DON'T defend kerry. instead, COUNTER-attack!

[unblock]

as tempting as it is to refute every attack against kerry point-by-point, or even at a high level, it only serves to further discussion of no-win topics for kerry. you simply can't win by dwelling on accusations of your candidate, no matter how false or idiotic.

when you respond to an attack on kerry, turn it into a counter-attack on shrub. attacking the swift boat liars feels like a victory, but it isn't. it's all about framing the debate and determining what the issues are. do we want "did kerry actually earn his medals?" to be the main issue of the campaign? no, that's what THEY want, because they have nothing better to run on and are, deep down, ashamed of their candidate's disgraceful semi-stint in the national guard.

if they attack kerry for vietnam, we must respond with an attack on bush's dubious service in vietnam.

the proper response to "did kerry earn his vietnam medals?" is "did YOUR guy earn ANY medals in vietnam??"

the proper response to "does kerry flip-flop?" is "what is moral or christian or good about lying about wmd in order to get us into a couter-productive mess of a war and then refusing to acknowledge that the wmd aren't there despite overwhelming evidence that there are no wmds and that you never had the evidence you claimed to have?"

don't defend kerry. counter-attack instead!

[quinnox]

1. Exactly, I agree

You don't defend, you counter-attack. Once you start defending then you have already lost. If they ask, "what about this vote against defense by Kerry?" then the response should be something like - "Kerry always has backed a strong defense. Why did Bush underfund our nation's first responders that need resources to help defend against terrorists?"

[Seabiscuit]

34. Agreed!

I've been saying this all alone. It's only a matter of days/weeks now to see whether JK takes Clinton's advice and goes for the jugular with Bushco.

[Slit Skirt]

69. a vote for Bush-Cheney

is a vote for the devil......

spread it around

[stray cat]

2. Link to Bush flip flops

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/bush-flip-flops.html

[Mike Niendorff]

4. You're still reinforcing their talking points.

Dems don't need a "Democratic version" of each Republican talking point. That simply reinforces the terms that the Repubs are trying to set for public discourse. The Dems need force the debate onto their own terms.


MDN

[girl gone mad]

16. Just what I was going to say.

We need to be attacking them on new fronts.

[Francine Frensky]

58. Yes, Bush is stubbornly WRONG in his decision-making

He makes a bad decision and then drives us over a cliff with his stubborn refusal to open his eyes to the situation unfolding around him.

[Blue_Roses]

3. I agree...it sucks the energy

out of the argument when you turn back on them. They like it when we feel like we have to defend Kerry. I totally agree:)

[KC21304]

6. It depends on the way you defend the attacks.

If someone brings up the defense votes, I would say, " how can anyone too ignorant to understand 6th grade civics class about how a bill becomes a law, think they should be President of the United States? "

[TheRovingGourmet]

20. This would come across as sounding like you were really

touchy about the defense votes issue.

[stray cat]

5. kick

nt

[volosong]

7. Exactly, Demand Answers to Mr. Bush's Record

1. Why is it that you claim to be a friend of veterans and yet have proposed so many cuts to programs benefiting veterans including the closure of some V.A. hospitals?
2. If you believe Sen. Kerry's military service was "honorable" and something "about which he should be proud," then why do you refuse to specifically condemn the Swift Boat Veterans? Aren't values more than something to which one gives lip service?
3. Former Sen. Max Cleland left half of his body in Vietnam. Yet when he came to your ranch with a letter signed by 9 other Congressional war heroes, neither you nor any of your immediate aides had the courtesy to accept the letter. Why?
4. The almost 3,000 victims of the WTC attacks did not die for politicians or political parties. How do you justify using images and emotions related to that tragedy for personal political gain at a convention bathing itself in those themes?
5. Do you endorse members of the RNC mocking military medals by wearing "purple heart band aids" at the convention? If not, why have you failed to issue a statement denouncing that mockery?
6. Is it not true that you Mr. President have flip flopped on more issues than Senator Kerry such as the 9/11 Commission; on calling for a UN vote on Iraq; on creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security; on a Constitutional amendment on gay marriage; on use of the military for "nation building;" on the issue of tax credits for hybrid automobiles; on extending the assault weapons ban; on steel tariffs; on spending the Social Security surplus; on the patient's right to sue; on the Federal Government's position on tobacco buyout; on disarmament incentives to North Korea; on lobbying OPEC; on the Condoleeza Rice testimony; on your pledge to issue regulation based on science; on the presence of WMD in Iraq; on restricting Free Trade; on the importance of capturing Osama Bin Laden; on mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions; on an investigation into intelligence failures in Iraq; summits in the Palestinian crisis; campaign finance; on providing financial support for the First Responders; on military benefits; on who was responsible for the "Mission Accomplished" sign; on the fingerprinting and photographing of Mexicans entering the US; on refusing to pass budget deficits; your positions on stem cells and human embryos; about your support of the Low Income Energy Support Program; your position on abortion; on racial profiling; on describing success of US objectives in Iraq.
7. Specifically addressing your Flip Flops, which of your recent comments about the war in Iraq and terrorism is really your belief: Mission Accomplished, Mission Miscalculated, Mission Impossible, or Mission Possible?
8. How do you justify the budget cuts for veterans benefits at precisely the time you are ramping up the military for permanent war?
9. Where are the WMD? Would you still go to war knowing that there were no WMD?
10. 45 million people lack health coverage. Do you think basic health care is an American right? Health care costs have gone ballistic during your Administration. Why haven't you made health care more affordable?
11. "I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things." (June 4, 2003). Recently, you admitted mistakes in Iraq. Don't you think being more analytical, deliberate, and "sensitive" to the intricacies of international politics might promote US success and national security?
12. You are quoted as saying, "When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive." (Sept. 19, 2001). Then why are Americans still dying in Iraq so long after you declared "Mission Accomplished?"
13. "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." (Sept. 29, 2000). Then why are millions of fish now dying in our lakes and streams? Why are there warnings in many states advising people not to ingest fish because of the dangers of mercury poisoning from industrial pollution?
14. "As you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say." (Oct. 28, 2003). When was the last time that you spoke before an audience that wasn't exclusively "invited guests?"
15. "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." (Aug. 5, 2004). Do you really believe that policy is really beneficial?
16. On Aug 22, 2002 you proposed deforestation as a means to combat forest fires. ("We need to understand if you let kindling build up and there's a lightning strike, you're going get yourself a big fire.") Isn't your support for deforestation actually pandering to logging and timber financial interests? If not, do you think that we should test your theory by setting experimental fires in certain areas of Texas?
17. Sen. Kerry challenged you to run a positive campaign on current issues. In 2001 you said, "It is time to set aside the old partisan bickering and finger-pointing and name-calling." Do you think the RNC and your current campaign are consistent with your prior statements? As you know, Zell Miller is rumored to be suffering from the early stages of dementia. Do you specifically endorse and share Miller's hateful and divisive comments?
18. In 2001 you promised the American people that you were going to balance the Federal Budget. You inherited a $230 billion dollar surplus. Yet, in 2004 we have a DEFICIT of $478 billion. Why have you not kept your word to the American people?

[jab105]

8. This should be a commercial...every day of the week...

A black screen with the question written in white...read aloud, and then some explanation as to why the question is being asked...

Unfortunately, I dont think it will happen, but these are very good...

[Only Me]

11. I did something similiar to this the other day....

But I only made about 10 demands for and explanation of...I made 44 copies, because each was 2 pages long (charts and pics). I put them a department stores buggies so when people got their carts, they get a little 'record straighten' too! I put them in the sale papers so the store didn't know!

[goclark]

41. Smooth tactic!

Yes, we have to get the message out by legal and creative ways.

[mongo]

45. Can you post this somewhere?

Please?

[agincourt]

9. I just posted today on a freeper clone board,

that I'd rather be in a fight with Kerry on my side than Bailout poppy, 5 deferrment Cheney, "Where am I" gwbushytail, or pilodial Rush. I got some simply livid defenders of poppy but no one said they'd rather have W on their side. Not a peep.

[sangh0]

10. Actually, deflect THEN counterattack

That's just more hate speech from the chickenhawks. Where are Bush*'s medals if they're so easy to get?"

[ResistTheCoup]

27. LOL!!! That is great.

I don't even get into discussions about Kerry. If somebody makes the mistake of bringing up something negative about Kerry to me I just tell them that doesn't matter to me if Kerry is an ax-murderer, that he'd still be an improvement over the dumbass in the White House.

Then I proceed to list a number of reasons why Bush has got to go; starting with my brother-in-law who was caught in the stop-loss and now has his ass on the ground in Iraq where he's guarding a gate with a machine gun, grenade launcher and four huge grenades strapped to his chest; a walking target for a suicide bomber/driver. I want to know how many loved ones they have in Iraq and/or when their kids are going. And I make sure and mention that I'm a Vietnam Era Vet and my spouse is a vet, too. And I've got a draft-age son. I tell them that my son will be serving right after the Bush twins get drafted as well as all the other chickenhawks in this administration have served retro-actively.

The wingnuts have to try and knock down Kerry because none of them want to defend the idiot boy. A ditto-headed co-worker (who supported Bush but was kind of ashamed of it) was foaming at the mouth about Clinton and how much he hated him when I calmly replied, "Man, you guys must've really hated Clinton to have forced that moron onto the rest of us." For some reason he completely lost it on that.

I was telling a friend just today to use the very same strategy as the subject of this post; attack, not defend. Tell them the election is a referendum on Bush's last four years and that he doesn't deserve to serve another four. Make them defend him.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

12. Exactly!

By responding to these attacks with anything other than (to paraphrase Jon Stewart's remark about Cheney) "Your pants are on fire" is to allow one's self to be diverted.

Enough with the "swift boat veterans" already. If a reporter or anyone else brings them up, the best response is to say, "Are they still lying about that?" and then move on to the Democratic agenda.

[TheRovingGourmet]

13. What will you do when you encounter someone that replies with

"we are talking about Kerry now but we can talk about Bush next if you want."

[unblock]

15. "why don't you want to talk about your guy now? oh, right, because he

has nothing positive to run on.
no record of accomplishment,
no record of improvement to the economy,
no record of improvement in the lives and health of americans other than his cronies.

[TheRovingGourmet]

17. This would mean that you lost the argument. On the programs

that I go on, you get hammered for an answer. If you can't provide one, you are toast.

[unblock]

18. lost the argument? i don't think so

everytime they come back "hammering for an answer", that's just another opportunity to attack ANOTHER shrub failing.

they might make YOU look obnoxious, but you'll be making SHRUB look worse.

[TheRovingGourmet]

19. No, it will sound like you cannot answer the question.

[sangh0]

40. Why are you worried about how YOU look?

Your job is to make Bush* look bad. If you take a hit while doing it, put in for medal.

[TheRovingGourmet]

43. I am not worried about how I look, but how I would sound. My

contribution to the election is to try and convince undecided voters to consider voting for Kerry. If I cannot give them anything to consider, then I am not meeting this goal.

[sangh0]

44. Give them a reason to vote against Bush*

Let Kerry give them reasons to vote for Kerry.

[TheRovingGourmet]

49. Well, let me know when he starts doing this and I will take a

break. :)

[sangh0]

51. OK, when you stop the "pissing at the sun" routine

maybe you'll have some time to hear the facts.

[TheRovingGourmet]

56. I'll have time.

[sangh0]

59. No you won't

The clock is ticking

[TheRovingGourmet]

63. I'll have plenty of time. Fortunately there are some great people

in the "20 percenters" category that I can talk to.

[sangh0]

37. "Kerry went to war unlike Bush*".."Kerry didn't lose one million jobs"

"Kerry hasn't LIED to get us into war"

"Kerry isn't afraid to speak in public the way Bush* is scared"

[TheRovingGourmet]

47. Old news. It takes something fresh daily. The same talking

points can go unheard after awhile. I am mainly addressing a business oriented audience so I'll give you a taste of what it is like using what you wrote. As you can see, it is a challenge.


Kerry went to war unlike Bush

Who cares? Tell me something relevant to today.

Kerry didn't lose one million jobs

Business cycle. Government does not create jobs, businesses do. Government can only foster a good climate for this.

Kerry hasn't LIED to get us into war

Bad intelligence.

Kerry isn't afraid to speak in public the way Bush* is scared

Kerry does not talk about his record. Why?

[sangh0]

52. You're the one who likes old news

which is why you want to keep responding to it, instead of pushing Kerry's agenda, which you seem to be unfamiliar with.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=747699&mesg_id=762329&page=

[TheRovingGourmet]

57. I'm very familiar with the general statements he has put out.

[sangh0]

60. Then you're not familiar with Kerry

like I said

[TheRovingGourmet]

62. Here is a test for you.

I am Joe Politician, running for office. I make the following statement:

I have always been for education. Education is good.

From that, can you tell me what my position on school vouchers is? What about Pell Grant availability? The Top Ten Percent Rule?

[sangh0]

65. Here's a test for you

In which dimension did Kerry say "Education is good"?

[TheRovingGourmet]

67. The example I used was from a candidate that once ran for

office here.

[sangh0]

68. Failed the test, because you didn't answer the question

In which dimension did Kerry say "Education is good"?

[TheRovingGourmet]

70. I'll spell it out for you. Kerry did not say that, to my knowledge.

The example was from a candidate that once ran for office here. Is that clear?

[ResistTheCoup]

29. See my post # 27.

This election is a referendum on Bush's last four years. Period. End of story. Make them explain why he deserves four more.

[zulchzulu]

14. Ingredients: 70% facts, 20% humor/wit, 10% "kill with kindness"

When faced in the "counter-attack" mode, have your facts correct, use humanness/humor (such as "when Bush ignored warnings from many generals about going to war, he must have thought they were talking about some new Nintendo game"), perhaps speckling the argument with references to fighting a war Nintendo-style.

Above all, don't fly off the handle. Smile when delivering your messege. Never scream. If they walk away while sputtering talking points they head on Rush while in a crowd, announce to those within earshot that you are very impressed with the speed they walk away.

95% of the time (in my experience), Repugs mutter half-witted comments as they walk away as quickly as possible.

Give me a Democrat who has issues with Kerry on specific issues and there is usually hope that they have an open mind and a willingness to grasp the issues maturely.

[Nashyra]

21. I always ask people why we need a new National Intelligence

Director to connect the dots? Isn't that the job of the president? Hire the right people to give you ALL the information, take the time to ask questions, absorb the gravity and put a plan into action. Osama determined to strike in US and the "hint" about airplanes should have been a clue, after 9-11 someone should have been fired, the * should have taken the blame for "not connecting the dots" someone should have been fired for no WMD's. Usually shuts them right up!

[shockingelk]

22. Most of the posts in this thread express bad strategies

Please read sangh0, Lydia Leftcoast, TheRovingGourmet and zulchzulu for strategies that so work.

People attacking Kerry don't want to debate, they want to bash Kerry. So it doesn't make sense to debate them. The important thing to to make sure the things they are saying don't influence others. And you can, however make them look silly and expose their fallacies.

If you respond by attacking Bush, the message others will hear you saying is "Yeah, but Bush is worse."

And if you try to defend Kerry by going into too much detail, others will her it as, "Well, since such a detailed defense is being offered, there must be something to the charges against Kerry."

zulchzulu mentions killing them with kindness. This is important - it makes right wingers furious when you're respectful and polite to them. And obviously, the angrier they are, the less credible they seem. I would pout it "You should kill them with kindness 100% of the time".

Maybe take an example - someone mentions lots of votes where Kerry voted to cut military spending and programs.

The implication they are making is that Kerry doesn't want to defend the country.

A good response might be,

"Yes, it's important that a president be intensely interested in defending the country. But these votes in no way are indications that Kerry doesn't care about national defense.

"Look at George HW Bush's 1992 SOTU address - he gave America the good news that we could safely reduce military spending by 30% over the next five years - he said we were doing it because it was 'the right thing to do'.

"The point of criticism would be a lot easier to understand if the argument included an explanation of why these votes were not the right thing to do.

"But it's an important debate, so we should all be anxious to hear the reasons why these votes showed bad judgment - assuming such an argument can be made. I don't such an argument exists, but as always, I'm open minded and look forward to more of an argument than 'Kerry voted to cut the B-2. He's anti-military."

[TheRovingGourmet]

24. I think the message that is heard in your scenario is that you

are not going to answer the question, so there must be something you are wanting to avoid. Some of this may just be differences between the various regions. One difference I see here is the view that if one does not stand up for himself, it is because he can't.

[shockingelk]

31. It forces the claim to be explained

Kerry did indeed vote to cut weapons systems.

That doesn't mean he's anti-military. GHWB and Cheney actually did cut weapons systems.

Once people know that, they realize that simply voting against weapons systems is not an indication of an anti-defense attitude.

And it's impossible to spin that Kerry's votes are anti-military without the spin rubbing off on GHW Bush and Cheney.

The smear is disarmed.

I'm not too concerned that partisan Republicans will still be able to delude themselves that Kerry's votes show poor judgment - those people will likely vote for Bush anyway.

[TheRovingGourmet]

35. The kicker is, the Republicans will come back with a

justification for every weapons system they voted against and will make sure that message gets out.

[sangh0]

48. No, the kicker is

the repukes will get their message out while you worry about how you look

[TheRovingGourmet]

50. I'm mainly dealing with radio so I am not worried at all how I look.

[sangh0]

53. Cheap dodge

unless you've never heard the word "sound"

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

61. Gee, I thought you said you were gonna put me on Ignore

I guess you didn't really mean it

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[HarveyBriggs]

25. This is what I tell them ...

"When my nephew got back from fighting for his country in Iraq, a Republican who heard the kid was a "Dim-O-Crat" called the young soldier a traitor. That's just to let you know I've had about emough of your crap. Maybe when you yellow bellies quit tearing down good soldiers, we might start building this country back up again."

Harvey Briggs

[umtalal]

30. they did the same thing to the poor father protester who lost his son.

they called him unpatriotic. those people are ghoulish

[TheRovingGourmet]

36. On the flip-side, this is somewhat similar to the attacks you will

hear regarding Kerry. Hard feelings still abound over Vietnam and some of the unfavorable sentiment I hear on my end addresses Kerry's statements on his return from service. I have not heard any anger over the protesters and even some thanks for these protests ending the war, but the statements that were made by some protesters, and personified in Kerry, accusing the troops of atrocities still arouses anger from soldiers that were called baby killers once they returned home.

[JCMach1]

26. Carville is a master at this... he will help Kerry quite alot

[ResistTheCoup]

28. Excellent! I agree completely!

See my post #27.

[Catfight]

32. I love it when DU'rs take off the blinders! This is EXCELLENT advise.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[robbedvoter]

38. RIGHT! It's referendum on W, not on Kerry. So address the subject!

On our terms, not theirs. Use of terms like "flip flop" is therefore counterproductive.
Also, in attacking W, pick one, two emotional issues - war, 911, lies - don't make long lists.

[ClassWarrior]

39. AMEN!! "Defending" is just fighting on their turf.

Every defense should be an OFFENSE. And there's plenty of those, given how offensive Bush* is.

[jyund]

42. You might want to talk about other issues too.

Bush and Kerry were tied most of this year, and no matter how many millions of dollars the Republicans spent, they couldn't change that.

The amount of money the Swift Boat guys is dwarfed by the amounts spent by the Kerry and Bush campaigns.

As of April Bush had spent 90 million dollars.(yeah I know it September now. Maybe someone knows some more current numbers)

Compare that to the less than 1 million dollars the Swift Boat guys spent. ( I tried to find out exactly how much they spent, and couldn't find it. I found an article in SFgate that suggests they spent between 200,000 and 700,000. As I say, I don't the exact number but I believe it is less than 1 million.)
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/08/06/MNGUT83SS41.DTL

So if I see someone is attacking me with 90 million dollars, and they are also attacking me with 1 million dollars, I would take a close look at what is happening with the 90 million dollars before I started worrying about the 1 million.

(The "

I would try to talk to people about Non-attack issues. How Bush's policies attack their families and leave our country in debt.

In the meantime, I am also contributing to our 527 groups like MoveOn.org. They can attack the SwiftBoat guys on their own turf. Hopefully they can get at least some media bounce, even if they don't get as much as the SwiftBoats. In the meantime, our 527 groups already have a lot more money than Bush's 527 groups. I think our 527 groups can handle their side of the pretty well. While MoveOn attacks Bush's VietNam and does the hard mudslinging we can use that as a wedge to talk to conservatives about the 90 million dollars of issues.
(and win hearts and minds..so to speak)

[goodhue]

46. Bush is Wrong on economy, taxes, jobs, health care and war

[NightOwwl]

54. I agree with attacking, but on our terms.

Create the subject, don't respond to it. So if Kerry is being attacked for flip-flopping, his medals, or whaddeva...

Respond with an attack on Bush's lack of "strong and steady leadership" on 9/11. Attack him on his cowardly behavior. Point out he has a history of running away from his fears instead of facing them. That's a nice little segue into his Natl Guard "problems."
We have enough variations on the theme to last us until November 2.

[Jacobin]

64. Unfortunately, this excellent advice is falling on deaf fucking ears

in the Kerry campaign.

It seems to be such a simple idea and one that would be embraced by those who WANT TO WIN, as opposed to having some silly ideas of "how nice campaign should be run"

I'm worried that this is going horribly horribly wrong.

(I miss Dr. Dean. He KNEW this and practiced it. Seems Kerry has forgotten what energized the Dem base back when they were all too afraid to say that the emporer has no clothes)

p.s. Fuck Iowa and Gephardt for running the dirtbag ads in Iowa and for promoting the meme that ONLY Kerry was "electable"

[TheRovingGourmet]

66. I understand that Bill Clinton is going to be a big part of the

show now. I think things are going to improve in a dramatic way. :)