IS KERRY'S TARDINESS REALLY THAT BIG A DEAL?:
New Republic Blog
Today's New York Times piece about Kerry's upcoming $25-million ad buy makes a very good point in passing:
The new advertising push--its magnitude possible because Mr. Kerry opted out of the public finance system--is in large measure Mr. Kerry's response to a two-month $60 million barrage of advertisements from President Bush, who spent the day traveling southern Michigan by bus [emphasis added].
As the piece goes on to illustrate, a large number of Democrats believe Kerry is several weeks late on this ad blitz, and that, as a result, he may have allowed the Bushies to define him before he could define himself. But, as the italicized line reminds us, Kerry would be in much, much worse shape at this point had he not followed Howard Dean's lead and rejected federal matching funds. Alongside the potential disaster that doing that would have created, a couple weeks here or there hardly seems like a big deal.
In fact, in the last few days, sniping Democrats have held up Al Gore as the "how not to" example on this particular issue, and have complained that Kerry is repeating Gore's mistakes. But, as the Times piece makes clear, one enormous difference between Kerry's position now and Gore's in 2000 is that Gore stayed within the public finance system, meaning he could only spend $9 million between the end of the primaries and the convention. It's that difference, not whether a candidate goes on the air in mid-April or early May, that would seem to matter for the outcome of the race. |
