It was BCCI after all (aside from the fraud)

[JohnnyCougar]

If Bob Shrum didn't have his head up his ass, and would have talked about Kerry's role in the BCCI investigation and Iran-Contra, it wouldn't have been close enough for fraud to work. Every Republican I know reacts with surprise when I tell them the BCCI story. They ask me "Why the hell didn't Kerry talk about that?!" I am sure if they focused on that more than his military record, Kerry would have won.

How does Rove attack BCCI? "Uhhhh....Kerry busted a large international bank that sponsored terrorism, and also bailed Bush out of failed business ventures, while his dad was doing nothing to break it up as President. Un...See, Democrats are always trying to be negative and break things up!"

What were we gonna have, "Drug Smugglers Who Lost Their Laundered Money for Truth???" Come on. I know Shrum is being paid by Rove, I just know it. And don't say it wasn't Shrum's decision not to use the story. He admitted that specifically, he thought the BCCI story was "too complex to understand" by the average voter. What part of "Kerry busts large terrorist bank" is too complicated?!?

Yes...It would not have been close if we had played the BCCI card. We could have played the Iran-Contra card, too and mentioned that half the people that should have gone to jail for that are in Bush's cabinet right now. But noooooo, we had to be the passive-agressive party once again, while Rove ran circles around us.

We should have won by a mile. Instead, Shrum lost by a hair again.

[eleny]

1. This frustrated me, too

When they were making fun of kerry, saying he didn't have any bills with his name on them - it was the perfect time to bring forth his accomplishments in this area. I often thought of how intriguing it all was that after all those years, Kerry was going up against that same power machine of players to wrest the government away from them.

[Minstrel Boy]

2. "Drug Smugglers Who Lost Their Laundered Money for Truth"

Very good. :evilgrin:

Here's my take, FWIW.

BCCI isn't too complex; rather, it's too sensitive a topic. Because right there, you have not only terrorists and drug dealers, but the United States security apparatus conducting business with both. And that includes senior Democrats, most notoriously Clark Clifford.

[JohnnyCougar]

5. I kinda suspected as much

Minstrel Boy Wrote:

BCCI isn't too complex; rather, it's too sensitive a topic. Because right there, you have not only terrorists and drug dealers, but the United States security apparatus conducting business with both. And that includes senior Democrats, most notoriously Clark Clifford.

And here's my take on that: Fuck Senior Democrats. We now lost because senior Democrats' names had to be protected. If they are dealing with terrorists, than the deserve to get smeared. And if Shrum is too weak to confront him, bring in someone who isn't.

[LittleClarkie]

8. But Kerry had gone after Clark Clifford before

and gotten blasted by fellow dems for it, too. "Why are you going after my friend Clifford" they'd say. He was used to getting it from his own party on the issue.

I say that Kerry, with the right PR department, is still a strong candidate.

[fujiyama]

3. Shrum should never again

come near a campaign. I want him out of Democratic politics forever. I'll admit that I was nervous right when I heard Shrum was playing a prominent part in the campaign - and all I knew was that he had a losing record (0-7 - and that was then!).

I think Shrum was also responsible for the late reaction to the Swoft Vet Liars and he kept listening to focus groups and he took polls way too literally. THere's a great article in the New Republic which explins it all. I'll try to find it. Some aide to the campaign said "Shouldn't there be a 7 strikes and you're out policy for failed advisors?". That too Shrum also makes a lot of money. He's pretty wealthy. He ran off to Tuscany after the election.

And as for BCCI, Shrum claimed it sounded too much like the BBC.

I think Kerry should have brought it up. It couldn't have hurt. Part of the problem was that Kerry was almost running away from his last 20 years in the senate...

Granted, all the blame can't be placed on the advisor. Kerry should have known better...and certain statement like "I voted for it before I voted for it" were pretty much made for a nasty smearing Bush ad...

[JI7]

4. he should have brought it up, including the Vietnam MIA investigations

they should also have brought up his work as a prosecutor and taking on the mob and defending women who were raped and helping set up support centers for women who were raped.

he took on this one case where a woman who was raped was a prostitute. many didn't think it could be won because of lack of sympathy for her among other reasons. but Kerry was able to do it and got a conviction.

[JohnnyCougar]

6. I really don't know...it seems like they weren't really trying.

There was so much more they could have brought up. And they chose not to. They didn't even try to define the real John Kerry, aside from his war record. Kerry is a great man, if people even knew half the shit about him, he would have won by 10 percentage points, and lost only Idaho, Wyoming and Utah. Fuck, he could have even won Texas if Shrum wasn't trying to lose.

[JI7]

7. well, the reason being that it was too complicated, which i agree with

but the goal would not have been for people to know every detail of what went on.

they just had to get across that Kerry led the fight on it. they didn't need to know all the details, just as they don't know the details of Bush's war on terrorism and other things. if they did they would not support Bush.

it's more about the perception. so they could have brought up his military service, and then his record as a prosecutor, and then his investigations into BCCI and Vietnam MIAs. this would have shown it was a continuation of a fighter, always fighting and defending the people.

notice how they talk about the "story". how Bush's story is about how he got over his alcoholism and became some born again and some other crap.

Kerry's story would have been that he was a fighter and defender of the people his entire life.he did have priviledges but that didn't stop him from being for the people. and then fill it in with the things i mentioned above.

one of the problems was that this one guy who was very good in helping kerry in the primary, especially with ads was let go and bob schrum got all the power. but it seems it was that guy who was let go who was the genius in telling kerry's story which he did well in the primary.

[LittleClarkie]

9. There always seemed to be some sort of power play in the campaign

But he needs to pick people who haven't lost campaigns before, despite his loyality to Kennedy and the Massachusetts machine.

[JohnnyCougar]

10. He needs a fucking Industrial Psychologist to pick his people.

Hopefully, I will have my PhD by 20008! No more feuds.

[bklyncowgirl]

11. It wouldn't have been close enough to steal.

The John Kerry who took down BCCI is a compelling figure fighting for truth. Sadly, he's one the average American never got to know. I can guarantee you that any voters I spoke to, even generally well informed ones, did not know about BCCI. Instead what the campeign gave us was a cardboard cutout war hero who was easily damaged when doubts were raised about his heroism.

Most average Americans hate partisanship. Here's a politician who was willing to take down prominent members of his own party (Bert Lance, Clark Clifford) in order to protect the country from a gang of theives and terrorists.

Can you say courage and conviction.

He may not have won by a mile but it wouldn't have been close enough to steal.

[bklyncowgirl]

12. Ooops sorry. Duplicate post. n/t