Peter Principles: Dems Close Shop, GOP Closes In

The Democratic National Convention in Boston drew to a close Thursday night when Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts spoke to the delegates to accept the party's presidential nomination.

It has been a long road for the senator to this point, near the pinnacle of U.S. political power. And, if the previous days speeches and activities are any guide, Kerry's speech will top off the convention like vanilla sauce tops of a bowl of vanilla ice cream.

For a party that purports to be as angry as the Democrats are at George W. Bush, the convention has been masterfully free of the kind of cheap shots and major political gaffes that could have left it dead in the water.

There has been no equivalent to the "Democrat wars" remark made by Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan., in the 1976 vice presidential debate or George H.W. Bush's "We kicked a little ass" comment after his debate with former Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, the Democrats' 1984 vice presidential candidate.

The Republicans entered the day loaded for bear, as they have been all week during the extraordinarily effective rapid-response operation set up to express a GOP line of the day through out the Boston convention.

Bush-Cheney '04 Chairman Marc Racicot and GOP Chairman Ed Gillespie led off with an open memo setting out expectations for Kerry's speech.

"After 18 months on the campaign trail and more than $100 million in paid advertising, John Kerry's chief objective," they said Thursday, "will be to introduce himself to Americans. Again.

"We can expect," they said, "a well-crafted speech that pleases Democrats and attempts a pivot to more moderate rhetoric designed to appeal to independent voters. If his convention meets the historical standard for moving a challenger campaign in the polls, the Kerry-Edwards ticket will receive a significant bounce."

The week began dimly when former Democratic National Chairman Ed Rendell, now the governor of the nation's fourth-largest state, told Fox News Channel's Chris Wallace that the party did not expect to get a bounce from the convention.

The convention bounce for the out-of-power party, the Pennsylvania governor explained, comes from the excitement generated by the selection of the vice presidential candidate, not from the convention itself.

If that is the case, the convention has been harmful to Kerry simply because it has not been helpful, something reinforced by the fact that the two most exciting speeches were delivered by former President Bill Clinton and the Rev. Al Sharpton, who in an earlier age might have made an excellent patent medicine salesman, but who electrified the convention Wednesday night when he deviated from his prepared text to blast Bush more forcefully and more soundly than any other Democrat who had appeared before the convention since it was gaveled to order Monday.

The Republicans have been tougher on Kerry in their response operation than the Democrats have been on Bush throughout the convention because the GOP has put forth a vision of who John Kerry is that the Democrats have been unable to match.

In part, this reflects the electoral dynamic of the current election. The most recent Pew Poll of U.S. voter attitudes toward the election found that almost two-thirds of those who said they planned to vote for Kerry were doing so because they wanted to vote against Bush, the Democrat being the most available mechanism for doing so.

By contrast, almost three-quarters of those who said they would vote to re-elect the president were doing so because they supported Bush, not because they hated Kerry.

The GOP learned in 1998 -- far too late for some of the party's most significant leaders -- that the American people had tired of the all the Clinton bashing and, even if everything the anti-Clinton camp alleged were true, the idea that Clinton was a corrupt, dishonest, sexual rogue was not enough to change their vote. In fact, as polls and anecdotal evidence later established, since the economy was strong and the world appeared largely at peace, the counter-culture elements of Clinton's personal life had a sort of odd appeal.

What the Republicans in Boston have been all too happy to point out is that the Democrats' convention has been shocking quiet on the subject of Bush's many foibles.

They are no longer, at least in the convention week, saying Bush lied to get the United States into war in Iraq, that he is a bumbling ex-drunk who has no business being in the White House or, as the MoveOn.org campaign ad contest famously suggested, was a functional U.S. equivalent of Adolf Hitler.

The GOP has been careful to eschew name-calling, at least for its own sake, in favor of what almost anyone could argue was pointed criticism of Kerry's record.

"We are not likely to hear an explanation from John Kerry," Racicot and Gillespie said in their Thursday memo, "as to how he proposes to gain respect in the world by calling our allies in the war on terror 'window dressing,' and a 'coalition of the coerced and the bribed.'"

Kerry will try, they said, "to make up for his vote against our troops on the front lines by pointing to his own service in Vietnam 35 years ago, an explanation that makes his vote even more difficult to understand."

What is equally likely to develop over the next few weeks as the Kerry-Edwards ticket begins its formal general-election campaign across the United States is an effort by the Republicans to link Kerry's indecision on funding U.S. efforts in post-war Iraq to the ugly aftermath of the Vietnam War throughout Southeast Asia.

Some Republicans have charged that Kerry voted to cut off the funds for U.S. troops serving in Iraq. Whether he did -- the GOP will say "Yes" and the Democrats will say "No" -- a debate over the issue will not help Kerry for many reasons, some connected only tangentially to Iraq.

The discussion brings to mind the disgraceful way in which the U.S. Congress, then controlled by historically large margins by the Democrats, pulled the rug out from under the South Vietnamese government by cutting off the U.S. financial and military assistance Washington had promised to provide to Saigon even after the last U.S. troops left the county under Nixon's policy of Vietnamization.

The anti-war Democrats, the liberals elected to office in 1974 in the wake of Watergate, forced the United States into the position of breaking its promise, a fact driven home by the powerful image of a North Vietnamese tank crashing through the gate surrounding what had been the U.S. Embassy in Saigon.

As unpopular as what the Democrats call American unilateralism in foreign policy may be in the corridors of power in Paris and Berlin, the idea that the United States cannot be counted on to keeps its word is even more devastating, a strong ally being less of a global threat than an unreliable one.

With little or no bounce coming out of the convention, the GOP is lining up to launch a major assault on Kerry's more than 20-year record of public service. They acknowledge, as has been the case from the president on down, that Kerry's service in Vietnam was admirable and courageous. The more important issue, which GOP strategists say Kerry must answer with as much conviction as he had while besmirching the reputation of U.S. troops in Vietnam when testifying before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee as party of the Winter Soldiers/Vietnam Veterans Against the War effort, is just what he has done since he left his Swift Boat for the very last time.

The Peter Principles explores issues in national and local politics, U.S. culture and the media. It is written by Peter Roff, UPI political analyst and 20-year veteran of the Washington scene.

It would be the current congress. Recall that Al Gore, as vice-president, had the duty of announcing the electoral vote results. The 12th ammendment is quite clear that if there is no majority, the state House of Representative delegations must immediately thereafter caucus and select from the top three candidates, each state having an equal vote.

However, recall that Amendment XX section 2 which proscribes the beginning of congress where these results are announced (and the state delegation elections to be held immediately thereafter if there is no majority) as January 3 also contains the language "unless they shall by law appoint a different day." This means the current congress could easily attempt to pass the buck to a new congress by simple majority vote.

This is why I think promoting the scenario I've shown above is NOT a bad strategy. Strong Bush states like the Dakotas would be forced to contemplate what would happen if their lone Democrat delegations voted with their party rather than their constituents. Suddenly, their share of federal pork just might not seem so important.

It would be the current congress. Recall that Al Gore, as vice-president, had the duty of announcing the electoral vote results.

No, it would be the new Congress. Al Gore was still vice president only because it wasn't January 20th yet.

There's been heavy analysis of this scenario in other threads, and we've got nothing to worry about in the evet of an EV tie, as the GOP controls an overwhelming number of state delegations, and nobody is expecting the Rats to make any inroads in the House on Election Day. The only creepy consideration is if they somehow manage to pick up two seats in the Senate and regain control there (unlikely, but not outside the realm of possibility), in which case we'd have President Bush and VP Edwards.

Ireally doubt you will see WV go Kerry.. I also personally doubt that Kerry will pull all of PA, Il, Wi, Mi, Mn and Ia.

I know the polls keep showing it close, but I just don't see it... Short of something spectacularly happening betwene now and Nov... I predict a very very solid Bush victory... Not only will Dem's lose, but Bush will do something their Great God and Savior Bubba could not do... win a majority, not only in the electorial college, but among the popular vote as well.

Right now California is only a few points for Kerry... that's INSANE! If the Dems had a strong canidate they should be owning that state by 10 to 20 points.. and they aren't. Same thing with the other left coast states.

I am not suggesting that Bush will win those states, I am just using them as a reference to show exactly how poorly Kerry is supported.

Look this elections for the Dems is about one thing "They Hate Bush" that's it, nothing more... they will vote for anyone so long as its not Bush. However that in and of itself RARELY wins you an election... You can't just run as the NON INCUMBENT and expect to win generally speaking.

Bush is going to dominate in November based on many things... First and most important, the war on Terror will continue... Just like we had news this week of Al Zaqari's arrest.. continued arrests and things will keep happening... of course each time one does this undermine's the argument that the war on Terror is behing handled improperly. IRAQ will continue to improve.... I know Radicals will keep attacking, make no mistake, but as the Civilian government continues to exercise its control on Iraq the argument that the war has no exit or was wrong will fade away, at least with reasonably intelligent and moderate voters.

In the debates there is no doubt Cheney will mop the floor with Mr Edwards... his speech shows without question this guy had no business being in the Senate, let alone a VP. Kerry, will not come across well in the debates at all... While Bush may not be the best off the cuff speaker, Kerry is droll, and will continue to be so. Remember Nixon V Kennedy?... Kennedy won to those who watched, but Nixon won to those who only listened.... this shows us that personability means a lot.. and Kerry has NONE.

It will be a battle, like all elections, but I don't honestly believe that this election will be remotely close... it won't be a Reagan V Mondale... but it won't be close.

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.