Centerfield

The Daily Howler does a decent job of ripping this story from the NY Times which reports that "some Democrats were concerned about the image of their wealthy candidate frolicking among the fabulously wealthy."

Is it legitimate in what sense? The suggestion that John Kerry is somehow more the son of privilege than GWB is nonsense. In that sense (is what they are suggesting true) it's not legitimate at all.

But strategically it's very savvy and hence legitimate from that POV. The Bush team is playing the anti-snob egghead card and reinforcing the visceral sense of umbrage that many mid-westerners and southerners take at the sterotypical know-it-all out of touch eastern liberal egghead. It frims the base, and reminds wafflers that in the end how could you ever vote for a GUY LIKE THIS no matter how disappointed you might be in GWB.

This leaves aside whether GWB really is as much of an average Joe as he's been portrayed. He's a play cowboy, not a real one. He's a play oilman, not a real one.

Kerry's egghead unlikability is one reason i thought he was a very bad choice for the democrats. If you don't think this sort of stuff plays, just ask Mike Dukakis.

BTW, Nantucket really isn't all that "lifestyles of the rich and famous," that's Martha's Vineyard. Nantucket is pretty regular folks by comparison.

Brian,

Maybe I am wrong, but this isn't 1992, and John Kerry isn't as weak as Michael Dukakis.

I think if Bill Clinton did anything it was to bring intellectualism back into politics after an era of rhetoric that produced the "Evil Empire" slogan, and Willie Horton. On a side note: it has been a while since the funeral now, so I am just going to say it: Ronald Reagan's greatness had nothing to do with his rhetoric and everything to do with the fact that in the end he listened to the moderates in his administration and relied on a realistic, human approach to the Cold War. The Soviet Union did not fall because the Great Communicator pounded it into submission, it fell because two men had vision enough to sit down at the table and have a conversation.

The makeup of the independent/centrist voter has changed, and I think what is going to win this election is a common sense approach to governing, and a calm demeanor. Kerry and Bush have to tell us why they should be elected, not why the other guy shouldn't.

I agree fully that the "he's a rich snob" campaign will rally the base, but I don't think it will work with the average independent voter, or at least it will not work with this one. Your comment on wafflers is interesting because I see myself as someone who has been a supportive of the President, but has recently had doubts. Talking about Kerry's personal finances makes me want to vote for Bush less, not more.

The President still has me, but I am fading away because all I hear from anyone on his side are the same partisan, ideological talking points that I have been hearing for four years. The compassionate conservative centrist message is all but a memory.

Kerry in the past few weeks has proposed to focus on: creating international coalitions thave focus on security and not nation building, providing more opportunity in higher education, reducing our independence on foreign oil, creating a stronger anti-nuclear proliferation program, cracking down on Chinese trade violations and shrinking the trade deficit, raising the minimum wage to $7.00, reducing the personal debt of American families, and taking ideology out of science to expand important activities like Stem Cell research.

He may not be right all of the time, and I definitely see some credibility problems, but for the most part this is a list of important issues that need to be addressed in one fashion or another.

Maybe it is me, but I see a trend of one candidate who is talking about issues, and the other that is too busy convincing us that there was a tie between Al Qaeda and Iraq while his handlers tell us what we know: John Kerry is a rich liberal.

The American public deserves better than that. Maybe this administration has gotten so caught up in the Iraq war and it's consequences, it no longer has the ability to govern in other important policy areas.

Mathew, great point about Reagan. If he was a great president, it was because he had the common sense and decency to recognize the consequences of going to far in egging on the Soviets. (It seems to have occurred when he found out the Soviets thought we were about to attack them.) Not many politicians would have had the self-assurance and security to move in a different direction like Reagan did.

As for Kerry, so what if he's rich? So was FDR, who was considered a traitor too his class. If that's the best the Republicans can do, they're in big trouble. They are the ones constantly complaining about "class warfare." Does anyone really think that presidents are "common men?" Clinton was born poor, but went to Georgetown and was a Rhodes Scholar.

No one thinks presidents are "common men," but most Americans like it when the President feels like a guy you could have cup of coffee or a beer with, a guy that understands where you are coming from. Whatever Bush's faults, he crushes Kerry in the have a beer test.

One thing I think you guys are missing about those "Kerry's an egghead" commercials is that they are designed to evoke a visceral response. Your responses are those of decoders, who view commercials with something of an oppositional mindset. I do the same thing, but we're in a small minority there. The commercials are there to raise the viseceral negative response level of people to Kerry as a whole, and they will be very effective at doing that, regardless of how much wonks whine. That's reality.

I'm not sure I agree with the idea that Dukakis was weaker than Kerry, maybe it depends on the sense in which you mean "weak." I beleive Dukakis at one point had a substantial lead, larger than any small margin Kerry has shown thus far. We'll see how strong Kerry is when the GOP lets him have it with both barrels after the convention. The commercials I have seen against Kerry are different, their gist is that Bush is an optimist, the economy is looking up, and John Kerry is a pessimist, and pessimism is of course bad.

Matt, I can't help but notice that your laundry list of issues includes a number of them where there's not likely to be much disagreement on goals, only possibly on approach. I like to think of these as really being "non-issues," because the only PR battle is over who can come out more strongly in favor of the good thing or against the bad thing. No one is pro-nuke proliferation, or pro-chinese trade violations, or anti-education, or pro-trade deficit or anti-fuel self-sufficiency or anti-national security or pro-debt.

Kerry is trying to frame the terms of the debate, and Bush is not going to do him any favors by engaging. By the looks of things, Bush's campaign is going to consist of a few simple messages:

Kerry is an egghead and a pessimist and a liberal.

Bush is a man of deep faith who has acted forcefully from his heart to protect us from terrorists.

The economy is looking up.

When it comes to policy discussion, Bush is going to agree on the non-issue issues, talk about what he has already done(patriot act, invade afghanistan, capture saddam hussein, no-child-left behind act), and highlight instances where he believes he has a better approach than Kerry. He's not going to talk many policy details. Get used to it.

But do expect Bush to have a detailed list of concrete steps the admin has taken to monitor nukes worldwide, meetings it has had with foreign leaders, treaties in place, etc. Kerry better watch it with this one, because Rovce may well be planning to just let Kerry poke Bush with this, and then when Kerry tries to jab Bush in a debate, Bush will be ready to clobber him with we've done a, b, c, and d. And E. As well as F.

Oh, and BTW, I think we just slapped a tariff on chinese furniture or something.

Bryan,

Good analysis and you are probably mostly right, but I don't totally agree that all of the issues Kerry has discussed are ones that Bush has been or will be agreeable to. In regards to science and stem cells, the trade deficit, and energy alternatives there are some real differences between the two candidates, and I think Kerry has got some room to argue that the administration has shown a lack of leadership in some of these areas. W is not going to come out in favor of expanding stem cell research, reducing the trade deficit, nor is he going to abandon his effort to drill in Alaska. There is a growing divide here, and it will be disappointing if we never see a discusssion on some of these issues.

Yeah, that's why I said something like 'your list includes a number of items where...." certainly on some issues there's a serious difference in either problem diagnosis or proposed solution.

I don't think stem cell research, ANWR drilling, and the trade deficit are really winning issues for Kerry, though. Bush's ANWR position is basically, "we don't want to destroy the environment but we need the oil, so let's try to do the best we can to get the oil in a minimally invasive way." I think the pragmatics are down with that. On stem cell research, some may disagree with Bush's policy, but not all, in addition to which it's hard to make the case that the policy has in practice lead to important research not getting done. On the trade deficit, no one likes it, but it's been going on for so long with not so many obvious ill effects that almost no one is convinced it's that big a problem. I don't know for sure if it is or not myself, I'm only pointing out that it's not likely to rise to the top of the charts as an issue. For one, it's a real eye-glazer for the GP. Another big reason why it won't is that we don't have any especially good cures that don't run the risk of being worse than the disease. So Kerry might poke his stick in the mud next to it, hoping to get a little on Bush's face, but he's not really going to touch the problem itself. When push comes to shove, Kerry knows any protectionist noises he makes are only noises. It's obligatory to solidify the base, but IMO anyone who thinks we are going to reinvigorate our manufacturing base and compete with low-labor-cost countries on consumer goods is fooling themselves. That ship has long since sailed, and it's a one way trip unless and until either our standard of living drops to match the 3rd world or theirs raises to match ours.

Or maybe we diminish the trade deficit by becoming energy self-sufficient. Oil is a huge component of the overall trade deficit. And that imbalance is just not going to get balanced out without working both the supply and demand sides of the equation, which probably includes getting our grubby paws on all available domestic resources. And in the end, we still run out of fossil fuels no matter what.

Money can spoil and a great example of that is the Bush "empire." Daddy "bought" his son's way into Yale and then into Harvard. When one goes to an Ivy League school he is usually more refined and can speak in a representative manner. Also, one who is well educated can recognize that when one plan isn't running well, there is always an alternative. It is not disgraceful to change one's mind, it's a plus. It certainly is not "flip-flop." Because Kerry has seen it necessary to alter plans in the past is a plus. His mind is not struck in concrete. I feel that what is going on now for four years has great possibilities of causing world chaos. Others now feel a little power with nuclear possibilities and are likely to use it to establish their "place" in a world scene. A change from what is now in place would be an intelligent idea.

DR