Kerry's Senate record may be a liability.

[stickdog]

It's funny. Where are the hit pieces that we saw against Dean when he was in the lead?

When Dean was in the lead, we were treated to opposition attack information as if it were objective breaking news.

In contrast, the anti-Kerry articles coming out now are presented for what they are -- opposition research attacks.

Kerry is the Democrats' Bob Dole. And the media looks like it's going to wait until he has the nomination wrapped up before it lifts a finger to make that perfectly clear.

http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Jan/01262004/nation_w/132740.asp

Kerry's rival Democrats point to a series of shifting stands on issues, like his qualified praise for the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress and his vote authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq. They say these are at odds with his claim to be the "real deal" Democratic alternative to Bush, capable of "standing up for people and taking on powerful interests," as he says in his stump speech.

"When it was popular to be a Massachusetts liberal, his voting record was that," said Jay Carson, a Dean campaign spokesman. "When it was popular to be for the Iraq war, he was for it. Now it's popular to be against it, and he's against it. This is a voting record that is a big vulnerability against Republicans in the general election. He's all over the place on this stuff."

The Republicans seek to paint Kerry as voting in lock step with, or even to the left of, his fellow Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy, long a Republican target.

"Whether it's economic policy, national security policy or social issues, John Kerry is out of sync with most voters," the Republican national chairman, Ed Gillespie, said in a speech on Friday.

[jsw_81]

1. Big deal

Sure, Kerry might have voted for some tax hike or controversial spending bill way back in 1986 or something, but did he sink our economy into the toilet like George W. Bush has? Did he let big polluters write environmental "protection" laws like Bush has? Did he sign the first anti-choice legislation in American history like Bush has? Did he tell the United Nations to go f--k itself like Bush has?

I'll take John Kerry's record over Bush's any day of the week, and I think the American electorate will too.

[stickdog]

2. Kerry has done whatever it takes to get elected.

He'll be cast as a boring, rich, patrician, "promise them the moon" tax and spend Mass. liberal with a huge deficit of personal integrity -- because that's exactly what he is.

Nader will run an independent campaign, and Bush will win going away.

[newsjunkie]

3. Stop crying in your teacups

“Stop crying in your teacups. It isn’t going to change. Get over it.”

That was the response of John Kerry to a liberal who condemned the theft of the presidency by George W. Bush. If the sentiment sounds familiar, that’s because it isn’t original. Kerry borrowed his words from America’s vapid conservative posse for whom chanting the phrase “Get over it” constitutes a dazzling display of wit.

Plagiarizing witticisms from Ann Coulter is not an endearing trait for a potential Democratic presidential nominee. It is one thing for liberals who are still incensed about the stolen election to be treated contemptuously by right wing banshees – it is an entirely different matter to incur such disdain from a man who seeks to be our champion.

More... http://makethemaccountable.com/podvin/more/040124_StopCrying.htm

[sonias]

6. I will never forget and I will never "get over it"

Still remember that barb Kerry sent our way. Of course we imagined the whole theft of the election and it was no big deal, so move on nothing to see here.

Sonia

[Lorien]

11. Neither will I

I had firsthand experience witnessing the theft of the presidency in 2000 ( I won't go into it again, but my story has been on a number of internet news sites; in fact, I recieved a note from Greg Palast saying that the NAACP was using my testimony in their lawsuit against the State of Florida) I will NEVER "get over it", and forgiving Kerry for his completely cowardly and reprehensible statement will be damned difficult as well!

[Jazzgirl]

4. This is exactly why the repukes want Kerry to run.

They want someone who's record they feel they can rip to pieces. They want someone who has a history they can go after. The media and repukes really started spewing Dean's negativity when he looked really strong because I think they're afraid of him. They think Kerry is an "easy target."

[fjc]

5. And just who would be excluded from that kind of strategy?

Republicans are gonna do what you say to whomever is nominated. That is what they do, it's how they campaign. And I don't think Karl Rove is afraid of anybody.

[papau]

7. Asked and answered -Here is NYT on that GOP Kerry file:

Here is NYT on that GOP Kerry file:


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/politics/campaign/25RECO.html

Rivals Mine Kerry Senate Years for Material to Slow Him Down
By TODD S. PURDUM


ASHINGTON, Jan. 24 — The moment John Kerry began to seem like the candidate to watch in the Iowa caucuses, the campaigns of his Democratic rivals Howard Dean and Richard A. Gephardt swiftly used a handful of Mr. Kerry's decade-old Senate votes and statements against ethanol and agricultural subsidies to attack him as not supportive of Iowa's essential industry.
Now that his opponents are moving even more aggressively to slow Mr. Kerry's rise, his 19-year voting record as the junior senator from Massachusetts could loom as his greatest political vulnerability, to Democrats and Republicans alike. The sheer length of Mr. Kerry's service means that he has built a paper trail of positions on education, the military, intelligence and other issues — stands that might have looked one way when he took them but that resonate differently now.
For example, at the end of the cold war, Mr. Kerry advocated scaling back the Central Intelligence Agency, but after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, he complained about a lack of intelligence capability. In the 1980's, he opposed the death penalty for terrorists who killed Americans abroad, but he now supports the death penalty for terrorist acts. In the 1990's, he joined with Republican senators to sponsor proposals to end tenure for public school teachers and allow direct grants to religion-based charities, measures that many Democratic groups opposed. In 1997, he voted to require elderly people with higher incomes to pay a larger share of Medicare premiums.
The record is susceptible to two broad strands of attack. Mr. Kerry's rival Democrats point to a series of shifting stands on issues, like his qualified praise for the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress and his vote authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq. They say these are at odds with his claim to be the "real deal" Democratic alternative to Mr. Bush, capable of "standing up for people and taking on powerful interests," as he says in his stump speech.
"When it was popular to be a Massachusetts liberal, his voting record was that," said Jay Carson, a Dean campaign spokesman. "When it was popular to be for the Iraq war, he was for it. Now it's popular to be against it, and he's against it. This is a voting record that is a big vulnerability against Republicans in the general election. He's all over the place on this stuff."
Speaking with reporters in New Hampshire on Saturday, Dr. Dean used Senator Kerry's record to make a point about his own foreign policy experience.
"His voting record on Iraq is exactly the opposite of mine," Dr. Dean said, pointing to Mr. Kerry's votes against the Gulf War in 1991 and for the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq last fall. "I think mine has been proven to be right twice."
By contrast, the Republicans seek to paint Mr. Kerry as voting in lock step with, or even to the left of, his fellow Massachusetts Democrat Edward M. Kennedy.
"Whether it's economic policy, national security policy or social issues, John Kerry is out of sync with most voters," the Republican national chairman, Ed Gillespie, said in a speech on Friday.
Mr. Kerry's spokesman, David Wade, said the senator was "proud of his independence and unashamed that his resistance to orthodoxy leaves him hard to pigeonhole," adding that he had "fought a lifetime for what's right even when it's neither popular nor predictable." He added, "Ed Gillespie may be the last guy left who doesn't realize it's George Bush who's out of touch with the American people."

<snip>A Kerry campaign aide said that if the campaign was forced to defend itself, it was "armed with a treasure-trove of votes that prove John Kerry's commitment to strong national defense, a stronger intelligence-gathering operation than George Bush has delivered, and to a long record of fighting the deficit, reforming education and restructuring welfare."<snip>

[seasat]

8. Maybe I'm just a wierd one here.

but I like John Kerry, I like Howard Dean, I like Wesley Clark, and I like John Edwards. Any of them would make a great candidate and all of them have records that the Repubs can attack. I think the republicans are showing their hand early and it is a mistake that will benefit us. They are going to paint Kerry as a Massachesetts liberal, they are going to paint Dean as a loose cannon, they are going to paint Clark as a general who did not play well with others and a closet Republican, and they are going to paint Edwards as an ambulance chaser with little experience. We know that all that is BS. I think we need to focus on Bush's record too. We need to go back to his Texas days and point out how dishonest Bush is. We need to paint him as another Richard Nixon. We can point out how he has waffled on nation building, how his "Texas Miracle" for education was based on cooked figures, how he went awol during his guard duty, how he has long ties with the dictators of the Middle East, and how he lied to get us in Iraq. I think that all four of our top candidates will beat Bush but all will be attacked and the party of Nixon has already shown us their cards but they're playing a losing hand.

[Carolina]

9. this may sound odd

but when I listen to our candidates, I gauge how relaxed I am. Does anyone make me edgy, does anyone come across as trying too hard, as pedantic or talking down to people ...

Clinton NEVER made me nervous. He was smart, had a way with words and he connected with people. Media be damned, when Clinton made his case to the people, he won. Gore made me nervous; his instincts were off, his campaign was ever changing and he often seemed to be trying too hard. Much of his support was not due to LOVE for Al Gore but rather fear and loathing of George Bush.

In this race, Kerry makes me nervous. His overall record is good but he comes across as Gore did. He tries too hard to be like a common man and that makes him appear phony. He doesn't seem at ease. And although I was a supporter once upon a time (before his IWR vote), I don't see him really connecting with people.

Contrast Dean and Edwards both great stump speakers. Both very motivating. My guy Clark, I admit, is better in town hall Q&A type settings. But When I listen to Clark, Dean or Edwards, I'm relaxed. I know they can handle themselves. I'm never on the edge of my seat thinking; OMG, don't fuck this up. They come across as themselves and they really connect with people.

We know the media will skewer a Democrat, any Democrat. That's why it's important to have a fighter who will resonate with people when he makes his case. Kerry has been too conciliatory in the past and even now when the media dumps on one of our guys, he helps or piles on. That bothers me immensely and adds to my Kerry dis-ease.

ABB but mainly, Clark, Dean or Edwards!

[fjc]

10. It's legitimate criticism, as far as I can see.

I like Kerry. He's among my top three, the others being Dean and Clark. But I do believe he'll be spending a good deal of time on the defensive, and that ain't good for any candidate.