Kerry 'on vacation': the risks and rewards

WASHINGTON – Over the years, presidential downtime has fleshed out the image of the man - whether it be clearing brush (Reagan and Bush II) or speed-boating (Bush I) or hunting (Teddy Roosevelt). All presidents need to show the public they're not captured by work, and that they know how to recharge their batteries. But what about presidential- candidate downtime? As Democratic standard-bearer John Kerry relaxes at his home in Ketchum, Idaho, there's a calculation at work that he can vanish from public view for five days without the Bush campaign filling the void with the definitive (read: negative) take on who Senator Kerry is.

"I would say this ought to be the guy's last vacation if he wants to be elected," says independent pollster Del Ali, looking back to both the 1992 and '88 elections as the best and worst examples of how to run for president. "If the Democrats learned anything from Bill Clinton, this is a 24-hour-a-day job. If you want to be the commander in chief and you want to beat an incumbent, you've got to work your butt off."

In contrast, 1988 Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis took a 10-day vacation right after his party's summer convention and his campaign never recovered.

Return to 2004: It's only March, the nomination race has wrapped up in record time, and the public is barely paying attention to politics. Kerry adviser Michael Meehan argues that "with the nomination nominally in hand, he has earned the vacation." From Jan. 1, 2004, through March 17, Mr. Kerry never took more than a day off on a couple of occasions, he adds. Other Democrats note that Kerry barely took any time off after surgery in February 2003. In an e-mail, Mr. Meehan says Kerry plans to "rest, ride his bike, maybe ski."

He is there only with his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, who along with her late husband, Sen. John Heinz, had imported the $4.9 million home from England.

The traveling press corps staying nearby is on the lookout for anything to say or photograph - and Kerry may well oblige with some scenes of vigorous activity. His campaign has, after all, been well-served by testosterone-laden images of Kerry hunting, riding a motorcycle, and playing hockey. Ketchum, Idaho, also raises the memory of macho icon Ernest Hemingway, who had his last home there.

But the well-oiled Bush campaign isn't about to cut Kerry slack. Polls show the public still doesn't have a clear view of Kerry beyond the sense that he is a "generic Democrat," says Mr. Ali, the pollster. This week, the Bush team - most pointedly, Vice President Cheney - has pounded Kerry on his record on military issues. Before leaving for Idaho, Kerry hit back, accusing President Bush of arrogance in foreign policy and overextending US forces.

During Kerry's absence, the Bush team will stay on attack, while Kerry's side will make do with surrogates, such as Wesley Clark and Howard Dean.

Democratic strategist Jenny Backus says there's no risk in relying on surrogates for a few days. "We are in a season of slings and arrows right now, not nuclear bombs," she says. "These are skirmishes. A smart commander knows when to rest your troops and when to send folks out to the front line."

Earlier this week, though, Kerry found that surrogates aren't always the best spokespeople for his cause. When Governor Dean said - in a conference call Tuesday set up by the Kerry campaign - that Mr. Bush's decision to send troops to Iraq appeared to be related to the bombings in Spain, Kerry the next day distanced himself from the comment.

The Bush team doesn't even need Kerry himself out on the stump to keep skewering him, with the senator's vast trove of public statements to work with. In his speech Wednesday, Mr. Cheney got a big laugh from his audience when he quoted Kerry saying "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." The senator had been complaining that Bush was not adequately supplying troops in Iraq, but in the end, he voted against the $87 billion legislation for reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Kerry seems to have fallen back into his pattern during the primaries of reacting only defensively to opponents' charges, rather than taking the offensive, too. The lessons of the '92 Clinton campaign can't be reinforced enough, says Del Ali, the pollster.

"Bill Clinton was politically the best counterpuncher in the 20th century," says Ali. "If you threw a jab at Clinton, he'd hit back three or four times."

The Kerry team fought back against Cheney's jabs, noting that Cheney had favored some of the same cuts in weapons programs as Kerry.

March 18, 2004

John Kerry Hits The Slopes In Sun Valley

By Starlyn Klein

KETCHUM -
Taking a break from his campaign trail after officially winning the democratic nomination this week, presidential candidate John Kerry is spending some time on the slopes in Sun Valley and at his home in Ketchum.

The snowboarding Senator took a brief break between runs before heading back on the lift telling Idaho 2 News that he was having a great time.

According to Kerry's press secretary, there's no other place Kerry would rather vacation. "He loves Idaho. It's beautiful country out here. His wife and family have been coming here for years and years. It's a special place and it was important to him to take a break from the campaign trail and this is where he wanted to be," said Kerry's Press Secretary, David Wade.

Even though Senator Kerry is snowboarding at a local resort and security is high, the people we talked with say it didn't effect their day on the slopes.

"This community is used to celebrities and they haven't shut down the mountain so he can ski it so it hasn't impacted us," said skier David Barovetto.

"It didn't hold us up one bit. In fact he rode up two chairs behind us and they didn't clear people out or anything like that. They just let everybody go. There was absolutely no problem. It was great," said Sun Valley resident Tom Henderson.

"I think it's great. This is his home. He has every right to ski and be here. I think it's wonderful and good for the area," said Ketchum resident and skier, Heidi Boock.

After this brief break Kerry's press secretary says it's back to the political arena and a campaign that will be kicked into high gear. "We know we have a fight ahead of us but he's good in a fight. He's a fighter," said Wade.

John Kerry’s Fatal Conceit

March 19, 2004

by Roger Wm. Hughes

Fredrich A. Hayek wrote a book titled “The Fatal Conceit” that is multi-layered in its many messages and lessons. However, the book reduces the flaws of socialism to one major fatal conceit that an individual or a group of individuals can know everything. This, of course, is necessary for social planning and therefore for socialism to be successful.

Senator John Kerry’s fatal conceit is that he believes his service in Vietnam equates to our blind trust in his ability to protect America.

Howard Dean on NBC’s Meet the Press stated the Presidential election will be about jobs, "after all either I or Kerry would protect America and fight the War on Terrorism."

This conceit leads them to believe that because there is a War on Terrorism, America will trust just anyone to handle it.

Coinciding with Kerry’s conceit that his service in Vietnam equates to blind trust in his ability to protect America is the other false premise -- that Iraq is the wrong war at the wrong time and the wrong place and we are failing.

In short, Kerry’s argument is, “lets get on with the issues of jobs, healthcare and education.” After all, Kerry’s fatal conceit concludes, he can fight the War on Terrorism as well as Bush -- if not better.

CAN HE?

For a moment, let us forego Kerry’s past record of voting to decimate our national defense and C.I.A. Let us instead examine the key component of the Democrats’ proposal to fix the Bush problem by "Internationalizing the War."

Kerry has referenced our current coalition partners as the “bribed and coerced.” However, the two key players Kerry is really saying are lacking from our coalition are France and Germany.

Robert Kagan writes in “Of paradise and power: America and Europe in the new world order” that France and Germany have an alliance and a desire to "limit’ America’s power. Kagan also writes that the conflict in Iraq was greater than France, Germany and Russia’s financial interest in continuing to make money from the Saddam Hussein regime. It was also about the fact that America has provided an unparalleled level of security to "Old Europe" – so much so that they have come to believe we can all just ‘sit down and talk it out.’ In short, they do not subscribe to Bismarck’s "real politics." … that is, if people are shooting at you, you should do something about it.

The other thing that is enormously disturbing about Kerry’s position is that it is reminiscent of the two erroneous foreign policy assumptions of the Clinton administration. One was that the long history of geopolitical conflict had come to an end. The second was that international politics would center around globalization and environmental issues, déjà vu.

Will America buy into this viewpoint on how America should defend itself?

Polls indicate the answer is no. This, despite Kerry’s attempts to show that he would be a better defender of America by attacking Bush for not taking care of veterans and cutting their benefits -- something that is not altogether true.

The truth is, Bush’s taking on Saddam Hussein has made America safer and stronger. It enforced several U.N. resolutions that weren’t being enforced -- one of the real reasons for going into Iraq. It has changed the dynamics of power in the region and is achieving results from Libya, Yemen, Iran and Syria. Democracy in Iraq will be devastating to our enemies. The Democrats’ position that Israel and Palestine must be solved first has been proven to be equally wrong, but our success in Iraq will also help gain progress with the Israel/ Palestine problem.

So, the question is: why would America elect someone who has voted against funding for 24 critical weapon systems, wants to give greater influence to France and Germany whose goal is to curtail our power, voted to cut funding for the C.I.A., thinks we should have waited for the United Nations and criticizes our current coalition members and allies as being coerced or bribed?

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.