27,000,000,000,000 The Octillion 000,000,000,000,000 readers and counting

A blog of our times

back to home page

More on the 2004 election here:

Polls and the Election
First Presidential Debate
Second Presidential
   Debate
Third Presidential
   Debate
Diebold and Ohio
Resolution against Iraq
More on the Resolution
Kerry "flip flopping"
Bush  "flip flopping"
The Key
   Mischaracterization

More on the debate snafu and fair game disaster
here:

"Abusive"
"Disgraceful"
"Shameless"
Saturday Night Live
more examples
Fox's "unbiased"
   approach
Another perspective

DEMOCRATS, UNWITTINGLY LEAVING KERRY OUT TO DRY OVER THE MARY CHENEY GAFFE

Dear Ms. Colgan:

I just recently came across your excellent piece, "Democratic Cacophony." It recalls, among many things, the abysmal failure of the democrats to rally behind Kerry's statement about the Vice President's daughter, a few seconds after the President had stated, "I do know that we have to treat everyone with tolerance, dignity, and respect."

Goofy, awkward, ill reasoned, or not, Kerry was walking the walk, And his party and democrats in general needed to back him up. (As they also needed to here, for example, on the defining issue of the election.)

They needed to do this to show that he was trying to give meaning to the President's words, words that the President has uttered repeatedly, but which seemed to often contradict actions; did these words mean anything, or were they also just more of the same empty rhetoric?

In essence, the Bush campaign, and all of its major supporters, played the same orchestral piece, beautifully. 

They ripped Kerry apart on this, helped by the fact that many actually believed it. Belief does help sell.  (As a side note, I would add to your excellent piece that republicans sell, democrats not only don't sell, but don't even seem to recognize the need). 

The Piece they played was the ultimate political ploy, intentionally, or not; successfully characterize one's opponent as the one engaging in the "vile" (as so labeled in this case) political ploy, when in fact all Kerry was doing was trying to give meaning to the President's nice sounding rhetoric.  Rhetoric which, once again, was far from reality:  Specifically, by their actions attacking Kerry and asserting that it was vile to reference Mary Cheney, even though she was a public figure as the Vice President's Campaign Manager, even though the Cheneys had spoken openly of this, even though John Kerry specifically defended her, and most importantly, even though the significant others -- thereby implying sexuality -- of the other candidates' daughters were mentioned in other debates, they were implying that this reference, completely on point, was not tolerant, not dignified, and not respectful.  Thus, by making the case against Kerry that he had in fact done a terrible thing, they themselves rendered the President's words, once again, devoid of any meaning.

A sensitive topic, and one ripe for just the sort of exploitation that ironically Kerry was being accused of, he needed his campaign to back him correctly on this.  He also needed them to  focus on what the President had just said, and also on what the President had said a moment before that -- that he did "not know" if homosexuality was a choice or not.  This was a profound statement that got lost in the constant Bush Campaign and media blitzkrieg on Kerry's goofy attempt to make a valid point in defense of people who are in fact gay not through any choice of their own -- and who, therefore, in the Presidents own words, are deserving of "tolerance, dignity, and respect."

The Kerry campaign and Kerry supporters did not even come close.  As a result, these attacks, in the eyes of much of America, sullied Kerry's image even further. Not only that, but Kerry's backfired "exploitation" of Cheney for "crass" and "vile" "political gain" dominated a full week of coverage, almost immediately before the election. 

Why did this happen?  Refer to your piece:  The Democratic Cacophony.

Only here it was far worse than you article even describes:

Kerry Campaign Manager Mary Beth Cahill uttered a statement so strategically poor, "well, Mary Cheney is fair game," that it defies expression.  It powerfully bolstered the other sides' critical point: "See, Kerry was attacking her and exploiting her for gain; even the campaign manager argues she is 'fair game." (What Cahill actually meant is besides the point, but that goes to another key issue, i.e., what democrats are really communicating...)

Not only were they not all on the same page, as you put it, but a third of them were not even playing their instruments. Another third were actually helping the Bush campaign's mischaracterization's, even if inadvertently (such as Cahill).  Almost no one was making the points that needed to be made.  Worse, almost no one even seemed to know the points that needed to be made, or the importance of coming up with some coherent message, to for once, get their candidate's back.  And not just counter the Bush campaign and supporters' message, but use it against them

Kerry lost because of dozens of separate reasons, any one of which alone would have changed the outcome of an election that even several high ranking republicans argued should have been won easily by the democrats.  This is just one particularly egregious example (among many) of your point, which may have helped to change the course of history.

Ivan Carter
 

back to home page