The new Kerry smear: He sees terror as a nuisance

God. Damn. It. I'm getting the feeling that this is one of those out-of-context quotes that will be used to beat Kerry to death. Call me a cynic, but I feel like this could be an election-loser.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041010/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_3

In Washington, Republican Party chief Ed Gillespie criticized Kerry for saying in an interview in The New York Times Magazine that, "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." He appeared to equate terrorism to prostitution and illegal gambling, saying they can be reduced but not ended.

"This demonstrates a disconcerting pre-September 11 mind-set that will not make our country safer," Gillespie said on "Face the Nation" on CBS. "And that is what we see relative to winning the war on terror and relative to Iraq."

Hours later, Bush's re-election campaign announced a new television ad that plays off of Kerry's interview comment. "Terrorism ... a nuisance? How can Kerry protect us when he doesn't understand the threat?" the ad says. The campaign said the ad would run on national cable television networks and the campaign's Web site.

Gut feeling: It could be worse, but this will hurt. It could be worse because it's a paragraph in a newspaper article, and not live video a la Dean saying "the capture of Saddam Hussein has not made us safer" or Bush saying "I don't think you can win it." But the "global test" lie has given us rock-solid proof that Bush's media machine can use any commonsense line from Kerry as a liability.

I want the Kerry campaign to buy ads fighting back HARD, using Bush's failure to catch Osama and "I don't think you can win it." Fight fight fight. This is the kind of thing that a swing voter hears out of context and inspires him to vote for Bush The Ragheadslayer.

UPDATE: Here's the text of the ad. http://www.georgewbush.com/KerryMediaCenter/Read.aspx?ID=3870

First, Kerry said defeating terrorism was really MORE about law enforcement and intelligence than a strong military operation... More about law enforcement than a strong military? Now Kerry says... We have to get back to the place where terrorists are a nuisance like gambling and prostitution... we're never going to end them. Terrorism... a nuisance? How can Kerry protect us when he doesn't understand the threat?

They're going to run with this ball. Liars.

UPDATE 2: It's the lead on Drudge right now, too. Oddly, he phrases it in a flattering way - Kerry envisions terrorists as "nuisance." Honestly, that is a good message. "I will hunt and kill the terrorists so that they fear the United States, that they retreat and hide, that they are a tiny nuisance."

UPDATE 3: Sarcaustic links to the Kerry response.

The Kerry campaign called the Bush ad a distortion and put out a rapid response ad, entitled "Can't Win." It said 95 percent of shipping containers coming into the United States go uninspected -- "$200 billion for Iraq, but to inspect containers, secure bridges. tunnels, and chemical plants -- Bush says we can't afford it."

Exactly right. Obviously, Bush will use the quote in his stump speech, because he's an idiot. Kerry needs to hammer hammer hammer this. He needs to remind people that the surest way to be attacked again is to vote for Bush.

•  huh

  It should be obvious to, well, even dumber viewers that Kerry's not saying "terrorists are a nuisance". He's saying that it should be brought back to a level where they feel like merely a nuisance.

  Of course, that won't stop the Bush campaign; out-of-context quotes are the only thing they have left.

  by Frank on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:27:12 PM PDT

  •  Hope you're right

    Obviously he's saying that he will kick the shit out of terrorists and eventually neuter and make them undangerous to us. This is the only sane approach to fighting terror, as Bush himself had said with "I don't think you can win it." Short of slaughtering every Muslim on earth, you cannot stop all Muslim terrorism. This isn't the Cold War where you could make a system collapse and sign peace treaties.

    by republicansforkerry on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:30:05 PM PDT

  •  Want to see out of context:

    Check this out:

    Bush campaign adviser Marc Racicot, in an appearance on CNN's "Late Edition," interpreted Kerry's remarks as saying "that the war on terrorism is like a nuisance. He equated it to prostitution and gambling, a nuisance activity. You know, quite frankly, I just don't think he has the right view of the world. It's a pre-9/11 view of the world."

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/bush.kerry.terror/index.html

    by jblumes on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 08:21:07 PM PDT

    •  Want to see in context?

      Two can play....

      I don't think you can win it [the war on terror.] And there's plenty more where that came from.

      Calm down, this is no "election-loser." In fact, it's a nice tidy soundbite Kerry can baste to a crispy brown shove straight up Bush's ass on Wednesday night.

      by fouro on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 08:38:39 PM PDT

      •  er...."and shove..." EOM

        by fouro on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 08:39:35 PM PDT

    •  I am not surprised

      at the rhetoric coming from Bush's spokesman here.

      I did a diary a while back called "What don't we GET about the war on terror?" which sought to spark a discussion on what, exactly, the Democrats are alleged to not understand as far as fighting terrorism.

      You will hear GOP supporters all over the place repeating stuff like "pre 9/11 mentality" and talking about how 9/11 changed everything.  To these people we are locked in an epic struggle of good vs evil and in a real clash of civilizations.  Once you accept this mindset - I don't, for what it's worth - your whole frame of reference has shifted.  You have to vote for the guy who "gets it," because if you believe we're in this epic conflict and the other candidate doesn't even KNOW we are, how can we win?

      This is a difficult framework to deal with, and the GOP is pushing it hard by nitpicking Kerry's remarks and taking them out of context.  The point is to make Kerry 100% unacceptable as a commander-in-chief because he doesn't understand the fundamental nature of the war on terror, as Bush is wont to say.  I think this epic-struggle theory is a load of crap but I have yet to hear Kerry really find a compelling counterweight, beyond tough talk about hunting and killing terrorists.

      What I would love to hear is a solid, smart defense of the "we have to make it so that we don't CARE about terrorists" approach.  You can be as harsh as you like - Bush's theory in fact LETS terrorists change our way of life and our worldview, it is DEPENDANT on defining us in opposition to the aims and goals of terrorism.  If you want to define yourself in opposition to terrorism, to live in fear of terrorism and to worry yourself sick over what terrorists want, vote for Bush, by all means.  

      But in my opinion, it is the job of the government and the commander in chief to ensure that we don't have to give a shit about the aims and goals of terrorism, any more than we have to give a shit about the aims and goals of common criminals.  We just have to be reasonably smart about our safety.   But there shouldn't even be a question of what terrorists want (unless you are law enforcement/military trying to track them) - there should only be the statement, terrorists will be stopped.

      by daria g on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 10:20:33 PM PDT

      •  Shorter version/cliff notes version..

        The fundamental nature of the war on terror is that the American way of life cannot, should not, and will not be changed by terrorism or fear of terrorism.  Period.  This is a great country and we will not live in fear, but in hope and optimism.

        I have to say that what BushCo is really demanding through this constant refrain of fear, fear, fear, war, war, war, is that we the American people change our fundamental beliefs about what this country stands for and how we view the world.  That, to me, is deeply offensive.  I don't believe any president has the right to demand that.  

        Welcome to the terrordome, people..

        by daria g on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 10:31:19 PM PDT

      •  The media won't let

        Kerry explain this in an articulate way. I don't really know how you can have an articulate or simple answer on terrorism, beyond Bush's simplistic and dangerous "be afraid and we'll kill everybody be afraid" stuff.

        by JamesB3 on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 10:34:19 PM PDT

  •  this isn't just "out of context"

    it's the absolute opposite of the meaning that was intended.

    it's akin to claiming if bush says, "we want to make sure the terrorists are defeated and cannot harm Americans", that he really means "Bush thinks terrorists have been defeated and cannot harm americans"

    if this is the best they can come up with, Kerry must be further ahead than I thought in their internal polls.

    by thirdparty on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 09:10:54 PM PDT

    •  yes!

      it's exactly the opposite of what Kerry said. but it can be used by the KE campaign to link this newest distortion to the many other examples of how the Bush administration behaves when they have no case to make: mislead the public by mistating the facts.

      this kind of 'torturing the truth' is exactly the same m.o. the Bush administration uses to make a case when they have no case to make. they choose, use or just make stuff up... yellowcake, aluminum tubes, wmd, al quaeda/saddam connection. they blatantly lie.

      the 'nuisance' thing is one more illustration of how Bush/Cheney operate. I hope KE takes advantage of this to make that point.

      by kiw on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 10:16:11 PM PDT

•  Jesus

  September 11 only changed everything for Republicans because they let themselves be scared shitless by the terrorists and now view anything short of unwavering imperialistic doomsday rhetoric as a failure.

  I think it's revealing that Mr Gillespie wants America to remain scared.

  by punishinglemur on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:27:56 PM PDT

•  You keep going on about global test,

  but your only real evidence that that hurt Kerry is because a Republican college student on Hardball mentioned it.

  The ad does sound like it's damning...I guess we'll just have to wait and see. The media has this rigged for Bush anyway.

  by JamesB3 on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:28:12 PM PDT

  •  Well, I've heard it elsewhere

    The quote froze my heart because it gave disengenuous Bush supporters a soundbite for their "Kerry won't fight terror or defend America" spin. But you're right, I haven't heard anyone say it who's not a Bush voter already.

    by republicansforkerry on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:32:55 PM PDT

    •  Froze your heart??

      OK, well I really don't think "global test" was a very effective talking point, to say the least, and was not a good argument for Bush supporters. This one may be more potent, because the most desperate attacks sometimes work, but it seems like so many people want to believe Bush anyway, this quote may just be their excuse for doing so, and they'd go back to him no matter what Kerry said.

      The GOP has run so many ads. They were going to run ads about trial lawyers, they ran ads showing Kerry windsurfing...they're just desperate. That's why they're so dangerous.

      by JamesB3 on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:42:00 PM PDT

      •  This

        is what I think Kery meant when he used the term global: Comprehensive; total: "a... global, generalized sense of  . . . ."  Not # Having the shape of a globe; spherical. or # Of, relating to, or involving the entire earth; worldwide: global war; global monetary policies.

        by rx scabin on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:47:23 PM PDT

        •  Doesn't matter

          We're not running to win the hearts of grown-ups here. You have to say - terrorism bad, Osama bad, Saddam bad. It doesn't matter that invading the wrong country actually made us less safe. You can't convince people, in one election, of that. They equate bombs and armies with winning.

          by republicansforkerry on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:51:24 PM PDT

•  Just rhetorical fog.

  Kerry's statement was clear as daylight. He wants to reduce terrorism so it is no longer the focus of everyone's life.

  Gillespie has come out and essentially mocked Kerry for wanting to reduce terrorism. Yet more evidence that the Bush camp does not want to redue terrorism...they profit from it.

  by Maxwell on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:29:24 PM PDT

•  Well, maybe we can compare threats

  The Nazis were a threat.  The Soviets were a threat.  Global terrorism?  A threat now because Bush has completely botched the GWOT.  

  The response is more like, "Bush doesn't think they are much of a threat.  Why else would he cut taxes in the middle of a war?  Why would he destroy the alliances that we need to win the GWOT?  Why has he not asked anybody--other than kids and National Guard troops and their families--to make any sacrifices to counter this threat?  All hot air, no action from the GOP."

  Time for a change.  

  by 537 votes on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:30:46 PM PDT

•  This is BS. Global test didn't work because Bush

  only mentioned it once in the debate.  Kerry keeps saying he will capture and kill the terrorists and he will.  All Kerry has to do is punch Bush in the mouth and hit him in the balls with a cold shovel on Wednesday and that will settle things.  Bush is trying to make this a debate of visceral feel.  Kerry may have the better arguments, but Bush jumps around like a screaming banshee and that somehow means he is tougher.  I think it's BS, but the Republicans are trying anything tokeep their group together, as they are becoming more and more disconcerted.  Bush is most dangerous now, when he knows he is losing.  We have to play like we are a few points behind and beat the hell out of him on Wednesday.

  by khyber900 on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:31:15 PM PDT

•  Kerry people should just say

  Bush said we can't win the war on terror he thinks we can.

  by nevadadem on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:32:13 PM PDT

  •  Exactly

    Exactly!!!!

    by GregNYC on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:34:53 PM PDT

  •  Yes

    Turn the guns on Bush. Not only is he iffy about beating terror, he's had three years to do it and FAILED.

    We need ads on this. Bush is a wimp who thinks we can't defeat terror. Kerry is a viking who wants to crush them so they're a measly nuisance.

    by republicansforkerry on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:38:41 PM PDT

•  Chill...

  Chill...

  I'm sure Bushie will try to sneak it into the debate and Kerry will switch it around on Bush. Kerry has ammo.  

  Like "You can run but you can't hide."  Sounds familiar?  Isn't that the slogan Bush used about Al Qaeda and Osama?  I think Osama is still running and still hiding.  Isn't he?  Bush won't have his audience to comfort him and he'll be back on the big stage and the heat of the spotlight.

  You can't get yourself all stressed...

  by GregNYC on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:34:15 PM PDT

  •  But Bush makes me paranoid

    The thing is, if he caught Osama after 9/11 and destroyed al Qaeda, he would be in a weaker position now. Witness how now that Saddam has been caught, the "you wish Saddam was back in power" shit doesn't stick. Bush just keeps running on bogeyman, saying his opponents don't understand the threats of Osama, without having to answer questions about why, gee, he can't frigging find him and beat terror.

    by republicansforkerry on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:37:15 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, but...

      People hear the question, and see that Bush is not answering.  That's a BIG problem people have with Bush.  

      You have to realize that when we hear an attack about Kerry, it stings us at first.  But, when we hear something bad about Bush, it's welcome and not surprising.  

      But the repugs feel the sting too. I mean, for the last week and the last two debates Bush has been mocked over and over.  We love it, but it upsets the Repugs just as much as hearing some sentence today taken out of context.  It will be addressed and Bush will surely be slammed again for something else.  It's just the nature of the campaign...

      by GregNYC on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 08:10:20 PM PDT

  •  I agree...

    ....and, if it helps, just do what so many on this blog do so well, be creative:

    E.g. "A republican without 'terror' is like a [stud without testicles]"

    by understandinglife on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:40:32 PM PDT

•  This is a Nedra Pickler special

  and the Freepers are running with it.  Note she does not give the context from the interviw itself.  SHe just gives the line that the Republicans told her to go with.

  She is a hack.

  by DrFrankLives on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:38:39 PM PDT

•  CNN

  I hadn't been worried, but they just repeated this on CNN, putting up the out of context quote on the screen. They did not explain why it was out of context. It was disgusting.

  by Semblance on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:39:47 PM PDT

  •  Weren't you the one who was just

    calling me "Debbie Downer"? Nice hypocrisy there.

    by JamesB3 on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:43:14 PM PDT

    •  DD

      Not at all. You are a constant downer, all the time, every day, day after day, on every damned issue.

      This is clearly the RNC's new meme and they are going to hit it hard. It didn't help that CNN simply repeated the meme.

      by Semblance on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:51:59 PM PDT

      •  So you can't even admit to your hypocrisy,

        Unless you can prove that every single word I write is depression, which you can't, then you're a liar. You crash a thread about Australia because you're perfectly happy to see gays in Australia suffer (hearing about their problems is a "downer"), and now you can't even admit to these double standards.

        For someone named Semblance, you don't seem to have much of a semblance towards honesty, or reality. You're just another hypocrite and fraud. You have no problem with murdering gays, but you do have a problem with CNN. Well, that's nice to know, Debbie Downer. Congratulations.

        by JamesB3 on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 10:08:12 PM PDT

      •  And you got a 4 from Bob,

        who went around joking about how he wants all of us to die. Well, that's not a surprise. You seem to be a tag team.

        by JamesB3 on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 10:32:05 PM PDT

•  The thugs always think they've "got one"

  ...then Kerry throws it back in their face...The only way for McMonkey Man to get any traction on this is talking about it in the debate, and that'll let Kerry blow him out of the water like he has done for the past two times....

  by Volvo Liberal on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:40:07 PM PDT

  •  Case in point

    Kerry already taking this head on.....

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's campaign announced Sunday its plans to use as the basis of a new commercial a quote from an 8,000-word New York Times Magazine article about Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry.

    The parsing prompted the Kerry camp to retort that the soon-to-be-released Bush ad was another example of the president's campaign taking words out of context to create a misleading impression.

    by Volvo Liberal on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 09:47:16 PM PDT

•  Smells of desperation, too...

  When you have to construct your campaign in the final days based on out of context quotes in newspaper interviews, you really, really have a problem: you have nothing to run on. And it shows....

  by Volvo Liberal on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:41:23 PM PDT

•  RESPONSE:

  I can see why some people would not want to live in a time when terrorists are contained and their threat is minimized ... because it serves their political interests to keep people in fear.

  If George Bush would prefer these days to continue, with America and the World under the threat of Islamic Fundementalist terrorism, rather than a time when they have been contained, well, we know where he stands.

  Under my policy, a day will come when the terrorist threat is contained and Americans no longer live in fear. That is what I meant by 'nuisance'. Perhaps a poor choice of words, but this is a world in which peace prevails and the terrorists no longer threaten us. A world in which parents can bring their children to school without worrying about their safety.

  George Bush has proven that under his leadership, such a world is less likely.

  It is a world which I strive for.

  by jblumes on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:41:32 PM PDT

  •  Excellent

    and by the way Mr. President, I know you don't read newspapers, but if you had read the quote you might have understood better what I actually said.

    by daveincolo on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:47:59 PM PDT

  •  I agree.

    The "global test" line backfired on the Bush people and this will too. How many Americans wouldn't want to live in a time when terrorism was a "nuisance"? This is the President who said we wont win the war on terror. Kerry believes we can win the war on terrorism.

    by bullet2382 on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:51:22 PM PDT

    •  Yes, it must be pushed that way

      "I want to hunt and kill the terrorists so that they'll be nothing more than a nuisance, living in fear of the United States."

      Luckily the "nuisance" part of the quote is the GOP take. The rest of the quote is too long to put in an ad designed for the Dumb and the Scared.

      by republicansforkerry on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:53:38 PM PDT

•  Contact the AP and CNN

  or anyone else you see taking it out of context.

  Ask for the newsdesk and try to get an assignment editor on the line and give them constructive criticism.

  ABC TV
  Phone: [phone]  
  Fax: [phone]

  ABC Radio
  Phone: [phone]  
  Fax: [phone]
  News Phone: [phone]
  News Fax: [phone]
  E-Mail: [e-mail]

  CBS TV
  Phone: [phone]  
  Fax: [phone]
  Saturday edition: Phone:  [phone]
   Fax:  [phone]

  CBS Radio Network
  Phone: [phone]  
  Fax: [phone]

  NBC TV
  Phone: [phone]  
  Fax: [phone]

  CNBC
  Phone: [phone]  
  Fax: [phone]

  MSNBC
  Phone: [phone]  
  Fax: [phone]

  FOXNews
  Phone: [phone]  
  Fax: [phone]
  Phone: [phone]  
  Fax: [phone]
  Radio network: Phone: [phone]

  CNN
  Phone: [phone]  
  Fax: [phone]
  Phone: [phone]  
  Fax: [phone]

  UPI
  Phone: [phone]  
  Fax: [phone]

  AP
  Phone: [phone]  
  Fax: [phone]
  Phone: [phone]  
  Fax: [phone]
  [e-mail]

  Reuters
  Phone: [phone]  
  News Phone: [phone]
  Phone: [phone]  
  Fax: [phone]

  AFP
  Phone: [phone]  
  Fax: [phone]
  

  by Newsie8200 on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:51:08 PM PDT

•  here's the response right here!

  Goerge Bush thnks we can never win the war on terror ,I think we can, The president wants to keep us in a perpetual state of fear, I think with the right policies we can reduce the threat, as president we will wn the war on terror.

  by nevadadem on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:54:49 PM PDT

  •  Very Good.

    I like the tie in to the "never win the war on terror" thing.

    For chrissake, it is probably the only thing that Bush has said with any credibility, but I think you are right to hammer it that way.

    by jblumes on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:58:01 PM PDT

•  mye ths line een bete!

  It servrs this president's politcal interests to keep americans in a perpetual state of fear, As president I will not use the war on terror as a political tool, instead I will do everything to catch UBL and win the war on terror.

  by nevadadem on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:59:04 PM PDT

•  oops forgot to edit the header ouch!

  by nevadadem on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:59:53 PM PDT

•  Election Loser

  Nothing is an election loser this far from the election.  Kerry has time to rebound from the spin on this comment.  That being said, he has a lot more to do in respect to the terror question.  He should have an anti-terror rally close to Nov. 2, something with a big, pandering banner.  

  I hate that the election has to be put in terms of pandering, but you have to fight them at their own game.  Honestly, I have no problem with Bush saying, "We can't win the war on terror."  He's right.  Saying we can win the war is like saying we can stop all murder or all crime.  

  Kerry's quote is not even as bad as Bush's--he can turn it into something positive: Yes, I want to make it a nuisance, not something to be feared every day of your life like this administration has us feeling.  I'm hoping that the terror alert/ politicizing fear issue comes up in the debate.      

  by Ash Tree on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 08:02:28 PM PDT

  •  I hope so

    It is the brutal truth - no intel expert in his right mind will tell you we can defeat terror by invading some countries. It needs to be more like a million tiny police actions.

    I think it's an election loser because people are stupid and think troops = victory. I honestly believe we'd need to suffer another major attack at home before people realize that Kerry is right.

    And Kerry is right. The snark about this article is revealing, because they have no f'ing rebuttal to what Kerry is saying - they say it's a September 10 idea, it doesn't understand the nature of the threat, blah blah, all stuff that would be true if WE WERE ACTUALLY SAFER. It's part of that "we're fighting them in Baghdad so we don't fight them in the streets of New York" shit.

    by republicansforkerry on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 08:08:07 PM PDT

•  Response: Distilled

  Under George Bush, terrorists won't be a "nuisance". Instead, their cells will continue to multiply and divide.

  Because he doesn't understand the enemy, his policy has only inflamed hate.

  Under John Kerry, we will always be one step ahead of the terrorists. We will need constant vigilance, but our soldiers and our police officers and our intelligence workers and our diplomats will always be one step ahead.

  In this world, the terrorists will no longer threaten us in the way they have for the past three years.

  by jblumes on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 08:05:03 PM PDT

•  Response ad

  Kerry already has a response ad to this. I'll go get the text, I just saw it in an article.

  by sarcaustic on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 08:07:02 PM PDT

  •  where ?

    by jblumes on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 08:08:17 PM PDT

    •  Kerry response ad

      Our Boy John Is Fast!

      The Kerry campaign called the Bush ad a distortion and put out a rapid response ad, entitled "Can't Win." It said 95 percent of shipping containers coming into the United States go uninspected -- "$200 billion for Iraq, but to inspect containers, secure bridges. tunnels, and chemical plants -- Bush says we can't afford it."

      "And on the war on terror, Bush said: 'I don't think you can win it.' Not with his failed leadership. It's time for a new direction," the ad script said.

      
      

      by sarcaustic on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 08:10:25 PM PDT

      •  YES YES YES

        OK, I can breath now. Phew. HAMMER THIS MESSAGE HOME UNTIL YOU'RE SORE, JOHN!

        by republicansforkerry on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 08:11:12 PM PDT

        •  Feel free to add this

          up at the top =)

          by sarcaustic on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 08:14:00 PM PDT

        •  See!

          See - all these posts and worry for nothing!

          Kerry is throwing the "we can't win the war on terror" back in his face!

          I suggest though that we all send e-mails to the news orgs to make sure Kerry's response gets EQUAL time!

          by GregNYC on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 08:20:26 PM PDT

        •  You should stop

          letting these thugs keep you on the edge of your seat.  Respect their craven callous do-anything-say-anything to get elected but you need to be tougher.  Everything is "GOD DAMN. Oh, no! Kerry said something smart but, look what they are doing to it.  

          There is such a thing as being too in awe of your enemy.

          by Cathy on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 08:59:00 PM PDT

      •  What's worse?

        If you're a swing voter...which is worse a President who finds terrorism a nusiance or a President who says we can't beat terrorists?

        Seems like an easy pick to me.

        by bullet2382 on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 08:20:47 PM PDT

        •  KERRY DIDN'T SAY THAT !

          Kerry didn't say terrorism is a nuisance.

          He said "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance".

          He said we must get to a point where there is so little terrorism, that we don't need to live in fear of it.

          by jblumes on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 08:24:12 PM PDT

          •  My bad

            I worded that wrong, should have said:

            Do you want a President who wants to fight terrorism until it becomes a mere nusiance or a President who doesnt think we can defeat terrorism?

            by bullet2382 on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 08:30:41 PM PDT

            •  Rock on !

              ..exactly.

              by jblumes on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 08:59:33 PM PDT

•  Ad concept for Kerry response

  Bush has doubts about the war on terror, and plug in the quote about how said he doesnt think we can win the war. Then ad the quote about how he doesnt care if we catch bin laden

  by Lucian on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 08:18:27 PM PDT

•  Here's the response

  "John Kerry's goal is to cripple the terrorists so badly that they become a mere nuisance. George Bush and Dick Cheney, on the other hand, prefer that Americans live in fear, because fear is their only political strategy."

  by jay l on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 08:22:04 PM PDT

  •  Nice and pure.

    by jblumes on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 08:25:22 PM PDT

•  this is why I absolutely love John Kerry

  and his campaign, great response. They don't take any shit,

  by nevadadem on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 08:22:12 PM PDT

•  I don't know

  I think you jump the gun on this stuff too much. I share your paranoia and cynicism to some extent, but just like Global Test, I have a feeling this won't go far.

  Kerry and co will respond to this ad. Watch. And it could well be a pretty good one, along the lines of "there they go again . . ."

  by Ben P on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 08:22:25 PM PDT

  •  Yes, I worry a whole lot

    Ben, I'm so concerned with everything the Bush folk say because, for some time, I was in the tank with them. I know how this stuff becomes so self-evident that a listener doesn't stop to think and say "hey, that's bullshit!"

    Anyway, as long as Bush's approval is over 10 percent, I'm paranoid. It makes no sense that the guy who's presided over two failing wars and the worst terrorist attack in our history is trusted by most Americans to "handle the war on terror." And since it makes no sense, I assume the worst.

    by republicansforkerry on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 08:28:31 PM PDT

•  ben he already did respond see a few posts above

  and I for one am not gpoing to get riled up every time Rove and CO take Kerry words blatently out of context, the people that would be fooled by that shit are already lost anyway.

  by nevadadem on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 08:26:30 PM PDT

  •  well, the dnc is responding to all attacks

    as far as i can see, and it's working. seems to me this was very much a part of the way clinton operated - and it worked then, too.

    the fact is that every time an attack goes unanswered, it eats away at dems, not because we believe the substance of the attack, but because we can't figure out why the heck it isn't answered. if even a portion of k/e supporters feel that way, why would we expect the "undecideds" or bushies to not ask the same question and to conclude there must be some truth to what is being said.

    perceptions matter. if they didn't, we wouldn't all be talking about kerry "looking" presidential.

    i applaud the k/e campaign for being ready with an answer. and here's one for the rovians to think about: ever consider that kerry said what he said hoping you'd pick up on it and distort it and thus give him an opportunity to really lend weight to the point he's been dying to make about bush having said the war on terror is unwinnable?  

    by yankeedoodler on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 09:24:03 PM PDT

    •  This is "rapid response"

      See what happens when you fight back hard immediately? You get your response to the second paragraph of an article and you tie it into your general campaign message....Classic Clinton strategy..

      ----------------------

      WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's campaign announced Sunday its plans to use as the basis of a new commercial a quote from an 8,000-word New York Times Magazine article about Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry.

      The parsing prompted the Kerry camp to retort that the soon-to-be-released Bush ad was another example of the president's campaign taking words out of context to create a misleading impression.

      by Volvo Liberal on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 09:49:04 PM PDT

•  Can we *ever* win with a military response?

  IIRC, in the mid-80s, parts of Europe (Germany, Italy) were facing more frequent terrorist attacks than they have in the current decade. No military action was taken, but a strong law enforcement response quieted the threat to a "nuisance" level.

  Israel (which, admittedly, faces far more terrorist attacks than Western Europe has) has never managed to demonstrate that a military response can suppress terrorism. It hasn't exactly been for lack of trying, either.

  Military action can work againsst military targets. But what kind of target is a single terrorist? A terrorist cell?
  

  by Compassionate Conservationist on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 09:43:43 PM PDT

•  this line of attack is completely impotent

  lay your fears to rest.  I WANT an administration that is optimistic enough to envision the day that their efforts to combat terrorism have reduced it to a mere nuisaince.  To suggest that this is just a fantasy is the ultimate in fear-mongering and pessimism, and i suspect that for this reason it will just be another attack that backfires and hurts Bush, the moron.

  by contrapunktus on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 09:54:48 PM PDT

  •  I certainly agree

    But I worry about how people will interpret it. Will it be, "Kerry wants to defeat terrorists" or will it be "Kerry doesn't think we can ever defeat the terrorists"? The prostitution comparison seems to be the killer here.

    by republicansforkerry on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 09:59:28 PM PDT

•  Nuisance? Exactly.

  
  Does anyone else see this like I do?

  I think this is a major miscalculation on their part.

  Most Americans will get exactly what Kerry is saying and think, hey, that's pretty much what I want.  Like what terrorism was under Clinton - not to undermine that some people did die, but largely, I felt safe and it was just a nuisance.  

  People will prefer nuisance over constant fear and war.  

  And everyone will hear Kerry say, "we have to get back to..." and understand that it's a goal.

  They're desperate and they're screwing up.  They've just put up a Kerry ad for him, and they don't even know it.
  

  by CTDem2 on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 10:08:15 PM PDT

•  I am so sick of Republicans that can't read - -

  or even understand the simplest sentence.

  Yes I know what they are doing -- and it is going for the lowest denominator -- and that is where they will end up in the votes on Nov 02 - because they think that all the voters are stupid -- but I believe that the voters are waking up -- and will finally see the GOP for what they are

  A bunch of liars - GOPs could not see - let alone tell the truth by now even if their lives depended on it.

  Sick bunch of bastards

  by sara seattle on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 10:25:12 PM PDT

•  How ironic

  The author of this article spends the first fifteen paragraphs lamenting Kerry's caution in talking to reporters, due to the shark infested waters of Rovian politics. Then he opens his mouth and SNAP! the ugly bald fatbellied sharks all leap!

  What's even more typical is they took one line out of an article that made the very important point that Kerry UNDERSTANDS this problem in a way the  Thugs never can and that his investigational and diplomatic background make him uniquely suited to solve it in a way no Thugs ever can.

  To quote a part near the end:
  When Kerry first told me that Sept. 11 had not changed him, I was surprised. I assumed everyone in America -- and certainly in Washington -- had been changed by that day. I assumed he was being overly cautious, afraid of providing his opponents with yet another cheap opportunity to call him a flip-flopper. What I came to understand was that, in fact, the attacks really had not changed the way Kerry viewed or talked about terrorism -- which is exactly why he has come across, to some voters, as less of a leader than he could be. He may well have understood the threat from Al Qaeda long before the rest of us.

  by Hrubec on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 10:28:31 PM PDT

•  Kerry should

  make up a new ad, attacking Bush for the time where he basically said "I don't care about Osama, he's irrelevent, I'm not that concerned about him."

  The DNC just released a great ad (probably their most effective anti-Bush spot) called "I Don't Know," (which you can view at http://www.democrats.org/video/index.html ) that makes this point.

  Kerry should cut up a similar spot, but even more harsh.  Maybe have the narrator say, "Not that concerned about him?!" in an incredulous voice.  Then, "We need a President who understands that OBL must be brought to justice."

  Hit him hard, right in the jimmy!

  (I would also consider using the interview where Bush admitted he couldn't win the war on terror.)
  

  by Rally Burger on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 11:38:06 PM PDT