A
Boston Globe article today had some insight into Bush's strategies about to which wacky liberal they can best liken Kerry:
Several Republicans said they hoped Kerry would continue proving he is not Dukakis rather than addressing qualities that his opponents say are more like Gore's, including what they called a proclivity for long-winded discourses.
I think Rove just isn't sure what to do with this guy...
[During the current ad campaign] Bush surrogates and independent Republican groups continue to use the "liberal" label, and say Dukakis comparisons work especially well in Southern states, where "liberal" is almost the equivalent of a dirty word. And Bush advisers still may decide to compare Kerry to Dukakis -- or Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who is arguably the most famous liberal icon -- as the campaign moves forward.
But Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform and a close White House ally, insisted that comparisons with Gore are far more salient than the Dukakis approach -- cutting to the core of Kerry's character rather than criticizing his beliefs.
When Bush took office there was much more of a push for there to be a "centrist" leader and I believe calling a candidate a "liberal" had a much more negative connotation than it does now. Gore conceded much during his presidential bid for the sake of being centrist- since Bush was appointed to office and been anything but a centrist and anything but a "uniter", he got his teeth back.
I for one would be perfectly content for Kerry to be compared to Gore04, because he's quite a guy. Gore00 never got a fair shake because of Clinton, though, so if they try to liken Kerry to Gore00, what are they going to say? "He's boring... and, uh.. dull... and, uh.. he talks in a monotone.. and, uh... well, he said he invented the Internet!" That would backfire heartily, especially considering that pretty much everything Gore said about the Bush Tax Cuts turned out to be true.