Issue Oriented Campaigning

I am amazed at how effectively the Republicans have painted John Kerry as a flip flopper. That's a serious accusation and it matters in a presidential election. If a candidate regularly changes his or her stance on an issue, it reflects poorly on leadership skills. Some changes are necessary and to be expected - we want our leaders to learn and grow. But too many changes, or changes that are not justified or explained by anything other than polling show a lack of vision and principles.

So it is troubling to me when John Kerry is painted as a flip flopper. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, and I know that in an election we can usually count on the opponent to provide us with information about a candidate's bad side. So when Republicans say Kerry waivers and falters and changes his mind all the time, I try to look into those accusations. The frustrating thing is, the accusations aren't justified. I won't spend too much time refuting the allegations of flip-flopping because there are so many great resources on the web for doing that. (Check out Salon.com for a partisan approach, or Slate.com for a more neutral approach to dissecting campaign charges.)

But there is one charge of flip-flopping from Bush's acceptance speech last night that is just too egregious to let pass - because it accuses Kerry of flip-flopping while at the same time suggesting he doesn't support providing our troops in Iraq with sufficient gear. Bush used an actual Kerry quote: "I actually did vote for the 87 billion before I voted against it." Now, that 87 billion refers to the additional money Bush asked Congress for to fight the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. So what did that comment mean in context? Well, Kerry voted for the 87 billion in an amendment he proposed that would have also temporarily suspended the Bush tax cuts on those who make more than $400,000 per year. He then voted against the measure that passed, which made no provisions for paying for that additional 87 billion in spending. Some could argue that after his own amendment failed he should have gotten on board and voted for the money anyway - but no additional funds were needed for at least four more months. There was no reason to hurry through an inrresponsible bill. There was still plenty of time to find a way to support our troops while not sending us deeper into debt. So Kerry took one position on the issue: support the troops, but do so in a fiscally responsible manner. For taking one position that was smart, well-reasoned, and responsible, he was labeled as a flip-flopper who doesn't want our troops to have body armor.

There is a substantive difference between Bush and Kerry on the 87 billion dollar issue. Bush favored deficit spending (borrowing from our kids) to cover the cost while Kerry favored paying for the additional spending with additional revenue (reinstating taxes on the wealthiest.) There are sound policy reasons for taking either approach. Those two approaches reflect real differences between the candidates. Why not campaign on this actual issue instead of on demonstrably false name-calling? If Bush should be re-elected, shouldn't it be for his policy positions and not for his superior ability to lie and disparage? Of course, if Bush campaigned on his positions, he couldn't be re-elected.