Browse through an archive of columns by Michael Barone.
The Bush campaign struck hard at John Kerry this week. When Kerry visited West Virginia on Tuesday, the Bush campaign ran an ad in West Virginia media attacking him for voting against the $87 billion supplemental appropriation for Iraq. The ad noted that Kerry voted for the Iraq war resolution but "later voted against funding for soldiers." It went on, "No body armor for troops in combat. No higher combat pay. No to better healthcare for reservists and their families. No–wrong on defense."
Kerry’s response: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
advertisement
This response probably hurt–or will hurt–him more than the Bush ad.
The Bush campaign argues that Kerry is weak on defense and that he tries to take both sides of many issues. The ad and Kerry’s response tend to support both arguments. We will surely hear more of this exchange as the campaign goes on.
Kerry does seem to have an impulse to take both sides of issues–on the Iraq war, on trade, on the Patriot Act. But this tendency also reflects a fundamental weakness of the Democratic Party this week. It is that the Democratic Party–not so much primary voters, but the voters the party needs to win the general election–are sharply split on many key issues. On one side are the Bush haters. Thanks to Howard Dean, they set the tone during the contest for the nomination, with every candidate except Joe Lieberman trying to echo Dean’s contempt for and hatred of Bush and all his works. Exit polls showed that Bush haters were a clear majority of primary voters and caucusgoers.
But turnout was not that high. Curtis Gans of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate reports that Democratic turnout up through and including Super Tuesday March 2 was 11.4 percent of eligible voters. That is higher than the turnout in the uncontested 1996 Democratic primaries and higher than the turnout in the 2000 primaries, which were uncontested after New Hampshire. But it is lower than any other Democratic contest since 1968. So Kerry was not tested among Democratic voters who are not Bush haters.
Kerry’s voting pattern on the Iraq war can be seen as a response to political circumstances. In fall 2002 his vote for the war protected him for the general election. But in fall 2003, on the supplemental appropriation, he was clearly appealing to primary voters. The fact that Democrats are split has pushed Kerry into taking both sides of issues. He is like the politician who says, "Some of my friends are for the bill, and some of my friends are against the bill, and I’m always with my friends."
That’s not a posture that serves him well in the general election. But it is one that he was practically obliged to take to win the Democratic nomination. When a party is badly split on issues it pays a price.
