Posted on 03/07/2004 11:17:12 AM PST by Kuksool
Within hours of John F. Kerry's last challenge of the primary season to "bring it on," George W. Bush brought it on. In commercials and campaign speeches, Bush has Kerry in his sights. The battle has been joined.
Kerry is a fighter, as he has already shown not just on the campaign trail but in the jungles of Vietnam. In the Mekong Delta, Kerry went straight at the enemy, beaching his Navy swift boat and charging ashore, when more prudent commanders would have chosen evasion or retreat.
But there's a different strategy Kerry should consider as he maps out his general election campaign: A flanking maneuver on Bush's right.
Kerry is already taking a beating for what the Bushies characterize as a record of flip-flops (when they aren't characterizing it as a record of consistent, unabashed liberalism, that is). So Kerry should be careful about changing long-held positions. But he shouldn't hesitate to present his positions as evolving. Ordinary voters have seen their own positions evolve on issues like Iraq, taxes, deficits and gay rights. They'll forgive a candidate with the guts to simply say, "I've changed my mind."
But to mount a challenge to Bush's right, Kerry need not change his mind, just his emphasis and some of his language. Consider a few lines Kerry could work into his new stump speech:
Support the troops, not the defense contractors. While Halliburton is skimming millions in inflated charges, most of our troops in Iraq ride in unarmored Humvees more suited to suburban malls than battle zones. They write home asking for body armor instead of cookies. They order boots from LL Bean because the army-issue boots can't handle the desert. Kerry should hold the Bush Administration responsible.
Stop the unfunded mandates. In Republican Utah, the state House has voted to reject No Child Left Behind because the cost far outweighs the new federal school aid. Either provide the funding promised by NCLB and the federal special education law, Kerry should say, or drop the requirements.
Protect the homeland. Our ports are woefully unprotected, chemical plants are vulnerable and uninspected cargo is still being loaded onto passenger planes. Tom Ridge's color codes are a joke, not a plan. Kerry should promise to stop shortchanging homeland security.
Respect states' rights. John Ashcroft's federal agents have overridden the will of voters in several states that have approved the medical use of marijuana. He's gone to court to stop Oregon's assisted suicide law. Now Bush wants to make marriage a federal issue. Kerry should echo Reagan: Washington doesn't have all the answers.
Close the intelligence gap. We're counting on the same people who blew it on Iraq's WMD to find the insurgents in Iraq and terrorists around the world. Kerry should promise to fire CIA chief George Tenet and reform the intelligence structure from top to bottom.
Stop letting right-wing preachers set government policy. They are gagging Americans trying to stop the spread of AIDS overseas and stifling stem cell research here at home that could save countless lives. Kerry should promise to get the ideology out of government-funded science.
Mind your own business. Citing Bush's laundry list of social initiatives -- millions of taxpayers dollars to be spent on abstinence-only sex education, fighting steroid use, promoting marriage and mandatory school drug tests, for starters -- conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan calls Bush the "nanny-in-chief." Kerry would compromise no core Democratic values by promising a less meddlesome federal government.
Kerry should be able to criticize Bush's kowtowing to politicized preachers without offending people who take their religion seriously. He'll get few votes from Pat Robertson's audience anyway. But remember, Bush's faith-based initiative fell apart not because secular liberals opposed it, but because ministers didn't want their work infected by politics. Thinking people of all religious and political persuasions see the virtue of keeping some distance between government and church.
Bush is facing growing discontent among small-government conservatives over the deficit, the expansion of Medicare and federal intrusion into matters traditionally left to the states. The Patriot Act, the war on drugs and Bush's concessions to the religious right have irritated libertarian conservatives.
Kerry could exploit these divisions. Every time the Republicans jump on Kerry's liberalism, the Democrats should question whether Bush qualifies as a true conservative. Labels are a political game. By playing it smart, Kerry can at least blunt Bush's efforts to replay his father's 1988 attacks on Michael Dukakis.
At best, Kerry can make personal freedom a plank in the Democratic platform for years to come. That will win him votes in battleground states like New Hampshire and New Mexico. It could also put in play mountain states like Arizona, Nevada and Colorado, whose conservatism has always had a libertarian bent.
Conventional wisdom advises the Democratic nominee to retreat to the mushy middle, which, for Kerry, risks sapping the energy the primary campaign has generated in the Democratic base. Kerry should keep up the frontal assault that has gotten him this far -- but direct some carefully-targeted fire toward Bush's right flank, where opportunity awaits.
the war on terrorists, the judiciary, the education department, the state department, the justice department, the military, etc.
WFTR
Bill
But there's a different strategy Kerry should consider as he maps out his general election campaign: A flanking maneuver on Bush's right.
Oh fer... Someone put that journalist in the strained metaphor penalty box. Is he being payed by the word or something? Here's the real scoop.
Bush has exactly TWO vulnerabilities to his right that have serious electoral appeal. One is immigration, and Kerry can't go there due to his own base, so forget it.
The other is more interesting. It's captured in two words: Off Shoring. Bumper-sticker material. Hot button and getting hotter.
What's worse, the Republican response to this issue seems to be to deliver macro-economic lectures to laid-off workers. Points for creativity aside, let's all admit this is not a very effective strategy.
Will Kerry go there? After all, he voted for NAFTA, GATT, and is a huge free-trader by record. Surely we can trust him to remain consistent and not go for the cheap political points, right? RIGHT?!!
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.