IS KERRY A WIMPISH CANDIDATE?

Josh Marshall takes on the question: should Kerry be more on the attack?

There's a related line of criticism from Kerry's Democratic partisans. Why is he so silent? With the mix of poor values and incompetent leadership that is at the heart of the Abu Ghraib scandal, why isn't he out there affirmatively making the case against the president?
...
Now, as I say, the partisan polarization will intensify in the coming months. And that will help the president in many ways, getting some of the attention off him and on to Kerry. But a judgment about the president like the one I've described above, once made, can be hard to unmake. And for the moment, with so many of the president's actions delivering abysmal dividends to the nation he's led, that judgment is being made against the president. So, for the moment, I'm not sure having Kerry give Bush center stage is such a bad thing.

Josh, as always, makes some excellent points. But I'd like to add one more. Like it or not, many Americans who are now questioning the wisdom of Bush's tactics in the wars on terror, the economy, the environment and education, still strongly identify with the guy with the bullhorn on 9/14/01 reassuring the nation and promising a tough response to the terrorists. An attack of the wrong kind is like an insult to those who have supported the president for so long and well. I would counter that John Kerry should be attacking POLICIES, STRATEGIES AND TACTICS, not Bush personally. The Shrub is so incompetent, and has surrounded himself with such incompetents, they will hang themselves.

Kerry's best position is to present himself as "presidential," exhibiting a sorrow, not a pleasure, that the US has been so ill-served by the current administration, and a confidence that he has a "better way." On Iraq, it is impossible (and he should say so) for him to offer an "alternative solution" since the facts on the ground change daily. But as long as he continues to support "staying the course," (and let's hope it won't be long) he should remind American voters that he supported the president on the Iraq resolution and the Patriot Act, Leave No Child Behind, etc., out of a sincere patriotic, bipartisan spirit, but that in all instances the Bush administration has proven to be light on follow-through. He should offer instead an "alternative administration" -- he should form RIGHT NOW a "shadow government" with such independence of special interests, integrity, credentials and credibility that, contrasted with the Bush Cabinet, the American people will respond positively, with hope and a vote in his favor.

So what if some of Bush's long-time supporters can't bring themselves to vote for Kerry? So long as they STAY HOME on election day, we win.