Why Kerry lost

Modern elections are usually decided by Labor day; whoever has the momentum then, wins. This is especially true now that Florida has outlawed recounts, which means that we can no longer consider that already-corrupt state "democratic" with a small d.

So Kerry lost. How?

For week after week, Kerry ran mushy, feel-good ads which portrayed him as a fine fellow. Meanwhile, Bush never talked about himself in his ads -- he spent the time defining his opponent. The definitions were largely smears. Doesn't matter. The mud stuck.

How would I have handled things if I were Mary Beth Cahill, Kerry's chief campaigner? Simple. The Kerry slogan should have been: "BUSH LIES!" That phrase should have been plastered in day-glo letters on billboards and telephone polls everywhere.

To those who consider such a tactic overkill, let me ask one question: What's the precedent? Just when, exactly, did we have an election in which a Democrat for national office went negative early and things turned out disastrously?

Each election, every Democratic campaign manager seems to say to himself: "Boy, we can't have a repeat of that debacle when we went negative and everything went to shit." I'd like to know just when that alleged debacle occurred.

Why are the Dems so afraid to try something that seems to work like a charm every time for their Republican opponents?

Bottom line: Kerry lost because he did not go on the attack against a president with a lousy record.

For example: Take the vote on supplemental aid to the troops in Iraq. Kerry tried to explain things lamely ("I voted for it before I voted against it"). Alas, the public is -- and always will be -- far too dimwitted to understand that there were two bills which paid for the aid in two different ways.

Kerry should have responded with an ad underlining that Bush threatened to veto the same legislation..."money our boys desperately need!" And why was Bush going to veto? "Because he doesn't care about our troops. He cares more about making sure rich people don't pay their fair share."

CUT TO: Footage of Moms and Dads holding bake sales to make sure their kids in Iraq have flack jackets.

Can we not agree that an ad like the one I have just described would have been a lot more effective for Kerry than the crapola he was running?

Or take the Swift Boat smear. Here's how to combat an attack like that -- with an ad I call "EMPTY BOX":

* * *

FADE IN: EXTREME CLOSE UP of the EMPTY BOX on Bush's service apllication -- the one he should have filled in if he wanted to go to Vietnam. PULL BACK to reveal the rest of the form.

NARRATOR (Kerry himself?): "An empty box. An EMPTY BOX. When he could have volunteered to serve his country in Vietnam, George Bush left the box empty. Why? Because he's a PHYSICAL COWARD."

SLOW DISSOLVE to Bush's face looking bewildered, perhaps because he can't quite follow that goat story.

NARRATOR: "Keep that in mind when Republicans lie about John Kerry's war record. They want to distract you from the fact that Bush has no idea how to heal the economy he wrecked. No idea how to get us out of Iraq. All he has is the same old thing..."

ZOOM IN to Bush's forehead. DISSOLVE TO: An EMPTY BOX. Sound of wind rustling through the marshes.

* * *

Yeah. Something like that would have ended the smears pronto.

Kerry said "Bring it on." They brought it. He sat there and smiled.

Even the phrase "Bring it on" displays the error of playing defense. Kerry is the one who shoud have brought it on.

I wish Mary Beth Cahill were a man so I could properly "explain" my dissatisfaction to her -- on a sidewalk outside any bar she chooses.