Inside Politics

Liberal merger

The Institute for America’s Future and TomPaine.com, two unabashedly liberal groups based in Washington, announced a merger yesterday.

“Progressives are pulling together to counter the right-wing machine that now dominates Washington,” said Robert Borosage, president of the Institute for America’s Future. “The right has no answers for the great challenges facing our country, but they dominate the debate by sheer institutional weight. A serious challenge must be organized so Americans can learn that another way is possible. Our merger positions the Institute for America’s Future at the center of that fight.”

TomPaine.com publisher Ellen Miller said, “Over the next few years, we will drive progressive issues into the national debate and help build a majority movement for progressive change in this country.”

Both organizations are designated 501(c)(3) nonprofit groups under the tax code.

Kerry’s attack

“Perhaps on the theory that the best offense is a good defense, John Kerry raised questions about his own patriotism in a Pittsburgh speech Friday, falsely accusing Republicans of attacking it,” James Taranto writes in his Best of the Web Today column at www.OpinionJournal.com.

Said Mr. Kerry: “I’m tired of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and a bunch of people who went out of their way to avoid their chance to serve when they had the chance. I’m not going to listen to them talk to me about patriotism.”

Mr. Taranto commented: “The truth be told, Republicans almost never question Democrats’ patriotism. Even if there is reason to question it, to do so would look vicious and unseemly and would almost certainly backfire on the Republican politician who tried it.

“Kerry knows this, which is why he (and many Democrats before him) is so eager to perpetuate the myth that Republicans are questioning his patriotism. But anyone who’s paying attention knows it’s not true, and as we’ve patiently tried to explain, to accuse someone of attacking your patriotism is to raise questions about it.

“But Kerry’s Pittsburgh statement is even more ludicrous. Not only does he falsely attack Rove and Cheney of attacking his patriotism; he actually does attack their patriotism, thereby showing himself to be as vicious and unseemly as the Republicans are not.”

A ’lack of fizz’

The Kerry campaign “is experiencing something of a silent spring,” Time magazine’s Joe Klein writes at www.time.com.

“Part of this is beyond his control and possibly beneficial to his cause: Iraq and the 9/11 commission have dominated the news and kept the president on the defensive. Another part has been tactical, intentional: Kerry’s recent priorities have been fund raising (he brought in $13 million last week alone) and taking time to develop a careful strategy for the general-election campaign.

“’We’re not going to allow George Bush or the press to dictate the pace of our campaign,’ an aide said. An advertising blitz will begin [this] week, and a series of substantive speeches has been launched. The last was on fiscal responsibility; the next will be about the ’jobs and the industries of the future.’

“But I suspect there’s another reason for Kerry’s decided lack of fizz since the primaries ended. This is just not a very fizzy candidacy,” Mr. Klein said.

“There is an odd confusion of style and philosophy here. Bush is bold to the point of recklessness — a quality conservatives usually associate with liberalism — whereas Kerry is cautious to a fault, a stylistic reactionary. … Kerry’s may be the most sclerotic presidential campaign since Bob Dole’s

“The stodginess is compounded by the senator’s public performances. In an effort to seem positive, he has removed the ’Bring It On’ red meat from his stump speech and replaced it with Spam.

“It is not uncommon to see audiences leaving his fund-raising events in droves while he is still speaking. Often he’ll talk about the need for a new style of campaigning, a ’conversation’ with the American people, and then he’ll proceed to relaunder a list of Democratic nostrums (’Health care is a right, not a privilege’) that were cliches when Dukakis slogged the trail. There is nothing conversational, or comforting, about his candidacy.”

Kerry’s tax return

“On the issue of affluent Americans paying more income taxes, John Kerry is, as always, consistent in his inconsistency,” Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr writes.

“On the campaign trail, he’s in favor of raising taxes on everybody who makes over $200,000 a year. Unless, of course, he’s the one being asked to pay more, in which case, forget about it.

“We know this because of a little whoopee cushion recently inserted into the income tax forms of his home state of Massachusetts,” Mr. Carr writes.

“Weary of liberals always clamoring for higher taxes on other people, an antitax group managed to place a line on the tax form giving Bay Staters the option of paying at the old, since-repealed 5.85 percent rate, rather than at the current 5.3 percent rate.

“For two years now, John Kerry has had the opportunity to pay his ’fair share.’ But like some Benedict Arnold CEO, the Democratic Party candidate for president has taken the money and ran.

“’Why do you even call asking about this?’ his spokesman, Michael Meehan, said Saturday morning. ’He has made the same decision as 99.9 percent of his fellow Massachusetts residents.’

“Actually, it’s more like 99.97 percent. Of 2,104,326 Massachusetts state returns filed by April 15, exactly 624 taxpayers had opted to pay at the higher rate, a very small number indeed, considering that in a statewide referendum, 1,055,181 good liberals voted against cutting the income-tax rate.”

Finding a debater

John Kerry “has little choice but to pick a running mate on the basis of how he or she would stack up going head-to-head with Vice President Dick Cheney during a debate,” Chuck Todd writes at www.NationalJournal.com.

“We don’t view Cheney as a weakness for President Bush. Rather, he poses a potential strength, particularly for one key moment in the fall campaign — the vice presidential debate,” said Mr. Todd, who is editor in chief of Hotline, the National Journal’s daily briefing on politics.

“Normally, the vice presidential debate is like the hors d’oeuvre during a five-course meal — something that tastes good but is easily forgotten by the third course, or in this case, the second presidential debate.

“But given Cheney’s enormous influence on the administration’s policies, the vice presidential debate with Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry’s running mate will most likely become the foreign policy/national security matchup to watch.

“And as we’ve all witnessed numerous times on ’Meet The Press,’ Cheney is at his best when he’s talking about serious issues in his comfort zone — such as Iraq and the war on terror. Gore-Lieberman strategists overlooked the effectiveness of Cheney’s calming demeanor going into the 2000 debate. In that instance, Cheney comforted the casual voter who wasn’t crazy about former Vice President Al Gore but was also unsure of Bush’s abilities to govern.

“For these reasons, we believe Kerry has little choice but to pick a running mate on the basis of how he or she would stack up going head-to-head with Cheney.”

• Greg Pierce can be reached at 202/536-3285 or gpierce@washingtontimes.com.