kausfiles
Kf, On Your Side!
Against the phony populism that stands in your way.
By Mickey Kaus
Dated Dean. Married Kerry...woke up with Bush.
Senator Kerry has started to boast about his role in welfare reform as the race shifts to the more conservative Southern states. When asked recently by CBS News' Bob Scheiffer how he would defend himself against the charge that he was too liberal, Kerry answered:
Oh, very easily. The American people are looking for more than labels. They want leadership. As they say in the South, Bob, 'That dog won't hunt,' and it's not going to hunt. I have led the fight for deficit reduction in 1985 with Fritz Hollings and Senator Gramm of Texas. I led the--the fight to put 100,000 police officers in the streets of America to make our justice system work and make communities safe. I have fought hard for responsible welfare reform. I voted for welfare reform ... [Emphasis added.]
I'm in the process of looking up Senator Kerry's role in the Clinton-era welfare reform. Why do I have to look it up? Because Senator Kerry was not a player in the Clinton-era welfare reform! This is the one issue I followed very closely, and I don't remember Kerry having an impact (or even trying to have an impact) one way or another. If this is what "fought hard" means then he should have a very peaceful presidency. ...
But even non-impactful senators cast votes. How did Kerry vote? He did vote for the 1996 reform bill on final passage, but in the Kabuki procedures of the Senate, the final passage vote is often for show, and that was the case with welfare reform. The final vote allowed senators who needed to be seen as supportive of the bill--especially senators up for reelection like Kerry--to go on record as voting for it. The actual crucial votes that determined the legislation's fate and shape came earlier, when the spotlight was off--votes on amendments designed to gut the bill, toughen the bill, or substitute an entirely new bill. I do know that Kerrry voted for both major Democratic substitutes to the GOP-supported bill that finally passed--the Daschle substitute and the nominally-bipartisan Biden-Specter substitute--as well as for a defeated Breaux proposal that would have created a non-cash voucher scheme to replace cash welfare when the cash was cut off.. ... What I haven't done yet is read up on the text of those amendments to refresh my memory about just how wimpy they were. Would they have gutted the reform? ... Substance tk! ... 12:55 A.M.
How does alleged Kerry campaign genius Michael Whouley afford those $1,500 suits? He couldn't be another lobbyist for some of the special interests that stand in the way, could he? ... (It was only months ago that everyone in the campaign was turning out to be Jewish. Now they're all turning out to be special-interest lobbyists.) ... Or do Kerry cronies by definition lobby only for special interests that don't stand in the way? ... 9:02 P.M.
Why is Lieberman staying in the race? Maybe he realizes there is one, final kamikaze-like service he can perform for his country--namely, to be the expendable candidate who goes negative on Kerry. ... It's not as if some of the DLC-types who are sympathetic to Lieberman also have ties to Edwards. ... Oh, wait! ... [If Lieberman wouldn't be Al Gore's attack dog in the 2000 race, why would he be John Edwards'?--ed Because in 2000 he could plausibly think he had a future as a presidential candidate to safeguard.] ... P.S.: Wasn't Bob Shrum's 1988 candidate, Richard Gephardt, destroyed on Super Tuesday by a simple "flip-flop" ad? Think of the "flip-flop" ad you could produce on Kerry! The only challenge would be fitting all the flip-flops into a 30 second spot. ... Kerry may even have flip-flopped on his face! ... 8:42 P.M.
Dean's Durability: There are reports that Howard Dean is having money troubles. Will this cause him to drop out? His camp argues that he's still raising millions on the Web. Commentators scoff that this might not continue now that Dean has lost Iowa and New Hampshire. But there is reason to think the commentators are at least half-wrong.
Typically, after all, there are at least two different groups of donors to a presidential campaign: a) idealistic supporters who want to win or send a message; and b) cynical, self-interested business donors, who want to "invest" in a winning candidate early to buy "access" later. When a candidate starts losing primaries, potential donors in group b) see no reason to buy access to a presidency that will never exist. Fundraising from this source shuts down, often with fatal consequences to the campaign. If Kerry had lost Iowa and New Hampshire, that would have happened to him.
But Dean, thanks to his now-overdenigrated Internet presence, has access to many thousands of donors in group a) who've yet to "max out" on their contributions. Some may not want to waste their money in a losing cause, true--but for others it will still be a cause worth funding as long as there is some hope of having an impact. (One big benefit to Dean's oddly premature talk of a brokered convention is that it keeps this hope alive, creating a durable rationale for donating to Dean. Even if Dean does so badly that he clearly can't win, his supporters might still want him to have as many delegates as possible, if only for bargaining purposes.) ...
In short, there's good reason to think that Dean might be able to keep raising money under circumstances that would force a more conventional candidate to drop out. Maybe this is obvious. ... |
