- The Washington Times - Sunday, September 5, 2004

Having now sat through both the Republican and Democratic Conventions, I have come to two conclusions.

First, the order of the conventions should be changed. Historically, it has been considered an advantage for a political party to hold its presidential convention first. Up until recent years, parties usually did not know who their candidate would be until the convention, and they needed extra time for him to organize a campaign and introduce himself to the American people. For this reason, the party not holding the White House always holds its convention first to give it a leg up.

However, in this day and age, I believe going first has become more handicap than advantage. To start, we no longer really use conventions to choose candidates. They are already chosen by the primaries long before convention season begins in July. The conventions’ main role now is to promote their candidates and get in a few licks on the opponents. Hence, conventions now are little more than heavily scripted infomercials.

Further, under the campaign finance laws, certain restrictions on fund raising and expenditures take effect the moment a candidate is officially chosen. For this reason, John Kerry briefly flirted withnot formally accepting the Democratic nomination at his conventionto delay the effective date of these restrictions. He ended up not doing so only because the television networks warned they would not cover the Democratic Convention unless it culminated in a genuine nomination.

This being so, I think it is now an advantage to go last. Not only does the in-party candidate avoid restrictions that apply to his opponent for several weeks, but he gets the opportunity to make his case to the public closer to Election Day. Thus, if he has a successful convention, as did George W. Bush, the glow may better translate into votes.

If the principle of giving the out-party an advantage in timing conventions holds, we should seriously consider reversing their order — requiring that the in-party go first and allow the out-party to get last licks. Also, the campaign finance laws should be amended so any restrictions do not begin until both candidates have been formally nominated.

Second, both parties should avoid nominating candidates from one-party states. I think a key reason Mr. Kerry floundered in August was his lack of experience running against real Republicans — a problem Michael Dukakis faced, as well. I think in his mind, to a large extent, the real fight was always about getting the Democratic nomination, because that was the only fight that mattered in Massachusetts, a state thoroughly dominated by the Democratic Party.

In Massachusetts, winning the Democratic nomination for any office is tantamount to victory, since the Republican Party is virtually nonexistent. Sure, Republicans have elected a couple of governors in recent years, but it’s going to be a very long time before the party is really competitive in the state.

And because the Republican Party is so weak in Massachusetts, its candidates tend not to be very good. Any Republican with serious political ambitions moves elsewhere or contents himself with appointed positions in Washington, like White House chief of staff Andrew Card, a Massachusetts native. Those who actually run for office in that state are often sacrificial lambs that put up only token opposition to Democratic opponents.

Finally, Massachusetts Republicans tend to be pretty liberal compared with Republicans elsewhere. This means they often disagree little on issues with their Democratic opponents. Given the choice between a Democrat and a pale imitation, people will usually go with the Democrat.

All this means Mr. Kerry has never run a campaign against a vigorous, aggressive, principled, well-financed, politically astute Republican. He is accustomed to always holding the high cards, with a fawning liberal press at his beck and call.

That’s one reason he was caught flat-footed by the Swift Boat Vets. He depended on his pals in the liberal media to repudiate or ignore them, which they did. But the media, too, were caught flat-footed when the Internet and talk radio put questions about Mr. Kerry’s Vietnam record onto the national stage and forced them to do some reporting.

Similar questions were raised about Mr. Bush in 2000. He was used to dealing with Texas Democrats, who tend to be more conservative than Massachusetts Republicans. But he was able to overcome this, and perhaps Mr. Kerry will, too. However, time is running out and many Democrats are very nervous. Unless Mr. Kerry can get some momentum back before the World Series, he will be in very serious political trouble.

Bruce Bartlett is senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis and a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide