Kerry, Dems should junk "special interest" term

[BeyondGeography]

Now that the Washington Post is running a front-page story about the special interests that have made John Kerry the leading recipient of money from paid lobbyists in the Senate over the past 15 years (see link below), I think it's time we re-evaluated this catch-all term "special interests" and consign it once and for all to the dung heap of meaningless and politically useless rhetoric.

The fact is the Democrats and the Republicans each have traditional "special" interests that they fight for, and sometimes to a fault. Now I'm not going to equate labor, service and teachers unions, socially disadvantaged groups and the poor with Corporate America, but Republicans have never had a hard time portraying Democrats as captive to certain "interests" whose agenda is at odds with Ma and Pa taxpayer.

Add to that reality the fact that our presumptive nominee isn't shy about taking money from corporations either, and I see the whole "special interests" argument as pathetically thin.

The real contrast between the parties is class-based. When Al Gore recently called George Bush a moral coward in the face of his contributors, he got it exactly right. THAT is the way to frame the differences between the parties, not resorting to this nebulous and easily-debunked "special interests" term. The Bush tax cuts are pay-back to rich contributors. Corporate loopholes and an extractive energy policy are more of the same.

Kerry needs a rhetoric transplant. Maybe Dean, Clark or Edwards (whose lines he is constantly "adapting") can help him out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64727-2004Jan30.html?nav=hptop_tb

[jpgpenn]

1. Kerry is vile!

This guy will turn on a dime given any issue or statement that shows him in a bad light. He seen nothing wrong in smearing Clark by calling him a repuke lobbyist but as soon as his action come back on him he starts crying.

Kerry is exactly the person many if not most of us here wanted to get away from this presidential election. Lifelong poltician hand feeding Bush thru the past few years.

All I can say is if they want him that bad they best live with their decision as i'll live with mine. I won't vote for him or that other slimeball in office now. You can not get a positive from a negative.

[isbister]

2. Taking Kerry out of it for a minute

Look at what bush did to Gore last time, Gore and Clinton were renting the White House bedrooms for money. Remember? The fact that bush was a...what does Nader call him, the corporate mouthpiece?... that didn't matter, what many people bought was that Gore and Clinton were selling the White House.

How many times has Halliburton been mentioned over bush's term... too many. Halliburton might have more name recognition in the US than Kerry does ;-) Anyway, keep hammering away at bush's being in bed with the corporations and couple that with the media's almost constant "bush has this many million, bush has that many million" and even the American people will be able to put it together.

That Post story was crap:

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), co-author of the newest campaign finance law, said Kerry was not one of the half-dozen members who put together the reform package but "he's always been one of our most consistent and strongest supporters."

[BeyondGeography]

3. We agree; "special interests" is a useless term

Get specific with Halliburton, tax rebates to the rich, etc.

[EXE619K]

4. You have a point there....

Perhaps, it's time to "re-tool" the term "Special Interests".

maybe...

"State Sponsored Entrepreneurial Bias"?

This could play well for most conservatives and Libertarians.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

5. Kerry's doing a good job of talking the talk

His history of not walking the walk makes the talk ring quite hollow - even more than Dean's talk.