And so the Kerry Bashing begins by

Kausfiles has a post about why “so many people, myself included, intensely dislike Sen. John Kerry?”. Well, it obviously has nothing to do with Kerry’s positions, because Kaus never mentions any of them. No, Kerry is a Bad Man – just like Gore was a Bad Man. The proof:

I think it starts with the phony furrowed brow. Perpetually furrowed and perpetually phony. It’s been furrowed for so long I doubt he could unfurrow it now even if his advisers convinced him that would be a good tack to take! …

That is right – a furrowed brow. It is alright for a columnist to admit they hate Kerry because of a furrowed brow, a brow that must have been furrowed because his campaign staff thinks brows should be furrowed.

Then, of course, there comes the “unprincipled” charge:

Then add the sense that Kerry would never ever take a principled or unpopular stand if losing the argument might actually threaten to derail his precious political career. (He apparently made some anti-affirmative noises in 1992 and quickly backed down when the obvious groups complained.)

First, how can a man who founded a Vietnam Veterans organization to oppose the Vietnam war be unprincipled? Second, Kerry, to my knowledge, was the first of the contenders to publicly call for the end of Bush’s tax cuts. Third, notice the careful parsing of that last sentence. Kerry “apparently” took a stand unpopular with a potential constituency, then backed down. Of course, Kaus provides no quotes, no links, no evidence at all of this alleged squeamishness. Of course, a little research shows why Kaus doesn’t provide evidence – nothing of the sort happened.

Kaus does try a bit of substance, linking to a 2000 article about Kerry’s attempt to be the vice president. Of course, the article is critical of Kerry in the same misleading way that Kaus is, but Kaus uses it to state that Kerry “sucking up to Gore while jockeying for the vice-presidential nod in 2000″. Wow. Imagine that. Kerry wanted to serve, and so he highlighted areas of agreement with Gore. What a Bad Man Kerry must truly be.

Finally, Kerry must be a Bad Man, because he is not even a man at all:

The man’s an animatronic Lincoln. There’s a metal plate in the back of his head — under all the glued-on “hair” — that they open up and stick screwdrivers in when he gets back to his office….

That is right – just like the “wooden” Gore, Kerry isn’t like the rest of us – he is an “animatronic Lincoln”.

This whole post is Gore II. Gore was a bad man because of his appearance (“earth tones”), Kerry is a bad man because of his appearance (“furrowed brow”). Gore was unprincipled (“farm chores”), Kerry is unprincipled(he “apparently” changed a position to appease a core constituency). Gore was boring and not one of us (“wooden”), Kerry is boring and not one of us(“animatronic Lincoln”). As with Gore, there is not one mention of Kerry’s positions, and the attacks are backed up weakly, if at all.

This is what we can expect from the right wing hacks (and, yes, Kaus is a right wing hack. He may not have always been one, he may not have started out as one, but he is definitely one now. No serious political commentator would pen this kind of meaningless tripe. Serious commentators realize that their columns are vehicles for discussing issues – not their own petty, childish, smug obsession with politicians’ appearance.) through 2004. The only questions are whether or not the mainstream press will allow those hacks to dictate the coverage of Kerry as they allowed them to dictate coverage of Gore, and whether Kerry can effectively fight back.