Posted on 02/12/2004 12:19:07 AM PST by kcvl
John Kerry is now in the crosshairs
By Bill Cotterell
CAPITAL CURMUDGEON
In six or eight months, it might be hard to remember that "Massachusetts liberal" is really two words.
You might recall how, in 1984, former U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick coined the term "San Francisco Democrats" for the unconventional convention that nominated Walter Mondale. You couldn't call it an attack, exactly, but the label cleverly conveyed an image of a party badly out of touch with mainstream America.
If Sen. John Kerry is the Democratic nominee for president, a deal sealed at a convention not far from his Beacon Hill home, we can expect to hear a lot about Massachusetts and its quirky politics. How do you beat a Boston liberal? Well, you take a little Willie Horton and add some taxes, pour in the "soft on crime" and add just a guilt-ridden dash of gay marriage. ...
"We know how to beat standard-issue national Democrats. We do it regularly," strategist Grover Norquist said in The New York Times last weekend. Calling Kerry "a Massachusetts liberal whose voting record is nearly identical to Ted Kennedy's" is worth 45 percent of the vote, Norquist figures, "and that's the starting point."
Bush himself will remain above it all - looking presidential with the economy, education and homeland defense. In his State of the Union speech, Bush showed he knows how to handle a gift like the gay-marriage ruling from Massachusetts' highest court.
"If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people will be the constitutional process," he said. That moves the focus from discrimination - as the Democrats want to cast the debate - to activist judges, an image Republicans prefer.
Aside from appealing to Bush's conservative base, the "activist judges" idea was the first salvo in an accelerating GOP counterattack. Another big step was a "Meet the Press" interview, in which Bush defended his military record as both a wartime commander in chief and a young lieutenant 30 years ago.
With his heroic service in Vietnam, Kerry is probably not the opponent White House political chief Karl Rove wanted. But 20 years of representing a very liberal state gave him a record that Republicans can make a millstone out of.
Much of it was outlined in 1996, when then-Gov. William Weld lost a tough Senate race to Kerry. Weld didn't "go negative" on gay rights, affirmative action, federal funding of the arts or partial-birth abortion, since he and Kerry agreed on those things.
Rove, working through surrogates and independent campaign committees, won't be so agreeable.
There was, for instance, Kerry's support of a 50-cent increase in gasoline taxes. Good for the environment, perhaps the sort of thing they discuss over a latte and Belgian endive in Cambridge, but not so good for a presidential candidate who says he'll raise taxes only on the rich.
Ditto Social Security. The New Republic last week noted that in 1996 Kerry said it was "wacky" that Social Security taxes didn't apply to earnings above $62,700 and said Congress should consider both raising the retirement age and means-testing benefits. You think the Republicans might bring that up?
Kerry opposed a 16-hour work requirement for two-parent families receiving welfare benefits. Although he voted for the 1996 welfare-reform package, Kerry voted against a "learnfare" requirement that kids stay in school and a "family cap" that prevented states from increasing benefits for recipients who had more children while on welfare.
And don't forget that old standby, crime. Bush's father flayed Michael Dukakis in 1988 for his support of a Massachusetts prison-furlough program in which about 500 murderers and sex offenders could get an occasional weekend pass. Kerry, lieutenant governor under Dukakis, defended the program as tough.
Just a hunch - if weekend furloughs are your idea of "tough on crime," maybe you shouldn't run against a guy who had so many executions in Texas.
In the Senate, Kerry voted against mandatory prison sentences for gang activity, gun offenses and selling drugs to minors (he later changed his position on that last one). Those were defensible positions, since these shouldn't be federal matters; but then, neither was the Pledge of Allegiance, when supporters of Bush's father bedeviled Dukakis with that red, white and blue herring in 1988.
And he introduced legislation to provide Supplemental Security Income for those whose only disability is alcoholism or drug addiction. It was the compassionate thing to do, Kerry will explain. Government cash for crackheads, Republicans will reply.
By November, we may all be a little nostalgic for the high level of political discourse we saw, the last time Democrats nominated a Massachusetts liberal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, those mean Republicans, so dastardly as to reveal an opponent's record. (If they were nice like the rats they would just call him an AWOL liar!)
If they actually liked those positions, they wouldn't be swing voters, they'd be Democrats. Conclusion: Kerry might get the Democrat base (30% of the vote) but not much more. A defeat of monumental proportions.
First, W didn't "have" so many executions in Texas, the people of the State of Texas did. He played his constitutional role in them, supporting the laws and the people of the State of Texas. Other than that the point is valid.
There was, for instance, Kerry's support of a 50-cent increase in gasoline taxes. Good for the environment, perhaps the sort of thing they discuss over a latte and Belgian endive in Cambridge, but not so good for a presidential candidate who says he'll raise taxes only on the rich.Gore ran in 2000 advocating a "carbon tax" of $2 a gallon. That wasn't a campaign issue because Gore had such ubiquitous media support. Everyone needs to take a chain saw to Kerry about this issue -- particularly as gasoline prices march on toward $2 a gallon due to OPEC.
Actually, this one might prove oddly beneficial to Bush also. It's giving the Democrats a false sense of confidence that they can run a campaign with national defense as a centerpiece. Which is really quite stupid of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.