Spotlight, er … Target: John Kerry
After several days of breathless coverage of the new frontrunner, John Kerry, the hammer came down over the weekend with the shocking news that Sen. Kerry is a liberal – and has been for a long time! Not just a liberal – an icky “cautious” liberal, according to a piece by Todd Purdum in today’s New York Times
It’s too bad that the so-called liberal media (henceforth: SCLM, with apologies to Al Franken) doesn’t just designate, say, a one-week period before any of the caucuses or primaries take place, to flay each candidate. That way, voters would learn about candidates’ weak spots well in advance of an election. Instead, the strictures of “objective” journalism dictate that a candidate first has to be able to be defined somehow as a “front-runner” and then has to actually take on criticism from his or her rivals. At that point, reporters not only dutifully report on the attacks, but then they start their piling on with more detailed background pieces like Purdum’s.
Hardly able to conceal their glee at the possibility of facing a “Massachusetts liberal” this fall, the Republicans, in the form of a speech by RNC chair Ed Gillespie, dangled the red meat of Kerry’s voting record in the Senate in front of the rabid-right carnivores attending the Conservative Political Action Committee convention on Friday.
And Democratic rivals, apparently too caught up in looking positive and presidential to confront Kerry head-on, have been priming reporters with background information to be used by the likes of Purdum in his piece today.
It’s a potentially strong claim that goes to the electability question, but it strikes me that Democrats Dean, Edwards, and Clark should have been making it an issue as of Wednesday morning, and certainly at Thursday’s debate. It may be too late to turn the tables on Kerry before Tuesday’s primary.
Bushies love to run against liberals. HW, of course, famously succeeded against the hapless Michael Dukakis, but W also did a fair amount of liberal bashing against Al Gore. And though the SCLM dutifully passed along the inside-Washington line that Howard Dean was too liberal to be elected, it has always been Kerry who is the most vulnerable to that kind of campaign, because he has a nearly 20-year voting record in the Senate to defend.
Also of interest is the fact that Kerry voted against the first Gulf War, which lends some credence to the claim that his vote in favor of the invasion of Iraq in 2002 was politically expedient. In any event, I can see the general election debate over Iraq:
Bush: “Sen. Kerry supported the war, but once our troops were over there and we had defeated Saddam’s army and Sen. Kerry’s campaign was taking flak for supporting the war, Sen. Kerry decided he was against our occupation of Iraq. Whether you agree with me or not, I thought the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do; I didn’t do it for political expediency.”
Kerry (red-faced): “Mr. President, as a combat veteran of Vietnam, how dare you question my support of our troops…”
Bush: “Senator. I honor your service in Vietnam just like I honor the service of those brave men and women fighting in Iraq right now, but when you voted against the appropriation bill last year, you turned your back on them when your campaign started to lose ground.”
Then on domestic policy, it will be “liberal, liberal, liberal.”
Oh, and there is this, possible Bush ad:
Voiceover: “John Kerry’s only experience in the executive branch was as lieutenant governor to …” – cut to picture of Michael Dukakis in the tank.
OK, so the Bushies would have to be pretty desperate to haul out Dukakis-in-a-tank, but I do think they will paint Kerry as an out-of-touch elitist liberal on domestic policy while painting his stance on Iraq as unprincipled.
From what I’ve seen so far, I don’t think Kerry will be very good at fending off those attacks. He doesn’t have the pedigree. His toughest campaign for the Senate was against William Weld, not exactly an arch-conservative Republican.
It’s too bad that the so-called liberal media (henceforth: SCLM, with apologies to Al Franken) doesn’t just designate, say, a one-week period before any of the caucuses or primaries take place, to flay each candidate. That way, voters would learn about candidates’ weak spots well in advance of an election. Instead, the strictures of “objective” journalism dictate that a candidate first has to be able to be defined somehow as a “front-runner” and then has to actually take on criticism from his or her rivals. At that point, reporters not only dutifully report on the attacks, but then they start their piling on with more detailed background pieces like Purdum’s.
Hardly able to conceal their glee at the possibility of facing a “Massachusetts liberal” this fall, the Republicans, in the form of a speech by RNC chair Ed Gillespie, dangled the red meat of Kerry’s voting record in the Senate in front of the rabid-right carnivores attending the Conservative Political Action Committee convention on Friday.
And Democratic rivals, apparently too caught up in looking positive and presidential to confront Kerry head-on, have been priming reporters with background information to be used by the likes of Purdum in his piece today.
It’s a potentially strong claim that goes to the electability question, but it strikes me that Democrats Dean, Edwards, and Clark should have been making it an issue as of Wednesday morning, and certainly at Thursday’s debate. It may be too late to turn the tables on Kerry before Tuesday’s primary.
Bushies love to run against liberals. HW, of course, famously succeeded against the hapless Michael Dukakis, but W also did a fair amount of liberal bashing against Al Gore. And though the SCLM dutifully passed along the inside-Washington line that Howard Dean was too liberal to be elected, it has always been Kerry who is the most vulnerable to that kind of campaign, because he has a nearly 20-year voting record in the Senate to defend.
Also of interest is the fact that Kerry voted against the first Gulf War, which lends some credence to the claim that his vote in favor of the invasion of Iraq in 2002 was politically expedient. In any event, I can see the general election debate over Iraq:
Bush: “Sen. Kerry supported the war, but once our troops were over there and we had defeated Saddam’s army and Sen. Kerry’s campaign was taking flak for supporting the war, Sen. Kerry decided he was against our occupation of Iraq. Whether you agree with me or not, I thought the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do; I didn’t do it for political expediency.”
Kerry (red-faced): “Mr. President, as a combat veteran of Vietnam, how dare you question my support of our troops…”
Bush: “Senator. I honor your service in Vietnam just like I honor the service of those brave men and women fighting in Iraq right now, but when you voted against the appropriation bill last year, you turned your back on them when your campaign started to lose ground.”
Then on domestic policy, it will be “liberal, liberal, liberal.”
Oh, and there is this, possible Bush ad:
Voiceover: “John Kerry’s only experience in the executive branch was as lieutenant governor to …” – cut to picture of Michael Dukakis in the tank.
OK, so the Bushies would have to be pretty desperate to haul out Dukakis-in-a-tank, but I do think they will paint Kerry as an out-of-touch elitist liberal on domestic policy while painting his stance on Iraq as unprincipled.
From what I’ve seen so far, I don’t think Kerry will be very good at fending off those attacks. He doesn’t have the pedigree. His toughest campaign for the Senate was against William Weld, not exactly an arch-conservative Republican.
posted by JFH @ 10:32 PM
<< Home