The parallels between Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and the Democrats' 2004 standard-bearer, Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), are pretty striking: Both men are multimillionaires who call Massachusetts home, have reputations as flip-floppers, vacation at inopportune times, and are widely perceived as stiff, not terribly personable, and a little out of touch. Here's another similarity: Both men faced incumbents with strong poll numbers on national security, an advantage that both George W. Bush and President Obama have pressed. Plus, by trying to define Romney by attacking his perceived strengths, Obama is borrowing pretty liberally from the Bush 2004 playbook. Is Obama trying to turn Romney into Kerry?
Romney's "Kerry-ization" is on: Not only is Romney "getting the full John Kerry treatment on national security," say Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei at Politico, but some top Republicans are worried that Mitt's "ham-handed response to it" will cost him the election. Ironically, the attack on Romney as "wobbly and therefore untrustworthy on national security" was launched by Kerry himself at the Democratic convention last week. That's a little rich coming from "Democrats who accused Republicans of playing politics with war in past elections." But fair or not, as the GOP knows, looking weak on security "is a terrible place to be politically."
"The Kerry-ization of Mitt Romney"
But unlike Bush, Obama isn't distorting his foe's record: Sure, it's like 2004 in that "the incumbent president has an advantage on 'national security' issues and the challenger is perceived as rich and out of touch," says Alex Pareene at Salon. But Bush's sliming of a decorated war hero "as feckless and unfit for command was based entirely on falsehoods," while Obama's mild critique that Romney's entire "foreign policy" amounts to "stop apologizing for America" and "let's start the Cold War again" happens to be "100 percent accurate." That's not "Kerry-izing."
"Oh no, the Democrats are 'Kerry-izing' Romney"
This is like 2004 — but not because of foreign policy: I "don't quite buy the comparison" between Obama-Romney and Bush-Kerry on national security, says Jon Fasman at The Economist. Despite his "clay feet on the subject," Romney has never "claimed national security as a core competency"; Kerry did. But the 2012 race does have a whiff of 2004 in that a "relatively unpopular and vulnerable incumbent" might well win because the base of the opposing party is "gripped by a visceral disdain for the president that voters at large simply did not share," and they "nominated a dreadful candidate" to beat him.
"Restricting the franchise"
THE WEEK'S AUDIOPHILE PODCASTS: LISTEN SMARTER
- 7 grammar rules you really should pay attention to
- The real reason conservatives should be outraged that police killed a white youth
- The secret to handling pressure like astronauts, Navy SEALs, and samurai
- What would a U.S.-Russia war look like?
- Why the West should accept ISIS as a sovereign nation
- 10 things you need to know today: August 28, 2014
- Why you should stop believing in evolution
- What Ann Coulter and atheist Richard Dawkins have in common
- After Ferguson, we don't need another dialogue on race
- 8 ways you're probably overspending without even realizing it
Subscribe to the Week