Sign up for The Media Today, CJR’s daily newsletter.
Sen. John Kerry is set to unleash the campaign attack dogs on Vice President Cheney this week and the amateur (and former professional) campaign managers of the blogosphere are champing at the bit:
Center for American Progress team captain, David Sirota, leads it off with his predictable take-down of Cheney for talking out of both sides of his mouth. First, he notes, “According to the 12/16/84 Washington Post, as a House leader, Cheney went on record and specifically attacked President Reagan for not cutting defense spending.” Sirota then poses the obvious critique: “How can Cheney attack others for supposedly wanting to cut defense in the 1980s, when he was leading vocal attacks against a President of his own party for not cutting defense?”
Pandagon weighs in, noting that “There’s a reason why none of Bush’s ads have mentioned Cheney yet (even to say “Bush/Cheney”), and why Bush’s stump speech focuses either on him (“what I’ve done”) or on his administration (“we”). Bush’s major liability isn’t himself — it’s the people he depends on to guide him. … It’s important to go after the supporting cast … that defines Bush as a president.”
It may be true that “Bush’s major liability isn’t himself,” but the rest of the blogosphere finds this new line of attack against Bush-Cheney ’04, to put it mildly, imprudent.
Maxspeak writes scornfully that, “We can appreciate the point on hypocrisy: that Bush-Cheney can’t very well zero in on old Kerry votes and pretend the Cheney ones never happened. So from a purist standpoint, the B-C charges that Kerry is “weak on defense” because he did not everywhere and always vote in favor of defense spending bills are b.s. More generally, however, the premise that B-C are more congenial to defense spending than Kerry ought to go without saying. We suspect most people understand that too. Hence this gambit by the Kerry campaign reflects intellectual weakness.”
Former Deaniac Mathew Gross doubts this new approach by Kerry will result in votes come November: “It’s questionable whether attacking Cheney will give much traction against Bush; it may be simply preaching to the converted. In fact, the problem is that many people like George Bush, even though they see him as surrounded by radicals or as implementing hard-right policies. If you’re reading this, chances are you don’t find George Bush personable. But what of independent voters? Will tarring Cheney make a vote of a difference?”
(Warning: predictable puns to follow…)
Finally, the often-sobering Vodka Pundit, takes a few 80-proof shots at the Kerry campaign:
John Kerry’s campaign isn’t as bad as the one Mike Dukakis ran — but the best I can compare it with is Bob Dole’s clueless ’96 effort. I mean, Camp Kerry wants to spend a week campaigning against the Vice President?
Can you imagine a campaigner like Bill Clinton spending a week pitting himself against Dan Quayle? Or Dole against Gore? Or even Reagan v. Mondale? Of course not. It’s silly … Kerry wouldn’t be wasting his time any worse, if he spent the week going door-to-door, soliciting voters in Belgium.
Belgium, you say, Vodkapundit? Campaign Desk thinks that’s more dangerous territory for Kerry than attacking Cheney. He could find himself pressed into wolfing down some waffles, sampling the omnipresent French fries with mayonnaise, and meeting with foreign leader Guy Verhofstadt, the prime minister.
–Thomas Lang
Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.
