David Wade answers to the charge that Romney is the same as Kerry

[Mass]

http://bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/20220314hobbled_on_kerrys_path

Hobbled on Kerry’s path

By David Wade
Wednesday, March 14, 2012 - Updated 12 hours ago
E-mail Print (5) Comments Text size Share
In politics, we love parallels. Historic comparisons chew up dead-air time, particularly on a long night of exit poll gazing as results trickle in on an anything-but-Super Tuesday.

But analogies have their limits, and one 2012 meme sorely in need of fact-checking is the awkward parallel often drawn between John Kerry’s march and Mitt Romney’s long and bumpy slog toward their parties’ nominations.
...
I can acknowledge similarities. Kerry and Romney share great heads of hair, boast central-casting presidential bearing, hail from Massachusetts (though Romney has invoked New Hampshire and Michigan as home when politically convenient) and neither is worried where his next sandwich is coming from.
...
John Kerry didn’t limp to the Democratic nomination. Nor did he struggle consolidating his base the way Romney has.
...
But in comparing Kerry and Romney, any history other than the revisionist kind prove those seeds were not planted in Kerry’s victorious Iowa snow or his string of successive spring triumphs against Democratic rivals. Accurately diagnosing Romney’s strengths or weaknesses as a prospective Republican nominee requires a more sophisticated metric.

Interestingly, others agree

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/03/kerryworld-disputes-mitt-analogy-contd-117433.html

A Romney-Obama may end up looking a lot like the Kerry-Bush campaign, in that it would likely be a close race fought over the fundamentals of the state of the nation, with one candidate buoyed by incumbency and the other hobbled by personal political shortcomings. But for the purposes of the primary, Wade's right and he's making a version of a point Republicans have made privately over the last few months: even the seriously flawed Kerry earned the respect and support of his party, and persuaded much of the country that he could be a strong challenger for Bush, in a way that Romney has not matched.

(I obviously disagree with "seriously flawed", but it is interesting to see that even people who do not like Kerry see the difference.

[sinkingfeeling]

1. And John Kerry would have President if Ohio's results hadn't been changed.

[blm]

2. And Kerry won all three debates DECISIVELY - Romney has no chance of accomplishing that.

BushInc had to pull out every election fraud trick in the book to top Kerry.

[MBS]

4. " " " "" n/t

[MBS]

3. really good piece

Thanks for finding this.
I love David Wade.
I liked these parts of the oped, too. Really emphasized how well Sen. Kerry did in the primaries, how well he really did in general election, and how close he came to winning. (Well, he probably DID win, but I'll leave that alone for now. .)

That strategy proved successful. Kerry surged to win the Iowa caucuses by 6 points over his closet rival, John Edwards, who was himself surging on the crest of the all-important Des Moines Register endorsement. Moreover, Kerry topped presumptive Iowa frontrunner Vermont Gov. Howard Dean by 20 points and left Iowa with an approval rating of 77 percent among Democratic voters.

And Romney? Despite mounting his second consecutive Iowa campaign, Romney was edged out by a former Pennsylvania senator who’d lost his last statewide campaign by a whopping 19 points. Both Kerry and Romney went on to triumph in neighboring New Hampshire. But Kerry’s Granite State triumph — 12 points ahead of fellow New Englander Dean — continued his momentum for the remaining contests, whereas Romney stumbled into a blowout South Carolina loss that made suspect his ability to coalesce the Republicans.

Kerry went on to amass a won-loss record of 46-4. By July, Kerry-Edwards was besting Bush-Cheney nationally in NBC, CBS, Rasmussen, Zogby and AP polls. Whereas Romney saw failed conservative rivals like Herman Cain and Rick Perry sign on to the campaigns of more conservative candidates, Kerry earned the endorsements of rivals Gephardt, Edwards, Dean, Clark, and Lieberman. . . .

Kerry came within a whisper of the presidency, his goal just out of reach as the final Ohio vote count trickled in. His general election was marked by highs — polls showed him topping a wartime president in three high-stakes debates — and lows — most of all an insufficient response to the infamously deceptive Swift Boat Veterans for Truth television advertising.
All of this gets overlooked because we know too well that history is always written by the winners, and in a campaign’s autopsy the political class is tempted to look back and comb the earth for the earliest seeds of defeat.

[karynnj]

5. This is a contender for the most contrived Romney is like Kerry piece -equating their economic plans

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11461700/1/mitt-romney-john-kerry-economic-platforms-similar.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN

It is pretty sad that calling for a stronger economy is treated as if it were a unique economic idea. (Not to mention - Kerry was for a stronger, FAIRER economy, something far from Romney's plans - where the bottom 98% get about as much consideration as Seamus did.

[Mass]

6. Andrew Sullivan is a contender as well.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/andrew-sullivan-to-chris-matthews-mitt-romney-is-the-most-dreadful-candidate-since-john-kerry/

Andrew Sullivan To Chris Matthews: Mitt Romney Is ‘The Most Dreadful Candidate Since John Kerry’

[politicasista]

7. Say that loud sir,

Say that over and over.

Say it loud so the non pol junkies, and progressives, Dems all over the world can hear you.

You are nothing like Romney, If you don't, that meme becomes (or has already become) the truth.

http://www.theroot.com/views/michigan-recap-rightwatch

[karynnj]

8. No - things do not become truth by repetition - though the danger is that they become common wisdom

I have actually seen and heard the comparison shift from Kerry to Gore in the last week or so. Eventually, people will see that, in truth, the link is that Romney really is everything that the Republicans said that these two fine, principled men were - when for the most part, they weren't.

Romney really does have no core set of believes on most issues that inform his positions.
Romney lies very easily without showing any signs of unease.

Your link equates Romney's many tone deaf moments with one Kerry comparison. One that really does not work. Kerry being wealthy has nothing to do with Kerry responding that he wanted swiss cheese on his Philly Cheese steak. (I use response as he was asked what kind of cheese he wanted - and it is perfectly ok to ask for another kind of cheese that was available. It had more to do with Kerry watching what he ate - and cheese whizz is not likely to be what his doctor would have preferred he eat. Tastewise, Swiss cheese is likely one of the best choices with the onions and beef. ) The wiki article tells you what is in cheese whiz ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheez_Whiz ) - Frankly swiss cheese tastes far better and is less messy. (something to consider with an already messy sandwich)

There have always been politicians who really believe in nothing other than themselves - and maybe their families and religion. If they are charismatic (which Romney isn't) or have a lot of money behind them, they can win offices. One "advantage" they have is that they will never be forced to chose between what they think is right and what they think advances them. The disadvantage is that people usually are able at some point to see that there is no core there. (It happens on both sides of the aisle. To me, Romney has more in common with John Edwards, who put on at least three political persona that we saw, than like Gore and Kerry, who whatever you think of them really are who they are - and never tried to create a fake facade that would simply how they were perceived.

Read the speech that Yvonne posted in Mass's thread on faith. That is a speech that few politicians could give - or write. It is intensely personal - far more personal than anything we ever heard from the more extrovert politicians - whether Clinton, Bush, or Edwards. Obama's best speeches are the same - going deep into who he is - and as he is President, they are heard.

[politicasista]

9. Agree about common wisdom

and that is also unfortunate that they are linking Rmoney to Gore. Gore like Kerry is a decent person with integrity, but they were not extroverted and had average to below average campaigns as Clinton and Obama, they are written off as losers, or other cold adjectives.

You can post otherwise, but still people will not see that.

Also think that this is one advantage the Dem president has now with social media and being engaged in pop culture (i.e. music, sports, etc.)

The Philly cheesesteak vs swiss cheese thing seemed silly, just like that Green Tea thing. Like nothing else matters.

Should not have posted that article from "The Root," since the author semi-dissed Obama and praised Palin. TR (The Grio is another) that focuses on urban community issues and offers perspectives from both sides of the aisle. Councilwoman Ayanna Pressley made The Root 100 list and "Basic Black," one of the urban talk shows in Boston collaborates with them a lot. IMO, that article makes the Senator look really bad because Dems (not all Clintonistas, but some Obama supporters), liberals/progresives have said the same thing.

Agree with your comments on Rmoney and Edwards. Though will add that Mr. Wade had to once again, defend the Kerrys on Twitter (from a AA person) from the Heinz stock being donated to the GOP. It's great that they are doing things for the little people, and hope they will be seen as people are not about the money, but care.

However, when the list came out about the 20 richest members of Congress, the pols (though Kerry was not mention by name) on there were just written off as nothing. And these tweets were coming from people (some celebs) that support Obama. (Like the Senator does not do enough to support Obama )

Rmoney already said he does not care about the poor and likes firing people. That is why the Senator and those closest to him need to keep saying that he is nothing like him loud over and over.

We all hear that, but the non pol junkies, Dems, liberals/progressives do not. It also may be time to just admit the K campaign dropped the ball on the Swifties and move on. All the links and facts to prove otherwise do not matter anymore. The Senator took full reponsibility for that. Wade admits it above too. And there is nothing the Senator can do about that.

This may not be in line with what everyone is saying in this thread, but it's JMHO.

Will go check out the thread on religion, though it seems to be overlooked because of the Senate race in MA.

[karynnj]

10. John Kerry's campaign was at least as good as Bill Clinton's

The problem is that most people are results merchants - if a candidate wins, he ran a great campaign. If he didn't, he ran a poor campaign. However, elections are not like duplicate bridge where you play the same cards. The fact is Kerry nearly pulled off an upset - and might have if Bill Clinton had postponed his selfish book tour by about 8 months until after the election - or at least not criticized the Democratic nominee and others arguing against what Bush was doing in Iraq.


Bill Clinton had a third party candidate taking votes from GHWB and bashing him daily, while ignoring Clinton. In addition, where GWB was at 60 at the beginning of 2004, GHWB was at or below 40. In addition, it was a different media world - in 1992, the media WOULD have dismissed the SBVT pointing out that they were contradicting the official record, with no new proof - and that they were caught in lies.

After Clinton won, Carville and Begala wrote a book that became a movie that turned the campaign into myth. They created the view that the campaign responded to attacks better than anyone else. In fact, their goal was an answer - maybe complete, maybe true - but not usually. The fact is that on both the draft and Gennefer Flowers, Clinton had to respond at least three times - changing his story and finally admitting that there was some truth. In the anti-Democratic atmosphere of 2004, Clinton would have been killed by either the charges themselves or being caught not telling the whole truth.

[politicasista]

11. Ok.

Been sounding redundant, guess sick of the dissing of decent people like Senator Kerry and Gore at Obama's expense; to prove points about Rmoney.

And Clinton didn't run a A+ campaign like people think, yet he is still proudly embraced by the party while it is the opposite for Dems not as lucky. (Obama has long supassed Clinton in the cool extrovert part. Nuff said .

Agree that the election cycles were different, but how many people can you ask if they are still proud of their vote in 04?


Guess it would just be nice to see the Senator be more respected by staunch supporters of the President, Dem party and liberals/progressives for just being there.


Peace.

[Mass]

12. Clinton was lucky. he got a lot less votes than Kerry and Gore, but won because of Perot.

how many people can you ask if they are still proud of their vote in 04?

Plenty, and not only in the Kerrycrats. And frankly, Kerry is respected by most supporters of the president and Dem party and liberal progressives. Some punks on the net may not, but once again, anonymous punks do not matter. For the most parts, true progressives have rejected the comparison with Romney,

[karynnj]

13. This year, it is Republicans, who oppose Romney who push the Kerry, Gore analogies

Last edited Thu Mar 22, 2012, 08:07 AM - Edit history (1)

Actually, I think very few Democrats are ashamed of their 2004 vote - unless the point is Edwards. Many of the things that Kerry was blasted for are things where he was proven right. I still have my Kerry for President bumper sticker, along with a "Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry" and an Obama one on my car.

The other source for the comments is that the likely Republican nominee actually has most of the supposed bad characteristics that the right claimed Kerry and Gore had. He is more wooden than Gore at his very worst, he lies (rather than Gore's purported exaggerations) frequently, and he has shifted his position all over the spectrum on nearly every issue (etch a sketch is right!) far surpassing any "flip flopping" on Kerry's behalf. Given those charges, it is natural that a lazy media would say this sounds like Gore or Kerry.

[politicasista]

15. You and Mass' points

makes sense. Hopefully, all of that will be noted someday, if not, maybe it is meant to be kept quiet? IDK.

[Mass]

14. What bugs me as much as the comparison with Romney is the fact that every single sordid article

written about John Edwards includes Kerry. I guess it is not surprising as Edwards was indeed Kerry's running mate, but it means my emails about Kerry's news are now full of articles about Romney and Edwards.