He was just floundering for so long, I got a little spoiled. But a couple articles I read this week have got me nervous.
Alluding to Democrats who have criticized the war but agreed that the world is better of with Saddam Hussein out of power, Mr. Bush said, "Maybe they were hoping he'd lose the next Iraqi election."
Ouch.
As one who supported the war (about the only remotely laudable thing Bush has ever done IMO), I am utterly at a loss to imagine how Democrats can respond to that. Maybe someone can tell me? And I mean that sincerely--I want to beat Bush, and as it's near certain that the only chance to do so lies with a man who has harshly criticised the Iraq war, I'm ready to put aside my personal feelings on the issue and mouth the appropriate talking points. That is, if they are remotely plausible...
The WaPo provided another dousing of cold water:
In the stump speech he delivers virtually every day, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) stirs the Democratic faithful by railing against current trade practices and slamming President Bush's policies on education, civil liberties and Iraq.
But the Democratic front-runner does not mention how he, as senator, supported the president on all four issues, helping cement in law what he often describes as flawed government policies.
Kerry's past support for policies he now condemns is complicating his run for the White House, strategists from both parties say, and could prove problematic in a general election showdown with Bush. The president himself seized on this contrast in his opening attack on Kerry at a dinner last night of the Republican Governors Association.
Tony Coelho, chairman of Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, said it is "critical" that Kerry "clearly" explain his votes "before the public perceives him as a flip-flopper." If not, Bush "will tag him," Coelho said.
[...]
On his new Web site, Nader lists the Bush policies Democrats such as Kerry supported in Congress, and asks: "At what point do you stop relying on a party to be an opposition party and start asking what else needs to be done to put some spine into Washington politics?"
At the same time, Bush's political team plans to turn Kerry's votes for the Bush agenda against the four-term senator if he becomes the Democratic nominee. "Kerry can't run from his record," said Terry Holt, spokesman for the Bush campaign.
Already, Bush's political team is compiling laudatory remarks Kerry has made about White House policies and might spin some of them into television ads defending the president, according to Bush campaign officials.
[...]
In a speech to the AFL-CIO last week, Kerry accused the White House of allowing "foreign countries to engage in unfair trading practices." If elected, "I will insist on real worker and environmental provisions in the core of every trade agreement," he said.
Yet in the Senate, Kerry voted for a Bush trade agreement with Chile and Singapore that some Democrats complained did not mandate tough enough labor and environment standards. Kerry also voted twice to provide Bush greater authority to negotiate trade agreements by granting "fast track" power, which requires a straight up-or-down vote from Congress and precludes the House and Senate from amending the trade pacts.
Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), who endorsed Kerry after dropping out of the race, has complained that the trade pact with Chile and Singapore and the fast-track bill "failed" to protect workers, human rights and the environment.
[...]
During the Senate debate over the No Child Left Behind bill in December 2001, Kerry declared: "This is groundbreaking legislation that enhances the federal government's commitment to our nation's public education system, dramatically reconfigures the federal role in public education, and embraces many of the principles and programs that I believe are critical to improving the public education system."
We need to come up with counterpoints to/explanations for this stuff pronto.