An email: “You recently wrote: ‘And Kerry finds himself in a trap. If he talks about

domestic issues, he leaves the charges about his war record and his antiwar

record unanswered – and disappoints his base. If he responds to those

charges, he is stuck in the past – and more negative than the president’s

acceptance speech was.’ You’ve missed two points in this analysis, both of

which benefit the president:

“1) If Kerry emphasizes domestic issues in his campaign that echo his Senate

voting record he will be exposed for the tax-and-spend liberal from

Massachusetts that he is. For whatever reason, conservatives tend to win at

the presidential level when emphasizing their conservative domestic agenda,

but liberals do not.

“2) If Kerry emphasizes domestic issues in his campaign that DO NOT SOUND

liberal and cannot be criticized for being overtly liberal — which was

Clinton’s tactic in 1992 — then Bush will expose Kerry for flip-flopping,

building an negative image about Kerry that already exists but hasn’t yet

been firmed-up in the public’s mind. Some pundits say, ‘Don’t hit Kerry for

being a flip-flopper — voters aren’t afraid of flip-floppers, they’re

afraid of liberals.’ True, but its incredibly EASY to meld these two themes

together and, quite frankly, I’m not sure why more politicians don’t (though

some do). The rough outline of the bifurcated message would become: ‘He

flips, he flops, he flips — all to hide his 20-year liberal voting record

that earned him the title of The Most Liberal Senator in America’ (you

asterisk that last phrase and in small type at the bottom of the TV add you

include your citation (the National Journal, if I recall correctly).

“Either way, Kerry is screwed.”