Interesting analysis of the comparison of Romney to Kerry

[karynnj]

It is frustrating as it repeats conventional information, but ultimately it disputes it. I wish that the writer had slightly more guts than he does in challenging the link.

urprisingly, Romney seems to be eliciting less enthusiasm here than even Kerry did in 2004 (I went to college in Iowa, and did get-out-the-vote work on a volunteer basis for the Kerry campaign) and Santorum’s retail skills are relatively weak compared to Huckabee’s.

Romney and Santorum have compensated for their shortcomings with different advantages.

Although the short-hand history for the 2004 caucuses is that Kerry won because he seemed “more electable” than Dean among die-hard Democrats eager to defeat George W. Bush, Kerry also had a highly effective ground game in place in Iowa. As a result, he was able to muster enthusiasm from particular pockets of Iowans, like veterans, who related to his Vietnam service in those pre-Swift Boat days, and somewhat surprisingly, college students, who were attracted in part by the fact that Kerry had a strong record on environmental issues.

In contrast, the Romney events I’ve seen don’t seem to be attracting many people who have made affirmative choices about him. Rather, they’ve given up on other candidates and have come to see him as the best and possibly only available means of defeating Barack Obama. If Ron Paul supporters are classic-car freaks who spend countless hours tinkering with their car’s engine, Mitt Romney attracts the equivalent of Ford Taurus buyers, people who just want a box on wheels to get them to their ultimate destination. (In fact, the most enthusiastic Romney supporter I’ve met so far has been a banker with neatly combed hair. While this may be a natural demographic for Romney, it’s just not a huge one here.)

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2012/01/4859286/what-john-kerry-and-mike-huckabee-dont-teach-us-about-whats-happeni

No one creates enthusiasm by having a great ground game. (Not to mention that Whirley, who was said to be responsible for the Kerry ground game worked for Hillary in 2008 - and she came in third - even though she was considered "inevitable". I saw the clips with Kerry speaking to Iowans - including students on the environment and to the wife of a vet on healthcare, one on one, he won people over - and they stayed with him. They also ignore that Romney, unlike Kerry, has gotten more favorable press than most of his opponents and more party support.

They then speak of money being the big Romney advantage and speak of his attack ads. Kerry actually had less money that Dean did in Iowa. They ignore that Kerry had far better opposition - as Romney has faced some of the weakest candidates ever. Dean, Gephardt, Clark and even Edwards all had far less baggage that the current crop.

[Mass]

1. I read that and cringed at the word "surprisingly".

People who cared about environmental issues knew Kerry and he had some fairly enthusiastic supporters. I do not know anybody enthusiastic about Romney.

Certainly, you need to win other people over besides your base and Kerry, in difficult conditions given the Iraq War vote and a hard beginning because of his cancer treatment, did just that. It is indeed extremely frustrating that his analysis sound like: Romney is even worse than Kerry.

It is going to be a difficult week. We are back from a week in Western Mass and we are already assaulted by Republican ads for NH. A full week of this and I will feel crazy. At least, Perry and Bachman have decided to skip NH, so we will avoid the two craziest ones.

Edited because the first sentence did not make sense.

[karynnj]

2. I had the same frustration with "surprisingly"

I saw Howard Dean on MSNBC yesterday and he used the same excuse for his loss - that people decided that JK was more "electable". That ignores that he got just 18% of the caucus goers and the first term Senator Edwards beat him badly as well. In his case, I understand the temptation to make the problem not about his own campaign or his own qualities.

Kerry's vote was a problem, but I wonder if he had not had treatment for cancer if it a Kerry appearance at the DNC convention where Dean gave his anti-war speech could have prevented him being framed as "prowar" by Trippi. Imagine the Georgetown speech - "Don't rush to war" adapted to be given before a partisan crowd. At that point, Kerry was labeled antiwar by the media. If he had not lost that critical month or two (February and March 2003), Dean might still have been the antiwar candidate for those wanting an angry leader, but I think Kerry might not have had to explain his position as often as he did - and did successfully enough that he won more of the people saying they were antiwar than Dean in Iowa.

The Dean campaign lumped everyone who voted for the IWR into prowar - and called Dean the only anti-war candidate (ignoring Kuchinich). It was fair for Dean to use the vote, but he was actually rather dishonest in how he did so. Dean's team ignored that Dean himself spoke in favor of the Biden/Lugar amendment that JK preferred as well and they ignored that in fall of 2002, Dean actually sounded MORE aggressive than JK and others in the Senate in his own view of what resolution should be passed. He also ignored that Kerry had spoken about trying to avoid war. Dean et al, for political gain, intentionally conflated an October vote - which he likely would have voted for had he been a Senator - with a March decision to go to war - something that has greatly benefited Bush and his allies.

Here is what Dean said on Face the Nation on September 29, 2002, shortly before the IWR vote.

HOWARD DEAN: It’s very simple. Here’s what we ought to have done. We should have gone to the UN Security Council. We should have asked for a resolution to allow the inspectors back in with no pre-conditions. And then we should have given them a deadline, saying, ‘If you don’t do this, say, within 60 days, we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/1879

I remembered the Face the Nation show, but had a VERY hard time finding a link. There are many Dean sites that had links to many Dean appearances, but they eliminated all fall 2002 appearances. This resolution would have been WORSE than the IWR resolution was - stating up front that we were willing to attack unilaterally. My guess is that had this been brought up, it would have been explained away as speaking just of the case where the inspectors were not allowed in - but it is definitely neither diplomatic or anti-war. I don't hesitate to guess Kerry would have voted against it as unnecessarily provocative.

I agree with you, that we will have to put up with the comparisons to 2004 - at least through the primaries. I suspect that if Romney is the candidate, the parallels fade fast. I doubt Romney will get the treatment that the media gave Kerry - not bothering to help introduce him and allowing a character assassination. In addition, in Iowa, it is Romney whose has millions spent in his behalf attacking his opponents. A far cry from 2004.

[MBS]

3. John Kerry was the most electable, not merely because of demographic/polling issues, but because

he was, hands down, the most qualified of the 2004 candidates to be president, in terms of experience, commitment, and character.
PERIOD.
The Dean meme drives me nuts .

[karynnj]

4. In fact, in my lifetime there has not been a candidate who matches him on commitment and character

It is sad that there are Democrats who never got to see that. I still like Gov Patrick's phrase "uncommonly decent" as well. As to experience, there are few people with expertise on financial stuff and foreign policy. On foreign policy there is no Democrat who comes close - including Biden.

The Dean stuff drives me nuts as well. My family has gone to Vt every year since 1990. When there, we always read the Burlington paper, where the progressives were almost always unhappy with him - and ran candidates against him. Then suddenly he was the national progressive favorite. I would bet that if Gore and Dean were told some time in the nineties that they would be progressive favorites - and Kerry would be called centrist, the sanity of the person saying it would be questioned.

[wisteria]

5. Continual nonsense, I am afraid we will here a lot about.

I volunteered for, and voted for Senator Kerry, because he was the best candidate, and the one who had sound ideas and the leadership qualities to make a great president. It never crossed my mind to vote for him because he could beat Bush. I always thought Bush would trip over his own lack of leadership and his bad decisions. I was wrong about the outcome of that election, but I still support Senator Kerry today, because of my respect for the man. It still saddens me to think where we might of been in this country, if Bush had not won reelection.

[Mass]

6. As frustrating as it is, we may want to send this to John Stewart, who continues his gratuitous

comments on Kerry's stiffness and his comparison to Mitt Romney. But, clearly, given Kerry's results compared to Romney's, it is clear that Kerry was indeed a lot more successful.

[beachmom]

9. I know. It makes Jon Stewart look tone deaf, not Kerry. nt

[MBS]

7. I also was volunteer for JK in Iowa caucus in 2003/2004

. . though my campaigning was all by telephone, I did a LOT of it, and talked to a LOT of Iowa voters. I talked to lots of undecided voters, but never to any who were unenthusiastic or hostile.

and -HEY- JK won that caucus because he EARNED it.
It wasn't just the mechanics of a "good ground game" that did it.
Sen. Kerry himself won over those voters, one by one.

I still remember his victory rally, when JK said, "I LOVE YOU, IOWA!" . He meant it, the crowds roared, and he was on his way.
I didn't see Romney's victory speech, but I can't imagine that there was anywhere near the enthusiasm, joy, and ardency of support that there was that Iowa night in 2004.

[beachmom]

8. There is one parallel, though.

IF Romney continues to do well, and "runs the table", something I think is very possible, then like Kerry, he would have gotten through the primaries without a whole lot of vetting. Imagine, if Kerry had been hit with most of those vicious attacks early on. Then by the time the General Election had hit, it would have been "old news". I think Obama greatly benefited from that long primary with Hillary. Most baggage (like notably Rev. Wright) was already out, and the Republicans didn't have a whole lot in their arsenal to shoot at him in the General.

In that sense I hope this thing ends early, so Romney will think he has escaped unscathed. Then wait for the populist wrath that will hit him in the general election. His Bain Capital days alone are enough to really hurt him, and I have to say, I haven't heard a lot about it except for a NYT article so far. Although the Swift Boat stuff was lies, the FEELINGS those vets had toward Kerry and his opposition to the Vietnam War were real. Imagine if Edwards or Dean had run with the SBVT stuff in the fall of '03, and Kerry had still won the nomination. It's all about timing .....

[karynnj]

11. I would imagine that the attack most likely to have been done and answered

was the flip flop one. Dean did use it having people take "flip Flop" beach shoes and giant posters of the shoes and waffles to campaign events, but that was when the media was ignoring Kerry. I agree that Kerry went so quickly from not mentioned other than when questioning when he would drop out to Iowa winner to the de facto nominee, that he really was not publicly hit with a huge barrage of questioning. (The Iowa caucus was January 9th, and he really was the inevitable nominee unless he completely derailed by the first multi-state day, on February 3rd.) He actually got LESS scrutiny than Romney already has - or maybe it just seems that way, as there was less to find.

In addition, his opponents had mostly self destructed at or before the Iowa caucus. Clark had imploded by a week or so before Iowa, after he briefly was leading the polls in NH. Gephardt quit after coming in 5th in Iowa. Edwards attacked Kerry from the right in debates, where Edwards claimed Kerry's healthcare and environmental plans were too expensive, but Kerry easily batted those attacks away. Dean's campaign was a disaster - he spent a fortune on Iowa and NH and then had little money - leading him to gamble on skipping the first multi-state contests, which were in DE, NM, AZ, ND, MO and SC - to concentrate on later contests more winnable by a New Englander.

In January and February, Dean did attack Kerry, but he did it using the attacks that I later realized were pure Trippi, when he had Edwards making the same claims. He did attack Kerry on lobbyists and "being corporate", and it is possible that the unprecedented Kerry response of making public every meeting he had with lobbyists for 15 years and stating he could defend all of them may have been why this did not resurface in the general election.

Dean also attacked on Iraq - and here I think the way that Dean did it was harmful. He conflated October 2002 with March 2003 and ignored that he had praised the Biden/Lugar resolution and had spoken of what he would want in a resolution - which would have actually been worse than the awful IWR. This actually may have helped Bush - as it made it easier for B/C to repeat the claim that Kerry was for the war.

In that time frame, to my memory, the Dean people had dropped the flip flop claim. Had Dean (or someone else) been stronger and made that claim prominent enough that Kerry would have addressed it, that could have helped enormously in defusing it - and had that been an issue, Kerry likely would have NOT used the unfortunate short hand, because he would have been sensitive to the issue. Can you imagine a Kerry speech where he takes major policy area after major policy area and spoke of what informed his goals and positions over his career? Foreign policy, the environment, fiscal responsibility (from Gramm/Rudman to demanding that we not continue to give tax cuts as we increase funding for the wars), the Catholic social justice believe system that underlies his positions on social welfare issues (remember how his 2006 NH speech that had a 10 item list of such things impressed people in focus groups). It could have served a dual purpose in getting Kerry's real record out there and showing that he really has been pretty consistent in his beliefs and principles.

As to Vietnam, I don't think it would have been brought up in the primaries. No Democrat would have challenged the Navy records. At most, they would argue it was irrelevant. Not to mention, as you suggested, it was likely really the protesting that needed to be raised and addressed. Going Up River did an excellent job of doing that. Not to mention talking honestly about it would have helped because what he actually did was both honorable and amazing. My husband has a WWII vet, Republican uncle, who was very much for the Vietnam War. He shocked us in very early 2004 by telling us he hoped Kerry got the nomination and that he could well vote for him. The reason was he was concerned about the testimony - so he read it in its entirety. His comment was that he was a good man and he saw where he was coming from.

However, it was not in Dean's interest to bring Kerry's protesting up. I am sure that I was not alone in accepting that Kerry was not a hawk largely because of that history. I would be willing to bet that the conservative, unprincipled Edwards likely found that it would hurt him in the primaries to attack Kerry on that. (Remember he could not "remember" in 2004 if his first vote was for McGovern or Nixon - which means it very likely was Nixon)

Had there been a longer period where Kerry was the frontrunner, but not the defacto nominee, I would bet that some media would have brought up Kerry's protesting - and I think he would have been more comfortable speaking of that than of his service, which I don't think he ever has spoken of in much detail at all. If he were able to defuse some of the negative feelings on his speaking out, it would have made people know him a lot better.

( I think the right STILL would have believed the SBVT - if only because they could not accept that a MA liberal was a genuine war hero, an athlete, a pilot, and a hunter (none of which the reason he should have been considered as President) - when they wanted to stereotype him as french speaking and effeminate because of his good manners and elegant appearance. )

[Mass]

10. Another difference - The Boston Globe endorsed Kerry.

While papers' endorsements are not that important, it is a real slap in the face for Romney that the Globe endorsed Huntsman for GOP nominee.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2012/01/05/for-vision-and-national-unity-huntsman-for-gop-nominee/NlIwB6agpoZwnnAqHNa6TO/story.html