The Democratic National Committee, fronted by chairman Terry McAuliffe is whining about those nasty Republicans again. He says:
"But for the Republicans, twisting the truth into distracting attack is like a bad habit they just can't break. That's why today, Dick Cheney, the Bush Campaign's Attack Dog-in-Chief, is kicking off a week-long ad campaign that will question John Kerry's commitment to defending the country he risked his life for."The American people deserve better. And that's why I'm calling on Dick Cheney to call off the Republican attack dogs' attempts to smear John Kerry's service to America and his commitment to defending it as President."
What exactly is Cheney saying? Here's the scoop from the NY Times:
The vice president dug up several quotes in which Kerry supported the removal of Saddam Hussein and praised the effort of the first Bush president. The vice president also criticized Kerry for supporting military budget and intelligence cuts during his four terms as Massachusetts senator.``In his years in Washington, Senator Kerry has been one vote of 100 in the U.S. Senate and fortunately on matters of national security, he was often the minority. But the president always casts the deciding vote and the senator from Massachusetts has given us ample grounds to doubt the judgment and the attitude he brings to bear on vital issues of national security.''
Now, I'm just a Middle American "average" woman, so give me a moment to get this straight. McAuliffe thinks the Republicans are fighting dirty and going negative because they are attacking Kerry on his record? Excusez-moi? I thought negative, attack-oriented campaigning consists of things like bringing up your opponents love life, or dirty dealings. Not his actual record on the issues Americans care about.
Did Kerry support the removal of Hussein? Did he vote in favor of the war in Iraq in 2002? Did he support military cuts throughout the past few decades? If the answer is yes, then why is McAuliffe upset? The Republicans are spending millions of dollars to tell Americans what Kerry believes. Shouldn't the Democrats be thanking them? Unless of course, the Democrats realize that Kerry's positions are deeply unpopular and are trying to hide them from the American public. Hmmm...could I be on to something?
In most cases, one could expect to hear plenty about a candidates record from the news media. Kerry has gotten a free pass from the elite media so far. So, he had two choices: define himself as a weak-on-defense, tax & spend liberal or run as "not George W. Bush" and let Republicans define him. Well, call the Republicans what you want, but don't call them stupid. They know that when faced with a tax-and-spend, weak-on-defense liberal, the best strategy is to call a spade a spade.
What it all comes down to is that McAuliffe's real problem isn't Republican political strategy but rather his own candidate. I think the Democrats have a bad case of buyer's remorse.
Posted by kris at April 26, 2004 01:00 PM | TrackBack