The International Writers Magazine: REALITY CHECK

---

KERRY IN NEUTRAL - Campaign 2004 + Readers Letters 10.11.04 • James Campion 'Kerry is a lousy frontrunner and needs the pressure of the sinking ship to focus' In less than two months John Kerry has gone from a confident frontrunner chasing down a wounded president with crippling domestic and international albatrosses and the lowest approval ratings in decades to a battered and bruised public defendant neutered by his own inexplicable fears to solidify his philosophical record. By any standard of political prognostication, John Kerry is in big trouble – floundering in opaque Hades kind of trouble.

And that is no place for a liberal senator from Massachusetts 40 days from paydirt. Never mind the cute pundit buzzwords like "convention bumps" or "momentum shifts", and forget national polls, which mean less than nothing in the electoral vote process; this campaign was Kerry’s to lose, and he’s losing it.

George W. Bush was ready to be had by anyone aggressive and smart enough to build a viable alternative argument to massive job losses, a throbbing recession, the most spendthrift administration since FDR, and the worst post-war effort ever bungled by a sovereign nation. This election is supposed to be a referendum on the incumbent’s standing. It was ripe for a legitimate challenger to seize the opportunity to engage a debate on its merits. Instead it is one mired in 30 year-old military records and slap fights over who said what and where anyone was during the first Nixon administration.

The fact is John Kerry is not a legitimate candidate. These shifts in the national debate are his fault. It is brilliant strategy for the Bush people to push the thing as far from the president’s current problems (and there are many) as possible. What Karl Rove and White House frat boys have done is stonewall Kerry by simply forcing him to come clean on his dissenting voice. This was easy since Kerry has no dissenting voice. His camp has no plan, and never did, beyond "not being Bush", which may be good enough for 46% of the partisan populace, but not enough to maintain the anti-Bush sentiment that was growing strong in this country since things got uglier and uglier in Iraq and the economic numbers looked as anemic as ever.

A month ago Kerry was competitive in three or four southern states, actually leading in Arkansas, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Now that is a pipe dream. New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and California are back in play and Ohio is lost. Florida was a crapshoot from jumpstreet, but appears to show no signs of getting strongly behind this candidate. This is not because George Bush is winning these states back. Kerry is losing them by not distinguishing himself from his opponent and failing to rally his voter base, primarily anti-war. Kerry is not anti-war. Kerry is not anti-anything. He is anti-winning this thing. And he and his friends like Bob Shrum will be anti-employed very soon.

The sacking of half of his staff has given rise to a new John Kerry: The James Carville model - angry, spitfire and brimstone Kerry. This is an entertaining Kerry, but a few weeks too late. The time to fight was during those "swift boat" ads and that joke of a convention, when the Republicans made the Democratic candidate look like a confused wet-noodle that would turn the planet to cinder given half the chance. But Kerry and his peeps chose to do nothing, and have not recovered yet. Shrum was brain damaged when he told Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter last week he believed the post-9/11 America would not stand for political attacks. This whiz-bang strategy has molded an ambiguous, rambling, castrated candidate that’s managed to turn rightfully putrid poll numbers of Bush’s "handling" of Iraq into positive ones, which is mind-bending to those using any form of logic.

Getting nasty on issues means one has to feel strongly about them in the first place. Say what you want about George Bush, he believes he is doing the right thing in alienating the planet and being grossly steadfast in his Iraqi strategies. He believes God wants him in charge and he’s willing to cheat, steal, kill and maim to retain it. His opponent wants to be "fair" and "sincere" and "deliberate about sensitive solutions". This is insane and a recipe for defeat. Presidents have to be one-dimensional, willing to breed pithy one-liners, and appear staunchly something. You learn this by becoming governor of a big state like Texas and have a daddy in the White House and being surrounded with Washington lifers who would think nothing of disemboweling their grandmothers for a sniff of a majority vote.

Kerry has been in the senate too long. Compromises and vacillating votes based on minutia won’t cut it in a run for the big prize. Consider for a moment Kerry does have "more complicated" visions of events and has made decisions based on intellectual digestion, it doesn’t help when he is on the same page as his competition in nearly every main category from gay marriage to taxation to war etc.

But Kerry has rallied before. He rallied in Iowa when John Dean looked unstoppable, more unstoppable than our boy president. He used his own funds, jacked a little dead wood, and turned ignominious frontrunner defeat into roaring victory. According to a compelling story in Time magazine by Joe Klein three months ago, the Kerry senatorial campaign record speaks volumes about his ability to get off the mat, that he is a lousy frontrunner and needs the pressure of the sinking ship to focus. Well, those rooting for a change at the top and/or a Kerry presidency better hope so.

Now that Bush has the lead or pulled even in these key battleground states, he can use the debates as a holding pattern, as he did in 2000 against Gore. Why do you think the White House is suddenly giddy about three debates? No one thought Captain Shoo-in would survive a Gore assault four years ago, and judging from these incoherent rants on the trail, nothing should change that assessment. However, in 2000, expectations were so low many in the press fully expected to see the old boy dribbling fluids on his power tie halfway through. But Bush showed he’s a good frontrunner, and can manage to not screw things up. Bush was under whelming, but Gore’s pompous snooting and puffing served to bring in the pity vote, and things turned. In other words, it is doubtless Kerry can win by burying Bush in the debates now. So the final five weeks of this thing should be fun for those of us paid to watch and comment. On Memorial Day we conceded that Bush would need a magic broom to sweep this horror show in Iraq under the spin rug. But we didn’t count on a one-man brigade combated weakly by badly-timed forged military documents slipped under a willing dupe like Dan Rather’s anchor door or unleashing a fossil like Kitty Kelly on the Today Show to convince us a wooden haircut like the first lady was a dope dealer and her husband did more blow than Liza Minnelli from 1972 to 1993.

It’s bush-league tactics (no pun intended) and it needs to be ratcheted it up fast. For Kerry’s almost psychotic penchant for playing this thing close to the vest has damaged the democratic process. Even sane voters rooting for a Bush victory must agree that making an incumbent accountable for his record and at least fake a pledge for improvements and counter-balance ideas is what this thing is all about. Granted Bob Dole did none of that against Clinton, but the Gingrich Revolution in ’94 had already pulled the Clinton’s further right. Reagan, however, did not have to answer for his insane military build-up and his most arrogant minions dumped the old man into Iran-Contra quagmire in the ensuing second term. Bush ain’t getting any better. The news from the Middle East ain’t either. Only Kerry can make this a horse race. It is a miracle he is still relevant, which speaks more to this country’s willingness to hold off than rubber stamp a second term to this mess. But can Kerry take it? So far, evidence is piling up to the contrary.
James Campion .com

READERS LETTERS

JC- An excellent interview--and I haven't even read all of it. ("Ralph Nader’s Last Stand?" – Ralph could have solved all his problems – assuming victory – and the voters' as well by running for the Democratic nomination. At the very least, he would have been 1,000x more visible and people would understand that Kerry vs. Bush leaves us with a choice of the lesser of two evils.
Failing the Democratic nod – I've voted for him in a primary – he could have then gone the third party route.
's'all
v.

James,
Nader or no Nader, I'm not so sure Kerry's going to win anyway. Missouri just passed a ban on gay marriage with 70% support. Although Edwards doesn't want the constitution to be amended, he said he and Kerry don't support gay marriage and that it's a state issue(?). At least the gomers in Missouri know where the current president stands on that issue. I'm not so sure about Mr. Kerry now. So when a dazed and well-fed Osama Bin Laden gets dragged out of the Virginia hotel room and plopped in a field somewhere in Kerplakistan for our "special ops" team to apprehend, the issue of an independent candidate becomes another glob of pork gristle for our cowboy-in-chief to flick out from between his very stupid teeth.
Slater

Reality Check,
As a Kerry supporter I was surprised to learn how Ralph Nader was stopped from being on the ballot in Arizona. Apparently the petition to put him on the ballot was completely funded by Republicans and they didn't go about it in a legal manner, which is why he is not on our ballot this year. Apparently you have to be a registered voter to be one who gets names on a petition and many of the people who were getting paid $3.00 per name were convicted felons (therefore not eligible to vote) and several of them blatantly went through the phone book and copied names and addresses and forged signatures. I'm all for Ralph Nader being on the ballot, but if can't do it without the help of conniving Right-wingers, then I think he should stay home this fall. Just my opinion, I could be wrong (stolen line, sorry but I always loved it)
Best regards, Judi Wolcott
Tempe, AZ

jc, I just loved this interview. I love Nader, and I loved the way you started it off . . . "An unabashedly long suffering proponent of a viable independent national political party…" I'm probably a little to the left of you, in that I am an anarchist prone to local home rule, who believes, in terms of national policy, people need a myriad choices to pick from . . . 5 - 6 - 7 different parties, who all sit in the senate and congress, making wider decisions for the people than is possible with what we have now. An independent party is quite necessary in the scheme of things, but more importantly (to me at least) we need a party (or two, or three), who addresses itself to labor, to the middle-class, education, the poor, health care, intellectuals, the arts. An independent party can address itself to these issues (especially with Nader at the helm), but multiple parties can give a wider girth to them. There who are those afraid "anarchy" will ensue if we entertained multiple parties (you can think in your head all the scenarios brought out) . . . are those who benefit from the two party system, and don't want it interfered with.
The State can pass laws the states must adopt . . . but the State can't have the right to interfere with a state's right to pass laws beneficial to its particular environment. That's not anarchy, but rather an anarchist's ethos. The more local the rule, the better things will be. And they would be just great if there were some haphazard manner in which the rules were put together, and administered. An anarchist believes people can work out their solutions between each other, where nobody holds anything against each other, and outside influence is shunned. The precedent factor must be weakened.
Nader is quite remarkable, ain't he? They can't let him near the debates. He'll expose them both. I just love the guy. I tell everyone, if they're gonna vote, vote for Ralph, he's the only one who isn't lying to you.
Thank you for this, j.c., I will forward it to my friends, my coterie of people. I am Ogden.

James, 'Corporate Pottage?' Come on, Ralph! Business is not the child of the State. We are not back in the days of monarchy and feudalism, when the monarch dictated who did what, traded what and when. If you want a living example of Naderism, look to OPEC. Corporations are started by individuals, not the State. They create jobs, wealth, and, oh, yes...influence to sway politics. Start a company, grow it and use your wealth to better your position as separate from the State. The State is merely supposed to be a bookkeeper. The idea that the only large numbers that count in Nader's democracy are those that lack wealth as the converse of those who do not is utopian mush. I disagree with 95% of Bush's policies, probably not the same 95% as the extreme left. I only believe half of what I read from either side. Kerry is NOT a great war hero ala JFK, even though, they share the same initials; Bush is not as dumb as everyone wants you to think he is.
I do not vote. That is my voice. I will vote some day when there truly is a third voice other than the Dems or the Reps. The 'best of the worst'? No great change can be realized whether Bush or Kerry is in the House. Nader, no thanks. I am a believer in capitalism and individualism, not your heavy-handed economic socialism. Maybe in some twisted way, you will bring about room for a TRUE third party, and not a socialist in the 'people's' clothing. I hope my business grows one day to where I can have a voice based upon my determination and individualism. And, hey, if you dislike my opinions and influence, start your own damn company and work your ass off to have your 'individual' say in the matter.

When I was a burgeoning Marxist at age 18, I always dreamed that some of the Extremist’s were right. If Moore and Nader's truth were the truth. Bush and Cheney are the 'Darth Vader-like' bad guys, then my choices and mentality would be two-dimensional. I would be living in a Marvel/DC Comics universe where all big Corporations were evil and in cahoots with Government like some bad 60's movie. I would go underground to fight with the rebels against this evil. But, no, that would be too easy for life. Life is much more complicated. The truth is that it is harder to have an idea, as an individual, grow that idea, work hard at it and make a real success of it. Maybe I'm jaded in my mid-life. Maybe not. Maybe I'm right. Anyhow, anyone who thinks that the US is an evil-Imperialist country should have lived in Iraq under Hussein, where the novel 1984 was lived, not read. A phone call could make your sphincter wince, your kids marched in unannounced parades for the regime, or your cousin disappeared because he started a literary magazine.
Rob Herman

More Comment and Lifestyles
Home

© Hackwriters 2000-2004 all rights reserved