local governments were screaming that their were given non-funded mandates - again.

While Bush was ducking his in VietNam Kerry was there. While Bush is blaming everyone and everything for the economy, Iraq, intelligence failures prior to 9/11, and just about everything else, Kerry can show he will take responsibility for his and his adminstrations actions. "The Buck Stops Here". vs "The Buck was my Predicessors, was there a buck, it wasn't my buck."

It goes to courage, honesty, and candor as well.

A deadbeat dad is considered the height of irresponsibility second only to an abusive mother. This theme works the Responsibility to Family emotional buttons perfectly and appropriately. Nice to have ethics and tactics overlap for a change, hunh?

So Kerry's message against * should be

Our DEADBEAT DAD:

-Left us unprotected on 9/11 and now
-Emptied our bank account for years to come
-Poisened our air and water
-Endangered our troops
-Impoverished our women, children, and elderly
-Lost our friends and gained us enemies
-Had affairs with CEOs instead of the American People he took an oath to.

Even more on this theme:
-We need a restraining order against this abuser called IMPEACHMENT

Read linguist George Lakoff's writing about word framing on issues to appeal to family values that work so well for the conservatives. He has advised Dean and Kerry but still says the Dems don't really get this concept but better soon if they want to win anything ever again.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

The most important imagery the 'electorate' responds to is the old traditional family with a strong dad and a supportive mom. Yup, TV Nation is ruled by their old lizard brain amygdala where males do the battling for territory and to protect 'their' females. Welcome to voting by chimps.

Leaders must appear to be good 'father' figures:
Strong, protective, decisive, moral, responsible.
You know, Fuhrer Knows Best. That's why Bush's* fascist tone WORKS for him even though he doesn't produce what he promises as the Dems must emphasize.

Hitler knew this sad human trait and wrote about it in 'Mein Kampf.'

"The masses of the people prefer the ruler to the suppliant and are filled with a stronger sense of mental security by a teaching that brooks no rival than by a teaching which offers them a liberal choice. They have very little idea of how to make such a choice and thus are prone to feel abandoned. Whereas they feel very little shame at being terrorized intellectually and are scarcely conscious of the fact that their freedom as human beings is impudently abused...physical intimidation has its significance for the mass as well as the individual...For the successes which are thus obtained are taken by the adherents as a triumphant symbol of the righteousness of their own cause; while the beaten opponent very often loses faith in the effectiveness of any further resistance."-Adolph Hitler, 'Mein Kampf'

These are the primal emotional buttons the conservatives have pushed successfully and kicked ass with for the last 60 years while Dems and liberals sputter "but we are right and nice and multi-this and tolerant of that."

Remember: * is a DEADBEAT DAD!

responsibilty

or of interviews. Whenever someone starts asking him about his ribbons and medals, or about his SUV, he should pretend like he did not hear the question and respond with his sentence: I want to stress responsibility and accountability. I want to look for the future, for secure jobs and home and health care for all our citizens, not to the past. Everyone knows that I put my life on the line for my country let's now concentrate on the future. Or something like that. I am sure his handlers can provide the right spin, but he has to stick to it.

worked well in 2002, didn't it.
:mad: :puke: :crazy:

Just who exactly was running against Bush in 2002? :wtf:

you'll notice that all of the messages that Bill can think of are non-issues.

that's how they won. I don't remember much of the 1960 elections, but, certainly in his inauguration speech Kennedy said that "the torch had passed" (to a younger generation). And even today we read about how vigor Kennedy looked and how sick he really was..

Nixon certainly won on the "law and order" and Carter was a breath of fresh air after Nixon. But Carter appeared as if outside forces controlled him and the nation: stagflation, hostages in Iran, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan - hence Reagan with his leadership theme.

And when poppy was puzzled by the supermarket scanner - or not, I have heard by now that it is part of an urban legend - when he appeared out of touch with "average Joe" - Clinton offered his empathy.

And we know about Clinton's "morality."

This is the problem that we: Gore, Kerry and many of us face. We do not like sound bites. We know that the world is not a black or white, a yes or no. We know that problems and ideas and concepts cannot be described in a "me Tarzan you Jane" style, but too many people do: the Limbaugh dittoheads and Bush himself. And the reality is that when Gore or Kerry are trying to use their high intellect in describing where they are standing, "average Joe"s eyes start glazing.

And that's why I think that Kerry needs to sit with his advisers, hopefully some from the Clinton Campaign, who can compose several simple sound bites that can send the message at a fourth-grade level. Because, unfortunately, this is the target. And he needs to memorize these few sentences, with slight variation here and there, slight change in intonation - and stick with them no matter what the reporters ask. Sure, he will be criticized, but these sound bites, repeated again and again, will finally stick even in the mind of the most small minded voter.

Fair to all.

the courage to do what is necessary to make things right in our country and the world again.

What we surely do not have with this crowd running the country right now!

From the ads John Kerry release today called "Lifetime" and "Heart". They are both very good and will serve him well.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

To reclaim the American Dream and be a beacon of hope around the world. The way we used to be.

He doesn't know, and if he did, he wouldn't tell you.