[Mb-civic] NYTimes.com Article: Op-Ed Columnist: Kerry Off the Leash

Tue Oct 19 07:59:29 PDT 2004

The article below from NYTimes.com 
has been sent to you by michael at intrafi.com.

/--------- E-mail Sponsored by Fox Searchlight ------------\

SIDEWAYS - OPENS IN NEW YORK AND LOS ANGELES OCT. 22

An official selection of the New York Film Festival and the
Toronto International Film Festival, SIDEWAYS is the new
comedy from Alexander Payne, director of ELECTION and ABOUT
SCHMIDT. Starring Paul Giamatti, Thomas Haden Church, Sandra
Oh and Virginia Madsen, SIDEWAYS opens in NY & LA October 22
and will expand across North America in November. 
Watch the trailer at:

http://www.foxsearchlight.com/sideways/index_nyt.html

\----------------------------------------------------------/

Op-Ed Columnist: Kerry Off the Leash

October 19, 2004
 By DAVID BROOKS 

John Kerry wasn't nominated because of his sparkling
personality. He wasn't nominated because of his selfless
commitment to causes larger than himself. He was nominated
because he's a fighter. At the end of every campaign he
comes out brawling. This was the guy who could take on
Bush. 

So nobody could imagine how incompetent, crude and
over-the-top Kerry has been in this final phase of the
campaign. At this point, smart candidates are launching
attacks that play up the doubts voters already have about
their opponents. Incredibly, Kerry is launching attacks
that play up doubts voters have about him. Over the past
few days, he has underscored the feeling that he will say
or do anything to further his career. 

In so doing, he has managed to squelch any momentum he may
have had coming out of the first two debates. Some polls
have him stagnant against Bush. More polls show Bush
recovering from the debate season and now pulling slightly
ahead. The blunt truth is that Kerry is losing the final
phase of this campaign. 

Let's review the string of heavy-handed assaults from the
Kerry-Edwards campaign. 

On Monday, Kerry told seniors in Florida that Bush is
plotting a "January surprise" to cut their Social Security
benefits by as much as 45 percent. "That's up to $500 a
month less for food, for clothing, for the occasional gift
for a grandchild." 

As Kerry knows, that's ludicrous - it's a stale and
transparent canard that Democrats have brought out in
election after election, to less and less effect. President
Bush has not entertained and would not entertain any plan
that cut benefits to seniors. Bush would sooner give up any
Social Security reform than cut benefits. 

Kerry's second wild attack is that Bush would reinstate the
draft. The administration, which hasn't even asked for
trivial public sacrifices in a time of war, does not want
to bring back the draft. The Pentagon does not want to
bring back the draft. The Republican Party does not want to
bring back the draft. Given the nature of military
technology, it doesn't make sense to bring back the draft.
There may be some in the bureaucracy taking precautions,
but it is hard to imagine an attack with less basis in
fact. 

Kerry's third attack is the whole Mary Cheney thing. That's
been hashed over enough. But remarkably, Kerry has not
apologized. You use somebody's daughter to attack the
father and his running mate. The parents are upset. The
only decent thing is to apologize. If anything, an apology
would make Kerry look admirable. But Kerry, in his
permanent attack dog mode, can't do the decent and
politically advantageous thing. 

The fourth assault is Kerry's attack on the Bush
administration's supposed "ban" on stem cell research. John
Edwards's ludicrous statement that if Kerry was president,
people like Christopher Reeve would be able to get up and
walk was only the farcical culmination of a series of
exaggerations about the possibilities of finding cures for
Alzheimer's and spinal cord injuries. 

I'm not trying to make a moral point here about sleazy
campaigning. Politics ain't beanbag, and in the final days
of a close campaign, exaggerations are the norm. I'm
talking about competence and what this period says about
Kerry and his campaign. 

Bush's key vulnerability is that people fear he is in over
his head. By lashing out wildly, Kerry muddles all that.
Instead his blunderbuss approach suggests a candidate
devoid of perspective, driven by unattractive and naked
ambition. 

Why is he doing this? First, because in the insular
Democratic world, George Bush is presumed to be guilty of
everything, so the more vicious you can be about him, the
better everybody feels. 

But there is a deeper assumption, which has marred
Democratic politics for years. Some Democrats have been
unable to face the reality that people have been voting for
Republicans because they agree with them. So these
Democrats have invented the comforting theory that they've
been losing because they are too virtuous for the country. 

According to this theory, Republicans - or usually some
omniscient, omnipotent and malevolent strategists, like Lee
Atwater or Karl Rove - have been tricking the American
people into voting against their true interests. This year,
many Democrats decided, we'll be vicious in return. 

The truth, however, is that voters are not idiots. They are
capable of independent thought. If you attack your opponent
wildly, ruthlessly, they will come to their own
conclusions. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/19/opinion/19brooks.html?ex=1099197969&ei=1&en=4826a5528b5b8096

---------------------------------

Get Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper. Imagine
reading The New York Times any time & anywhere you like!
Leisurely catch up on events & expand your horizons. Enjoy
now for 50% off Home Delivery! Click here:

http://homedelivery.nytimes.com/HDS/SubscriptionT1.do?mode=SubscriptionT1&ExternalMediaCode=W24AF

HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters 
or other creative advertising opportunities with The 
New York Times on the Web, please contact
onlinesales at nytimes.com or visit our online media 
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to 
help at nytimes.com.  

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company