Posted on 03/07/2004 10:27:25 AM PST by kennedy
BOSTON -- In nearly 20 years in the Senate, Democrat John Kerry has built a record that is proving fertile soil for President Bush's re-election campaign.
Kerry's votes over the years on the war in Iraq, affirmative action and teacher pay get a detailed airing on the Republican National Committee Web site. Bush has begun targeting Kerry's Senate record in speeches.
"Kerry is going to have to try to make that case that his Washington experience makes him better equipped than Bush, that his background is well-suited to run the country," said Arthur Sanders, a political scientist at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa.
Senators before him have had their problems. Voters this year would end a 40-year trend of not electing sitting senators if they choose Kerry in November. Americans haven't elected a former senator president since Richard Nixon.
Bush will be plumbing Kerry's Senate record for all it's worth.
"The Bush campaign is going to try to paint Kerry as someone who is all over the road, with no consistent philosophy or values," Sanders said, "which tends to fit our prejudices and stereotypes of all politicians."
As members of a deliberative body, senators lack the stand-alone luster of the chief executive. Unlike governors, senators rarely are the final word on any issue.
"As a senator, you're one of 100," said Steve Payne, a Houston lobbyist and prominent Bush supporter. "And oftentimes you're crafting a policy based on what the president, as the chief executive, has already laid out."
Senators, prone to windy floor speeches and the occasional filibuster, also have a different manner of speaking.
Kerry, whose senatorial demeanor was early on judged a stylistic liability, has lightened up considerably since before the Iowa caucuses in January.
Although he suffered by comparison to his former rival, the cheerful Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, Kerry still managed to come off as more lively than Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who also dropped out of the race.
Now it's down to Kerry, the Democratic senator, versus Bush, a Republican former governor generally considered among the more folksy politicians to have occupied the Oval Office.
In Kerry's case, his long experience in Washington could prove an asset in this year's campaign, when foreign policy is expected to claim a prominent role in the debate.
By contrast, the lack of similar policy background put former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who dropped out of the presidential race, frequently on the defensive.
The flipside for Kerry is that his extensive Senate voting record provides Bush and the GOP with a bounty of historical data to target in the campaign. At a fund-raiser last week in California, Bush showed he plans to make use of Kerry's voting history.
"Senator Kerry has been in Washington long enough to take both sides on just about every issue," Bush told supporters.
Kerry, who has expressed regret that he failed to respond to the attacks of opponents earlier in his career, said he is braced for whatever Bush throws at him.
"We have no illusions about the Republican attack machine and what our opponents have done in the past and what they may do in the future," Kerry said earlier this week.
The RNC Web site, which has dossiers on all of the Democratic presidential contenders, notes that Kerry voted against a ban on the late-term abortion procedure called "partial birth," against Bush's tax cuts and against the 1991 Gulf War.
The nonpartisan National Journal rated Kerry the Senate's most liberal member last year, based on his voting record.
In an interview with Fox News, Vice President Dick Cheney, a former House member, said he believes "most Americans would have trouble supporting" Kerry's record.
"He very clearly has over the years adopted a series of positions that indicate a desire to cut the defense budget, cut the intelligence budget, to eliminate many major weapons programs, to vote against, for example, the first Gulf War resolution back in 1991, and his inconsistencies with respect to Iraq," Cheney said.
But looking at Kerry's record in terms of documenting flip-flops or shifts that could signal a change of position for political expediency can overlook the realities of congressional voting, Sanders and others said.
For example, many Democrats, including Kerry, voted against Bush's Medicare package last year because they wanted the bill to provide more help for seniors than the White House was proposing.
"Over the life of a politician, a voting record can reflect nuances and compromises that may not be obvious down the road," Sanders said. "Often, if you look hard enough, you can find the core issues and values."
In the past 30 years, Americans have shown a preference for electing governors to the presidency, in part because federal lawmakers carry the unmistakable marks of the Washington insider.
This year, Bush, as president, might be called the ultimate insider, but Kerry has been a Washington fixture longer.
It's an issue that has resonated with voters particularly since Watergate in the 1970s. In the past few decades, running against Washington has been a good way to get to Washington.
Both Dean and Edwards, who served less than one full term in the Senate, ran as Washington outsiders. When Bush ran for president in 2000, he played up his outsider credentials.
"Governors have executive positions, and senators are seen as part of the Washington mafia," said Chris Reardon, a political scientist at the University of New Hampshire.
Even so, whether Bush or Kerry is the bigger Washington insider is not likely to be a major campaign issue, although it was a prominent topic in the Democratic primary race.
"If Kerry goes down in flames, it will be for reasons other than having been a senator," said Bruce Buchanan, professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin.
Kerry voted for authorizing war with Iraq, but on the campaign trail he is pointedly critical of the way Bush went to war, saying he opposes the administration's decision to go to war without international support.
But so far, Kerry has not said whether he believes the war was a mistake, a position that is disputed by slightly more than half the population, according to several polls.
Either way, Kerry has indicated his intentions to fight back against Republican salvos on his record.
While Bush might not have a 19-year voting history, he has established a record as a president that seems to give Democrats stronger ammunition than his service as governor of Texas did in 2000.
Kerry's campaign is already swatting at Bush over the economy, health care, jobs and the deficit.
"George Bush has lost credibility with the American people," said Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter. "He said he would create 3.9 million jobs, but 3 million people have lost their jobs. He said he would make health care more affordable, but 2.8 million more have lost health insurance."
Those are the rules for this election. Just ask the media.
But barely a mention in the mainstream media.
These reasons exist.
And Bush being a former Governor and the sitting POTUS makes him...what exactly?
Bush needs to throw conventional wisdom out the window and crush Kerry as the anti-war rallying with Fonda/liberal Senate voting record/former Lt. Gov of Dukakis/gigolo scumbag that he is. Or else we might see a rerun of the 2000 election.
And he is prettier than Hillary Clinton, and thinner than Ted Kennedy!
I don't know that I'd go that far.
Basically there have been two senators elected president in my lifetime--Kennedy and Nixon, and in each case (Kennedy v. Nixon and Nixon v. Humphrey) the opponent was also a senator (and sitting vice president, as well).I am unsure but doubtful that any other senators were elected president, in the whole history of the country. It should be remembered that senators weren't directly elected until the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified . . .
Generally people who are elected president are men who had executive experience as governor, or occasionally as general. Or else sitting presidents who inherited the office. By that standard Kerry has quite a row to hoe to unseat an incumbent. And that's without considering the fact that all elected presidents have attained national office within 16 years of attaining to a governorship or senate seat--and Kerry is in his 20th year in the Senate. Besides, he failed in a bid for the governorship of Massachusetts. Gee, he wasn't good enough for the yellow-dog Democrat state of Massachusetts, and now he is going to win the presidency??
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.