Doubts grow over Democrats' choice

The Scotsman ^ | 02.13.04 | ALEX MASSIE

[Beck_isright]

WITH Senator John Kerry all but having won the right to challenge George Bush this November, two phrases will begin to be heard more often. They are "buyers’ remorse" and "the Kerry bubble". Indeed, they are already being heard, as some liberal commentators worry that their party may have just made a dreadful mistake.

It has become fashionable to compare Howard Dean’s campaign to the dotcom revolution that promised the world, but left its investors out of pocket and, in many cases, ruined. Less noticed has been the replacement of Dean-mania by the Kerry bubble. Democrat primary voters have invested their savings in Mr Kerry largely because, well, everyone else seemed to be doing so, and weren’t the media telling us all he was a sure thing?

This is where the "buyers’ remorse" comes in. Sooner, rather than later, Democrats will begin questioning the wisdom of their actions.

It could have been much worse - they could have picked Mr Dean or General Wesley Clark - but betting on Mr Kerry is not necessarily a prudent investment. Forgotten amid Mr Dean’s implosion and Mr Kerry’s consequent comeback is that there were good reasons why his campaign all but fizzled out last year.

Certainly, Mr Kerry galvanised his campaign by shaking up his team, sharpening his stump speech and surrounding himself with fellow Vietnam veterans, but the underlying weaknesses that had pundits discounting his chances last November remain, and nothing that has happened this year has changed that. The Kerry high tide has covered up these perilous rocks, but when the tide recedes, they will be seen in all their danger.

In any case, Mr Bush’s poll ratings compare favourably with Bill Clinton’s in 1996 at the same stage in the electoral cycle. Mr Kerry only just beats Mr Bush in a head-to-head match-up after a terrible month for the president and a great few weeks for Mr Kerry.

Democrats, of course, are banking that Mr Bush’s own problems will outweigh Mr Kerry’s failings. It is true that any election is first a referendum on the incumbent - but it is equally true that the electorate will forgive an incumbent’s weaknesses in the absence of a compelling alternative. Mr Kerry is many things - dogged, determined and tough - but he is not inspiring. And if he is doughty, he is also dissembling and slippery.

As the New Republic showed in 1991, Mr Kerry’s habit of trying to take both sides of an issue is not a new one. On 22 January that year, Mr Kerry wrote to a Massachusetts constituent, saying: "Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On 11 January, I voted in favour of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war."

Nine days later, Mr Kerry wrote to the same constituent: "Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush’s response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf."

Mr Kerry’s staff blamed a computer glitch for this embarrassment, but the senator’s problem is that this attempt to be all things to all men is consistent with other stances he has taken. Indeed, he now faults Mr Bush for failing to recreate the kind of coalition his father assembled on the eve of the first Gulf war even though Mr Kerry was sharply critical of that coalition.

Mr Kerry has voted on war in Iraq twice: both times he has voted according to the prevailing wind within the Democratic Party - against the 1991 war; in favour of the use of force if necessary in 2002. Now he says he was against the war. Or in favour of it but against the way it was done. Or against the theory of the war but not its practice. Or vice versa.

Mr Kerry’s wins in Virginia and Tennessee this week were major victories - but only in the context of the fight for the nomination. They are less useful as indicators that he can challenge the president in the South. It is true that, theoretically, Democrats can cede the South to Mr Bush and still triumph, but doing so means they must all but sweep the Mid-west and pick up Arizona, while winning every state Al Gore, the former Democrat hopeful, won. To do that, though, he must shake off the Massachusetts liberal tag. "That may be the toughest problem he faces - finding a way of bridging the cultural divide. He needs to reassure voters that, culturally, he is one of them," says Will Marshall of the centrist Progressive Policy Institute.

Mr Kerry’s problem is that he has an almost identical voting record in the Senate as his colleague Ted Kennedy, and while Mr Kennedy may be viewed as a grand old man in Washington and Massachusetts, that is not how he is seen in the rest of the US. It’s not hard to imagine the effectiveness of a Republican campaign pointing out Mr Kerry’s past opposition to the death penalty for terrorists or mandatory sentences for drug-dealers convicted of selling heroin to children.

Mr Kerry’s other difficulty is that he appeals more to confirmed Democrats than he does to moderates. Although he has drawn support from across the party, he is strongest on its liberal wing. Just as importantly, perhaps, voters in the primaries have chosen him because they think other voters will like him in November, rather than because they truly believe in him themselves.

The ruling conventional wisdom in Washington these days, prompted both by the memory of George Bush Snr’s 1992 defeat, when many conservatives lost confidence in the president and voted for Ross Perot, and by Mr Dean’s surge in popularity last year, is that swing voters will matter less in this election. Yet, they make up perhaps 10 per cent of the electorate and cannot be ignored in a close call. Those moderate voters have been less impressed by Mr Kerry - and this in a time when almost all coverage he has received has been favourable.

Even the current brouhaha over Mr Bush’s record in the Texas Air National Guard will be of little advantage come November. That card has already been played. It has helped Mr Kerry win the nomination, but it’s a card that can only win one trick.

Republicans respect Mr Kerry, but they don’t fear him. So far, he has been relatively unchallenged and unscrutinised. This may prove, for all the president’s weaknesses, to be the senator’s high water-mark. Caveat emptor.

[Beck_isright]

Isn't it amazing that the overseas press sees these demorat fools better than that 50% of the ignoramaces that vote?

[NormsRevenge]

It's the prevailing wind up the skirt syndrome, perhaps ..

[shhrubbery!]

Well maybe The Scotsman does. I wouldn't put much stock in any of the other overseas press except for The Telegraph.

[onyx]

Republicans respect Kerry? Who, besides John McCain?

[Beck_isright]

The Telegraph is reporting the story also....

[Beck_isright]

It's a rat thing. I'm convinced of it.

[Beck_isright]

You forgot about the beady eyed little weasal from PA...Spectre

[McGavin999]

The turnout in the dem primary has been surprisingly small for a year in which "Bush hate" is supposed to be so strong. I think the dems are in trouble no matter who they run.

The media thinks they can sway opinion, but they have no idea of the power of the bully pulpit that the president commands.

Most people are comfortable with the fact that Dubya is protecting this country. When push comes to shove, being alive will trump any other issue. People kind of like their kids and want to know they actually have a chance to grow up.

[Beck_isright]

I don't think winning a primary with 10% voter turnout (Virginia) is what I would call a "mandate" like Kerrytoon thinks it is...

[onyx]

No, I didn't. His face crossed my mind, but I didn't want to type his name. Is he a Republican? I know. He claims he is. Hurl.

[Beck_isright]

I know. I'm still wiping hurl off of my screen after typing the "it's" name...

[onyx]

LOL! He's real high on Scottish law regardless. I'll not forget his idiotic impeachment vote. I hope he's defeated in the primary. :)

[Beck_isright]

Me to. Specblechbarfpuke is the lowest lifeform since that traitor from RI....

[JohnHuang2]

Excellent analysis.

[dougherty]

Idiots. They are on the road to nominating another Dukasis. If they had any brains they should have supported John Edwards.
But, as the new and dreadful McDonald's commercials say, I'm lovin' it!

[Beck_isright]

Isn't it amazing that the UK writers sometimes look at things much more logically than our own idiots?

[Beck_isright]

" If they had any brains they should have supported John Edwards."

If Hitlery endorses Edwards in the next two weeks, you know where this story came from....

[JohnHuang2]

Yes, indeed. Clear, cogent, no nonsense, straight-shooting.

[Beck_isright]

I'm just waiting to see the Washington Times reaction. I wonder which U.S. paper will be "first" to touch the kryptonite.

[Post Toasties]

Maybe don't want real heavy duty heavy Kash and Kerry remorse setting in just yet. I made a few 'witty' comments in another forum (dominated by Lefties, but not nasties) regarding Kerry , and a couple of them effectively replied, 'fine. Tear Kerry a new one; we'd rather have Edwards anyway'.