How Bush Plans to Attack Kerry

Bush Campaign Plans

Already, Republicans are depicting Kerry as a product of Washington, beholden to special interests and out of touch with regular Americans.

"Hello, Kettle? Yeah, this is the Pot." You know how the rest of that conversation goes.

Republican Party chairman Ed Gillespie declared (Kerry)...one of the "most liberal members" of the Senate.

That's not saying much, Congress being the conservative cauldron that it is. Still, the more liberal, the better.

"Politicians get in a lot of trouble when they present themselves as different than who they really are," says Matthew Dowd, the Bush campaign's chief strategist.

I'm thinking back to the 2000 election and wondering, then, why it worked so well for Jr.

They (Republicans) also hope he follows a historic pattern: No sitting member of Congress has been elected president since John Kennedy -- a Massachusetts Democrat -- in 1960.

Meaning what?? That once elected he'll be assassinated?!

A preview of their lines of attack:

●Kerry has left no footprint on Capitol Hill. "What's he done?" asks Mary Matalin, a Bush campaign adviser. "He's been on the Hill forever, and what does he have to show for it?"

Response? First list a few things that Kerry has done in Congress and then list the things that Bush has successfully done: millions of jobs lost, economy in the tank, national deficit and debt at record levels, rolled back environmental protections, whittled away at Civil Rights, melded church and state, proposed initiatives (No Child Left Behind) for which he has proposed no funding, killed thousands of innocent civilians in a war the basis for which was lies, etc, etc, etc.

●He switches positions when it's politically expedient.

Well, when you're wrong...admit it, take corrective action and move on. Better than making a mistake and sticking to it, making things worse. (Are you listening, Bush?) That's not political expediency, it's just good decision making.

●He's a hypocrite on the Vietnam War.

No, he did his duty, served his country and then spoke his conscience about the validity of the war. If it's a hypocrite the Repugs want, they need look no further than their own Coward-in-Chief who, rather than fight and/or speak out against the war if he had a problem with it, hid out in the Sons of Privilege Texas unit of the Air National Guard (and couldn't even complete his commitment to that cushy ride).

●He's a captive of special interests. In speeches, Kerry warns lobbyists, "We're coming, you're going, and don't let the door hit you on the way out."

But Kerry has raised more money from lobbyists than any other senator over the past 15 years.

Only because Bush was never in the Senate. Head-to-head, dollar-for-special interest dollar no one can hold a candle to Bush.

"Kerry's record of voting for huge tax increases (as opposed to HUGE tax giveaways to the rich that have done more damage to the economy than any tax increase ever has?), opposing a strong defense and undermining our intelligence is out of the mainstream for a majority of voters."

Smear, smear, smear, and spin. Why is it that moderates and conservatives are willing to let slide a politician who votes for tax cuts at the expense of the budget and federal programs just because they use the term "tax cuts" but seem to be so unwilling to give credit to anyone who may raise taxes in order to pay for programs that are beneficial to people...or to pay off the debt. It only tells one part of the story to talk about tax cuts or tax increases. Along with tax cuts must come either program cuts or an increase in defecit spending. Or, in Bush's case (the worst case) an increase in spending along with the tax cuts, resulting in tremendous defecits. Conversely, tax increases aren't necessarily a bad thing if they're used to pay for necessary programs. Also, why does voting against inflating an already over-bloated defense industry constitute "opposing a strong defense"? And, if anyone has undermined intelligence it's BushCo. (Think Valerie Plame, for just one example...think fabricated evidence of Iraqi WMD for another). The same argument about voting against defense spending applies to intelligence if the benefits outweigh the costs. Finally, what is it about sensible spending balanced against sensible programs that is "out of the mainstream for a majority of voters"? By being so close to the super-wealthy and special interests, the Repugs are way more out of touch with a majority of voters.