Centerfield

It's interesting that Brooks finds comfort in a candidate perpetually accused of flip-flopping once again, um, changing his feathers. Of course, Kerry must do this to win, as Brooks correctly points out. A good part of the reason he won the primary is that no one thought Dean could credibly make that shift.

The old adage is that candidates run to the extremes for the primaries, then to the center for the actual election. (Unchallenged incumbents consolidate accrued resources and try to look moderate and strong.) No surprises here.

I don't think Kerry's been "doing exactly what he should". I think he was on the wrong track for most of the last couple months, but took a significant tack toward the right with his speech a few days ago.

Previously, he wasn't talking very clearly or plainly about Iraq -- and what he was saying were primarily harsh criticisms of the Bush policy.

With that last speech, he started to tackle it in plain, clear statements -- emphasizing that we're at a critical stage right now, giving a list of things he thinks we should do, and even saying he'd be willing to support the president if he did those things.

That last part was very similar to the Lieberman proposal of last week. And Kerry could do a whole lot more with it. He should keep saying he thinks we should all work together ... that it's too important for the hyperpartisan politics of a presidential year ... and that we should have a bipartisan war cabinet.

I sensed back when Lieberman made this proposal that most activist Democrats would see it as essentially a suggestion that Kerry capitulate -- that he not make an issue out of the war. It is, in fact, the opposite. Kerry can seize the high-ground by simply picking up this banner and running with it. He gets to be the bigger man who puts national interests ahead of his ambitions.

And if we got lucky and Bush responded, he would essentially be conferring foreign policy stature on Kerry by bringing him into an Iraq war cabinet. Kerry could be assumed to be "up to speed" on Iraq by election day.

Finally, it provides some cover for the prospect that Kerry will change some policies in the face of changing circumstances in Iraq. There's no predicting what happens in Iraq during these months. A political truce and a bipartisan war cabinet seems to put those choices and decisions under less partisan pressure.

I disagree that it is suicide for Republicans to shaft the right, or that it hasn't happened in the past. Was George W. Bush not shafting the right in 2000 when he kicked Gary Bauer and the Family Research Council out of the Republican National Convention? Was he not shafting the right when he took the abolishment of the Department of Education out of the Republican Platfrom? Was he not shafting the right when he supported trigger locks and promised not to roll back gun laws or when he promised to not take any action that would make abortion illegal? How about when he appointed Christie Whitman, Andy Card, Ann Venema, Colin Powell, or endorsed Bob Franks, Dick Riordan, and Arlen Specter. How about when he signed campaign finance reform, spent more money on education than Clinton, expanded Medicare, or proposed that we give legal status to alien workers.

George W. Bush has done more to bring his party closer to the center than John Kerry every has or can for the Democrats. He understands that the Republican Party is at it's strongest when centrists and conservatives are both included in the process. The difference between Kerry and Bush is that Bush ran as a moderate to conservative Republican (except for South Carolina), governed in Texas as a moderate to Conservative Republican, and has been a moderate to Conservative Republican President. John Kerry is a different man depending on his status in the polls.

Yup, I agree with Matt, and clicked in to say what he already did. Candidates will always tack towards the center. And they'll always do it on the issues that are most antithetical to the other side's beliefs, because there is everything to gain (moderate votes) and nothing to lose (the solid base can't reasonably go elsewhere).

But I'm not so sure Bush has brought the GOP that close to the center. His main "center" tack has been on giving the people what they want with extra entitlement spending, and lower taxes, which really isn't a left-right issue per se if you ask me, it's really more about buying votes, or at least "pragmatic vote acquisition." He's been pretty close to the social conservatives. All of this makes him socially conservative and fiscally liberal (or fiscally irresponsible), which is the exact opposite of what I stand for. but as Matthew points out, at least we know where he stands.

Kerry? What he'll likely do is raise some taxes, and try to find ways increase entitlement spending. But he'll have to battle with an opposition congress. I'm sure his social policies will be different from Bush's on things like giving money to religious charities to for social programs, funding policies for family planning and abortion clinics, etc.

I don't think W has brought the GOP that close to the center either... I just think he has done a better job of it than Kerry will with the Democrats, but maybe this is a part of my endless hope that W is a moderate deep down, and an even bigger dream that this will come out if he gets a second term.

I don't think W has brought the GOP that close to the center either... I just think he has done a better job of it than Kerry will with the Democrats, but maybe this is a part of my endless hope that W is a moderate deep down, and an even bigger dream that this will come out if he gets a second term.