March 29, 2004
AMATEUR HOUR:
Kerry slams Cheney in Sacramento campaign stop (Associated Press, March 29, 2004)
Sen. John Kerry lashed out at Vice President Dick Cheney on Monday, accusing Cheney of distorting his Senate record on taxes as the Democrat sought to shift the debate to President Bush's stewardship of the economy. [...]"They found Dick Cheney in an undisclosed location and brought him out to attack me," Kerry said at the start of a town hall meeting at the Charles A. Jones Skills & Business Education Center. "That seems to be his designated role, not to create jobs, but to attack John Kerry. [...]
Two weeks ago, Kerry and Cheney engaged in a cross-country, rhetorical fight over national security and the Democrat's credentials to be commander in chief. On Monday, they sparred over taxes and the economy.
Kerry is on a two-day campaign swing through four California cities, where he is raising money and talking to voters about the need for jobs. While Kerry blames Bush for rising unemployment, Bush's campaign portrays Kerry as a habitual tax-raiser.
Cheney said Kerry had voted for higher taxes some 350 times in his Senate career and was likely to seek huge tax increases to help pay for nearly $1 trillion in his spending proposals.
"That averages to one vote for higher taxes every three weeks for almost two decades. At least the folks from Massachusetts knew who was on the job," Cheney told a receptive audience at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
This is protoypical behavior for an undisciplined and unprepared candidate. He's stepping on the Richard Clarke story that was helping him. He's calling attention to Cheney's attack, which would otherwise have been buried behind the want-ads. And he's picking a fight with a flunky, one who won't even be on the ticket in the Fall.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, no one qualified to run for president entered the race and the campaign season was so mild that Mr. Kerry was never tested. Now they find they're stuck with a bad candidate who learned nothing.
Posted by Orrin Judd at March 29, 2004 9:18 PMI'm sorry - who is the flunky that won't be on the ticket next fall?
Posted by: andrew at March 29, 2004 9:21 PMAndrew - OJ has been predicting that Cheney will not be the GOP VP candidate in '04. The scenario is that Cheney drops out, citing health concerns, allowing Bush to name another, perhaps Guiliani or (before this week's events) Rice.
Posted by: AWW at March 29, 2004 10:31 PMThat crack about Cheney's criticism not creating jobs seems to be Kerry's clumsy attempt of emulating Bill Clinton. Commentators seemed really impressed in the '96 debates when Clinton responded to one of Dole's "character" questions by saying 'That question does not feed the homeless.' The President did not explain how his refusal to answer the question WAS feeding the homeless.
Posted by: John Barrett Jr. at March 29, 2004 10:35 PMAWW - thank you. OJ, you really think Cheney is a flunky? IMHO, he's one of the few adults in D.C.
Posted by: andrew at March 29, 2004 10:44 PMKerry's a drooling idiot. If the American people elect him, we deserve what we get...
Posted by: M. Murcek at March 29, 2004 11:54 PMI predict Cheney (ok hope) will be on ticket.
He'll be a big plus. ahh.. big time.
By the way, what's with "flunky"??
Posted by: h-man at March 30, 2004 7:04 AMIt would be irresponsible for a wartime president--who well understands that he is a target of the enemy--to renominate a potential successor of such unreliable health.
Posted by: oj at March 30, 2004 8:05 AMCheney will be on the ticket. First, that's just the way Bush is. Second, it is a real advantage to have a vp with no personal political ambitions.
OJ is, however, exactly right: Kerry's responding to Cheney himself is, you should excuse the expression, Bush league. Where are his surragates?
Posted by: David Cohen at March 30, 2004 9:06 AMDavid:
That was an advantage in the first term, but George Bush intends to transform the party and the nation, which requires leaving a successor in place.
Posted by: oj at March 30, 2004 9:11 AMBarring real health problems, not p.r. "concerns," Cheney will be on the ticket. Kicking him off would anger more conservs than it would be worth.
Mickey Kaus, who lives and dies by the Rasmussen tracking poll, notes that Kerry always seems to dip in the poll whenever he actually starts campaigning. Mickey sees the Dems demanding more vacations for Kerry.
You know what? The Mick may get his wish. Kerry really doesn't seem to wear well with voters. Gallup now has him trailing Bush by four points when he was eight points ahead three weeks ago. So maybe the Mick, for all his obsessive Kerry-bashing, is onto something:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/30/election.main/index.html
Posted by: Casey Abell at March 30, 2004 9:30 AMI'm with Andrew, H-man, Casey, David et al. If Cheney's not on the ticket, this Independent may have second thoughts. He may not be Mr. personality but he's been a rock for both BushI and II. If he was moved to Secretary of State to replace Powell I could accept Condi in his place; but I think Condi replacing Powell would be the better alternative.
Posted by: genecis at March 31, 2004 8:27 PMThe most irresponsible thing a president ever did was when FDR ran for president in 1944, knowing he was dying, and exacerbated the crime by letting the convention pick his vp.
Keeping Cheney isn't that bad, but if you really think we're at war you can't purposefully keep a guy who's one Philly cheesesteak away from Arlington.
Posted by: oj at March 31, 2004 8:35 PM