Is Kerry relevant to 2004 election?
November 1, 2004
BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
WASHINGTON -- To begin his final full week campaigning for the presidency last Monday, John Kerry abandoned previous plans and seized on a single case of missing explosives in Iraq. Unusual though that seems, the Democratic presidential nominee devoted valuable time to this obscure story for the next three days -- Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday -- until Osama bin Laden's video changed the subject. This tells much about both Sen. Kerry and the campaign of 2004.
Kerry's focus last week on missing explosives and his neglect of traditional Democratic philosophy might imply this issue connected with the electorate and boosted him against President Bush. But there is no evidence Kerry's course helped. Rather, associates say it reflects Kerry's passion to convince fellow Americans he is qualified as commander-in-chief.
I contacted several Democrats who have criticized Kerry privately to me in the past. They shrugged off Kerry's obsession with the explosives. They confirmed that the senator is regarded inside the party as largely irrelevant to the election of 2004. This is an election about George W. Bush. Democratic leaders talk a lot about how their "ground game" -- getting out their voters -- will elect Kerry Tuesday, and seem uninterested in what he has to say.
What the candidate had to say Monday was shaped by outsiders opposed to Bush's re-election. The allegation that "highly explosive materials" had been looted because of "lack of security" was developed by two essentially anti-Bush organizations: the Iraqi Ministry of Science and Technology and International Atomic Energy Agency. The story was broken eight days from Election Day by the New York Times and CBS's "60 Minutes," neither of them remotely pro-Bush.
A missing 377 tons of explosives might look insignificant when compared with hundreds of thousands of tons destroyed by coalition forces in Iraq. This potential campaign issue's most serious defect is that nobody is sure what happened to the explosives. There is no proof they were looted, and they may have been carted away by Saddam Hussein's troops before the invasion.
Nevertheless, Kerry chose to personally treat this as an "October surprise." He became oblivious to past Democratic denials of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or their connections with terrorism. On Monday in Dover, N.H., Kerry said: "Terrorists could use the munitions to kill our troops, our people, blow up airports and level buildings." On Tuesday in Green Bay, Wis., he declared: "The explosives are missing, unaccounted for, and could be in the hands of terrorists -- used to attack our troops or our people."
The Bush camp was surprised when Kerry and his surrogates sounded this theme for four days, eliminating the candidate's planned "closing arguments." After two days, Republican activists grumbled the president had not responded. The reason was astonishment by Bush strategists that the Kerry campaign would continue on this path through the campaign's last week.
Except for a small bounce on Monday, many polls indicated the explosives issue had no effect on Kerry's fortunes. Surveys concluded Friday showed Kerry no stronger than he was a week earlier or perhaps a little weaker. As much as journalists (and particularly cable television) loved the story, it was passing over the heads of voters.
Republican pollster Ed Goeas at the end of last week showed that the 37 percent of voters who regard terrorism and Iraq as the most important issues support Bush over Kerry, 62 percent to 33 percent. But among the 33 percent who see jobs and the economy as most important, Kerry is favored over Bush by 64 percent to 30 percent. Kerry may have been trying to convert the unconverted in concentrating on missing explosives, or it may just be a matter of personal preference of what the senator likes to talk about.
In any event, what John Kerry says seems removed from the Democratic master plan to send Bush back to Texas. Few Democratic politicians think Kerry has proved a good campaigner, and obsessing over missing explosives supports that judgment. What counts for Democrats is fulfillment of the ground game to bring previous non-voters to polling places Tuesday.
Copyright © The Sun-Times Company
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Slate's Robert Wright (last item) sums up the attitude, saying of Kerry: "He's a long way from being the Messiah, but at least he's not the anti-Christ." Parishioners at the Shiloh Baptist Church, a black congregation in Dayton, Ohio, seem no more rapt, to judge by this Daily Telegraph report:
Mr Kerry's reception was polite, not ecstatic, and there was a raft of half-empty pews at the back of the cavernous sanctuary. . . . But Mr Kerry's fate on election day may not rest on being loved like a brother. This is a unique election, worshippers said, amid an anger against President George W Bush that exceeds anything they could remember in years.
Mary Kimball, resplendent in a hound's-tooth suit, set off by diamante hooped earrings and a diamante cross, cautioned against reading too much into the church atmosphere.
"We've gotten tired of the political stuff, we're just ready to vote Kerry and get it over with. I don't usually vote each time but this time I really want Bush out."
USA Today claims a Gallup poll shows Bush and Kerry tied at 49%, but the poll actually shows Bush up, 49% to 47%. The inflated Kerry figure comes from assuming that of the 3% of voters who are undecided, nine out of 10 will go for Kerry. Given the palpable lack of enthusiasm even among supporters of the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam, that seems an unwarranted assumption.
Dishonorable Discharge?
"A former officer in the Navy's Judge Advocate General Corps Reserve has built a case that Senator Kerry was other than honorably discharged from the Navy by 1975," the New York Sun reports:
The "honorable discharge" on the Kerry Web site appears to be a Carter administration substitute for an original action expunged from Mr. Kerry's record, according to Mark Sullivan, who retired as a captain in the Navy's Judge Advocate General Corps Reserve in 2003 after 33 years of service as a judge advocate. Mr. Sullivan served in the office of the Secretary of the Navy between 1975 and 1977.
On behalf of the Kerry campaign, Michael Meehan and others have repeatedly insisted that all of Mr. Kerry's military records are on his Web site at johnkerry.com, except for his medical records.
"If that is the case," Mr. Sullivan said, "the true story isn't what was on the Web site. It's what's missing. There should have been an honorable discharge certificate issued to Kerry in 1975,if not earlier, three years after his transfer to the Standby Reserve-Inactive."
As the Sun notes, "Kerry has failed to sign a Standard Form 180 giving the electorate and the press access to his Navy files."
Veterans Are to Be Seen, Not Heard
Appearing on "Meet the Press" as a Kerry surrogate, former senator Bob Kerrey, who by the way served in Vietnam, offered one of the most twisted criticisms of the Bush campaign we've heard yet:
What kind of signals does it say when the president and the vice president, who didn't serve in the Vietnam War, don't condemn these advertisements and ask their friends, Boone Pickens and others, to take these Swift Boat ads down? What kind of message does it send? It says, "You're better off not going and fighting an unpopular war because if you want to run for public office later, it may come back and haunt you." That's a terrible message, in my view, to be sending to our young men and women right now who are trying to decide, "Should I join the Army National Guard? Should I get in the reserves? Should I join the active duty military forces?"
So in Kerrey's view, the way to encourage young Americans to join the military is by silencing veterans who wish to participate in politics.
We Can Think of a Reason or Two
"Polls Suggest That Veterans Prefer Bush; No Clear Reason Why"--headline, Naples (Fla.) Daily News, Oct. 31
Wake Us Up When It's Over
Reuters reports that John Kerry came up with a new slogan on Friday: " 'Wake up America, wake up. . . . You have a choice,' he said. 'This election is a choice between four more years of tax giveaways for millionaires along with a higher tax burden on the middle class.' "
Actually, "Wake up, America" isn't exactly a new slogan. Exactly eight years earlier, Bob Dole said this in an interview with CNN's Candy Crowley: "I'm just saying, 'Wake up, America.' And I don't say it in a scolding way. Wake up America. This is an outrage."
But Kerry was against waking up before he was for it. On Wednesday the Canadian network CTV quoted him as lamenting: "Today, for far too many women, the American Dream seems a million miles away, because you've barely got time to sleep, and when you've barely got time to sleep, you've barely got time to dream."
Voice of America?
"Sen. John Edwards wants to be the voice inside voters' heads as they cast their ballots Tuesday," the Associated Press reports:
The Democratic vice presidential candidate implores people to picture themselves in voting booths asking themselves questions about President Bush's record. Then, Edwards crystalizes what he says is the choice voters face: "Four more years of the same. Or a fresh start for America."
Well, the one benefit of a Kerry victory is it would be the last we'd hear of John Edwards for four years.
Anti-Semites for Kerry
This report from the New York Post's Page Six ought to raise a few eyebrows:
John Kerry's stepson, Chris Heinz, 31, displayed his mother Teresa's famous lack of rhetorical restraint at a recent campaign event with a group of Wharton students. Philadelphia magazine reports: "Heinz accused Kerry's opponents--'our enemies'--of making the race dirty. 'We didn't start out with negative ads calling George Bush a cokehead,' he said, before adding, 'I'll do it now.' Asked later about it, Heinz said, 'I have no evidence. He never sold me anything.' " Heinz also reminded writer Sasha Issenberg of Pat Buchanan by saying, "One of the things I've noticed is the Israel lobby--the treatment of Israel as the 51st state, sort of a swing state." Buchanan was blasted as an anti-Semite years ago when he cited Israel's "amen corner" in Congress.
Oh, Those Tolerant Liberals
"You just can't come to Minneapolis. It's our city--it's not OK for Bush to come here and ask for more votes. It's our city."--Kerry supporter Shane Kinney, quoted by the Associated Press, Oct. 30
You Don't Say
"Bush, Cheney Share Same Political Agenda"--headline, Associated Press, Nov. 1
What Would We Do Without Studies?
"Study Finds Press Pro-Kerry"--headline, Washington Times, Nov. 1
Isn't This a Day Early and an 'O' Long?
"Kerry Looser, Ready to 'Bring It Home' "--headline, Reuters, Nov. 1
Homer Nods
William Howard Taft lost his re-election bid in 1912, not 1916 as we said in an item Friday (since corrected). We apparently erred in another item when we described Xenia, Ohio, as "a largely black town." According to this page, Xenia's population is 13.5% black, only slightly higher than the national average.
Could There Be a Connection?
"Crime May Be Dropping in the US, but Gun Possession Is Rising"--headline, Boston Globe, Oct. 31
What Would Your Newspaper Do Without Experts?
"Analysts Say Experts Are Hazardous to Your Newspaper"--headline, New York Times, Oct. 31
Then Again, Maybe Not
"This Winter Won't Be Snowy Like Last Winter--Maybe"--headline, Oregonian (Portland), Oct. 29
$20.07 Would Be a Lot for a Bus Ride
"Bus Fares May Rise 25 Cents Next Year instead of 2007"--headline, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Nov. 1
Not Too Brite--CLXXII
"A Polish taxpayer died from a heart attack after a demand for immediate payment in full of 80,000 zlotys ($23,560) following a mistake by the tax office," Reuters reports from Moscow.
Oddly Enough!
(For an explanation of the "Not Too Brite" series, click here.)
Superstitious in Reuterville
From New Delhi comes the latest hard-hitting report from our pals at Reuters:
Surveys in the United States may be showing the race for president as too close to call but top Indian astrologers say the planets have clearly made up their mind: John Kerry will win. . . .
"Saturn, which is the lord of health and fortune for President Bush, has been eclipsed by the Sun, which is unfortunate and gives him a clear defeat," Lachhman Das Madan, editor of a popular astrology magazine, told Reuters.
"Kerry will win," said Madan, who is also known as "the emperor of astrologers." "It is cosmic writ that George W. Bush cannot become president of United States again." . . .
Bejan Daruwalla, another top astrologer, told Reuters he had yet to calculate who would win Tuesday's election. But Bush, even if he won, would not be allowed by his planets to complete a full term, he said.
Meanwhile, a leading Senate liberal is mixing religion and politics, the Cedar Valley (Iowa) Daily Times reports:
Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin says John Kerry has been gaining in the polls every day since Oct. 21, and George Bush has been going down every day.
"That's how God wants it to be," Harkin told a group of about 25 people at the Benton County Headquarters in Vinton on Thursday afternoon.
If sports superstitions are more your speed, it's worth noting that the Washington Redskins lost "at home" (actually in Maryland) to the Green Bay Packers yesterday, 28-14, which according to the "Redskins rule" augurs a Kerry victory. But as the Washington Post notes, were it not for dubious officiating the Skins would likely have taken a 21-20 lead with less than three minutes to play. If the vote turns out to be close, maybe someone from the Republican legal team can represent Skins coach Joe Gibbs in a court challenge.
Speaking of courts, Republicans who are superstitious about sports and politics can take comfort in another trend: Every time the Minneapolis or Los Angeles Lakers have gone to the NBA finals in an election year, win or lose--and it's happened seven times before, in 1952, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988 and 2000--a Republican has gone to the White House. This year, of course, the Lakers lost to the Detroit Pistons in five games. The Pistons (then of Fort Wayne, Ind.) were also in the finals in 1956, the only year a Republican won the presidency without the Lakers making it to the finals.
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Greg Nelson, Brent Silver, Michael Britton, S.E. Brenner, John Moore, Michael Segal, Cliff Thier, Michael Green, Ray Hendel, Samuel Walker, Michael Morley, Ben Anderson, William White, Allen O'Donnell, Joel Goldberg, Doug Albers, Patrick McHale, Ed Lasky, Ethel Fenig, Rosanne Klass, Alice Chi, Moshe Bell, David Babcock, Steve Tolle, Michael Hopkovitz, David Shapero, Jack Ades, David Chamberlin, Michael Zukerman, Jim Orheim, Daniel Foty, John Lord, Paul Bisdorf, M. Gilbertson, Steve Baus, Barak Moore, William Dooley, David Beebe, Ruth Papazian, Patrick Swan, Andy Hefty, Marji Meyer, Drew Anderson, Dennis Powell, Steve Sturm, Carol Baker, Sam Wakim, Bill Stafford, Thomas Dillon, Jim Glass, Rosslyn Smith, Kevin Coleman, Sol Cranfill, Rachel Shapiro, Terry Hinshaw, David Merrill, Rachel Glyn, Edward Tannen, Hampton Stevens, M. Scott, Steven Kahan, Bob Sigsworth, Marc Rosaaen, Hyman Sisman, William Keane, Charles Wingard, Mark Grossman, Evan Slatis, Karl Spisak, James Edgar, Edward Friedman, Jason Norris, Stefan Sharkansky, Philip Purrington, Heidi Huettner, Erik Andresen, Kevin McDaniel, Brian O'Rourke, Stephan Levy, Steven Allen, Dan O'Shea, John Hoh and David Rubin. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
Review & Outlook: No one can deny that President Bush has governed boldly.
Brendan Miniter: Tomorrow Americans decide whether to continue confronting terror with freedom.
Jim Treacher: Ten reasons I'm not voting for you, Mr. George W. Bush. |
