Posted on 10/19/2004 5:55:30 AM PDT by SmithPatterson
Right Now, Bush Scares Voters More Than Kerry By Mort Kondracke
The presidential race seems to have come down to this: which candidate can scare the public most about his opponent and reassure people about himself. Judging by their tactics in the final presidential debate, President Bush and Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) are each trying to tell voters, "You're much safer with me," both in the war on terrorism and in facing the nation's domestic challenges.
And, judging by opinion polls, the public is as split down the middle as it's ever been - which represents a gain for Kerry from where he stood before the debates began.
Bush campaign officials think they are about 2 points up on Kerry nationally, but they acknowledge that five states Bush carried in 2000 are in danger - in order of worry, New Hampshire, Florida, Colorado, Ohio and Nevada.
Kerry campaign strategist Tad Devine claims that Kerry, by winning the debates and closing the polling gap, has seized the momentum and will be able to score "saves" in threatened blue states like New Mexico, Iowa and Wisconsin.
Contrary to analyses that suggested that Kerry's strategy in the final debate was to court women while Bush's was to solidify his conservative base, I thought both candidates sought to reassure voters about themselves and paint a vote for the opponent as dangerous.
While it's Bush's line that Kerry is on "the far left bank" rather than in "the mainstream," Kerry is also portraying Bush as an extreme, radical ideologue, in contrast to his own pledge to solve problems in a traditional, moderate way.
And Bush claimed to be a "compassionate conservative" reformer whose policies are succeeding. "Freedom is on the march," he said, the economy is on the way back, and he will solve the problems of the 21st century.
I think the danger for Bush is that his policies - such as preventive war, Social Security reform and health savings accounts - are novel and risky.
Kerry, as The Washington Post's Dana Milbank correctly pointed out on Friday, did not appear in the debates to fulfill the caricature sketched by Bush backers of a "spineless, vacillating opportunist" or a "beaded leftist."
Right out of the box on Wednesday night, Kerry pledged that he will conduct foreign policy in the tradition of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and John Kennedy, whereas Bush "rushed to war, pushed allies away" and made America "not as safe as we ought to be."
Bush has powerful weapons to use against Kerry on foreign policy, especially Kerry's vote against the 1991 Persian Gulf War. But in last week's debate Bush didn't use them to deliver a knockout punch.
Bush did say that "in 1990, there was a vast coalition put together to run Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The international community ... said this was the right thing to do. But when it came to the authorization of the use of force on the Senate floor, my opponent voted against the use of force."
This reads well on paper, but Bush didn't set it up properly in the debate, and it came off almost as an aside.
Still to come is an ad that features Kerry on CBS' "Face the Nation" last September, declaring it would be "irresponsible" and "reckless" for any U.S. Senator to vote against $87 billion for Iraq, "abandoning our troops" and "cutting and running" - and then points out that, a month later, Kerry did vote "No."
On domestic policy, to counter Bush's claims that he's a tax-and-spend liberal, Kerry sought to show that he was a moderate champion of the middle class who "voted for tax cuts over 600 times, broke with my party in order to balance the budget" and now wants to cut corporate taxes to create jobs.
Kerry claims not only that Bush's economic policies have made him the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs, but also that Bush opposed an increase in the minimum wage while cutting taxes for the rich and endangering Social Security.
Bush plans to allow younger workers to divert part of their Social Security taxes into private savings accounts. This is a good idea in itself, but Kerry pointed out that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that this would take away $2 trillion needed to pay benefits for current retirees.
"My fellow Americans," said Kerry, "that's an invitation to disaster. ... There would be a $2 trillion hole in Social Security because today's workers pay into the system for today's retirees. ... There would have to be a cut in benefits of 25 percent to 40 percent."
Similarly, on health care, Bush wants reforms that make consumers conscious of costs. This, too, is a good idea. But Kerry is offering familiar solutions - expansion of Medicaid and tax credits to allow citizens to buy into the federal employee health system.
Bush is trying to scare voters by calling the Kerry plan "government-run health" that will cost $5 trillion. "I believe the role of government is to stand side by side with our citizens to help them realize their dreams, not tell citizens how to live their lives," Bush said.
In turn, Kerry tried to scare voters by saying that Bush's judicial appointees might overturn Roe v. Wade - something Bush didn't deny. Bush also said he'd save marriage from "activist judges" by amending the Constitution to prevent gays from marrying. Kerry says that Bush will reinstitute the draft.
So, who's scarier? I'd say Bush, because traditionalist policies aren't up to the challenges of the 21st century. But, in the voting booth, voters may be scared to face those challenges.
Kondracke's points make no sense if you look at the responses in recent polls. On nearly ever national security issue Bush is deemed better or more effective than Kerry by a 10 point margin. Is that how a scared electorate responds?
On domestic issues, traditionally a Dem stronghold, Bush and Kerry are statistically tied in areas like education and health care. Really, which candidate do voters seem to be scared of?
I will say this though: I don't think the Bush team has been very sharp in the post-debate spin. That could end up being dangerous as we know the "undecided" voters make Kerry look like a flip-flop amateur.
Mort has shown contempt at times for Dem dirty tricks. However, he makes it clear that he is hugely for stem cell research and that gays should be allowed to marry.
At least Mort doesn't go "uh, uh, umm, uh" when he writes, like he does on the Fox panel.
Fundamentally, Mort is a one-issue guy (like Andrew Sullivan). In Mort's case, it's stem-cell research and his worldview is driven by his wife's illness and death. He beyond any rational debate on this topic. Because Bush came out with a stem-cell research policy that wasn't 100% "abort-all-fetuses-and-use-their-cells!", he has declared war on Bush. Very similar to Sullivan's gay-marriage obsession.
He's a beaded leftist whose wife bought him an expensive suit. He's a spineless, vacillating opportunist whose party bought him some expensive debate coaches. ;)
Risky as opposed to what? Appeasing the terrorists in the hope they will kill us more slowly? Riding Social Security into the ditch and then imposing Swedish levels of taxation on our children? Empowering government to ration health care?
Is Kondracke always this muddled in his thinking... I admit I dont know much about MK apart from his appearances on Brit Hume's All Star Panel... where he basically appears to go into brain lock and goes um..um..um at least twice per sentence.
But this just shows how addle-plated his mind really is. I will never look at his appearances the same way again.. he is just a warmed over LEFTY who at least is not a flaming Bomb Thrower...
I agree with you, I note the poster of this thread hasn't been with us for very long.
Phd., huh? Bush probably scares her because she never expected to consider voting for a Republican!
Mort is equally in favor of same sex marriage. I have heard him many times say the DOMA is unfair, etc. He is a gentleman but not a conservative.
Very true. My point was only that for Mort, the stem-cell issue transcends all others. And he never claimed to be a conservative; quite the opposite, actually.
Mort knows that Milbank is a vile liar and smear merchant of the lowest order. Why the hell is he quoting him? This is not the best analysis I have seen Mort do, and quite frankly I am disappointed in the quality of work.
You have a problem with reality? You cant make the adjustments you need to win if you are looking at the world through ideological delusions. You seem to have the same disease that led a long time liberal in NYC to say the day after the McGovern debacle in 72, "Nixon couldnt have won, everyone I know voted for McGovern." So every post has to make you feel good, has to reinforce your existing beliefs?
I doubt many of those complaining about the article actually read more than a paragraph before they dismissed it. Kondracke merely pointed out that Kerry was able to convince most voters that he wasnt as scary as Bush had presented him in ads prior to the debates. He might not be particularly likelable but he wasnt a waffler wearing beads. And because Bush is an activist President with a real activist agenda (preventive war, Social Security reform, etc) its likely that slightly more voters view him as the slightly more risky choice. If you listened to Kondracke on Fox you would know that he admires Bush for those reasons. About the only issues that Kondracke disagrees with Bush are medical issues. Kondracke's wife just died just prior to one of the conventions this year after a decades long fight with Parkinsons. He is a strong supporter of increased spending on finding cures for Parkinsons and other diseases. He was a good friend of Christopher Reeves and serves on the board of directors of Michael J. Foxes Parkinson organization.
Still bitter about embryonic stem-cells, eh Mort?
If you look in many of those same polls where Bush is deemed a more effective leader and better able to win the war on terror and deal with the economy, and deal with Iraq, Bush still is tied with Kerry. You can see that in this mornings Rassmussen and Zogby polls. How do you explain that? Either the public is schizoid or polling is really flakey this year. My great hope is that many people who are afraid to admit they are voting for Bush actually plan to do so. It may be the converse of how an African American candidate will often poll better than they actually do at the polls.
In what universe would more voters feel safer with Kerry?
Kondracke's points make no sense if you look at the responses in recent polls. On nearly ever national security issue Bush is deemed better or more effective than Kerry by a 10 point margin. Is that how a scared electorate responds?
I REALLY like your screen name and your tag line!
Let's Roll (For a guy who shirks his own job, Kerry sure is eager to tell others what they should do ...)
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.