Earlier this year, when Sen. John Kerry began to nail down the Democratic presidential nomination, the Republican Party launched a massive negative advertising and conservative-media talking points campaign designed to define him as an old-fashioned, pre-Clinton liberal. Never mind that Kerry's nomination represented a clear decision by the Democratic rank-and-file to confirm Clinton's centrist reforms of the party's governing agenda and political strategy. Like his father in 1988, George W. Bush has tried to tar his opponent as a Massachusetts liberal and divert attention from his own failed record and empty agenda.

Kerry is no Michael Dukakis, and his lifelong record of service to America in war and peace has been difficult for Republicans to fit into the old stereotype of Democrats as weak on national security and values. But lacking any other electoral strategy, the Bush-Cheney campaign continues to rattle the same old hobgoblin of "Liberal! Liberal! Liberal!" at swing voters, just as they did with a notable lack of success when facing Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996.

One of the sticks they have picked up to beat Kerry with is a supposedly objective Senate vote rating by the National Journal that labeled him the "most liberal Senator" in 2003. This scarlet "L" has been endlessly trumpeted by the conservative media machine, and echoed in official Bush-Cheney communications over the airwaves and the Internet. There's only one problem: It's all a bad joke.

National Journal's methodology is suspect. It's based on a complex numerical weighting system that would take a Ph.D mathematician to figure out; and moreover, it makes a decidedly subjective judgment about what is a "liberal" vote and what is a "conservative" vote that is based more on partisan than ideological differences, ensuring that most Democrats will have very liberal ratings.

Because Kerry (along with fellow Sens. John Edwards and Joe Lieberman) was out on the campaign trail for much of 2003 -- and thus missed a number of votes on social and foreign policy issues -- the National Journal's formula discounted all his votes in those areas, and labeled him "liberal" based solely on 19 of 32 votes on economic issues -- 19 votes out of the 62 the whole survey was based on. And if you take a look at those 19 votes, the idea that Kerry is voting "liberal" becomes very suspect:

• Eight, or 42 percent, of those votes reflected efforts to pare back Bush tax cuts targeted to taxpayers earning more than $200,000 per year. That reflected the consistent DLC position on Bush tax cuts. Meanwhile, two of these votes expanded tax credits for low-income working families, evidence that Kerry stands for a progressive, fiscally responisible tax code.
• Four votes reflected Kerry's opposition to the Bush administration's oil-first, environment-last energy policies, again echoing the centrist approach to energy and environmental issues.
• Two votes involved basic safety-net protections for workers squeezed by rising economic insecurity (extending unemployment benefits and halting the administration's efforts to pare back overtime pay).
• One vote was against final passage of the new Medicare prescription drug benefit, which many conservatives also opposed.

We agree with most of Kerry's votes, and nobody's ever accused the DLC of representing a conspicuously liberal point of view in the Democratic Party. We find it particularly strange that Kerry's consistent support for fiscal discipline is being used to brand him as leaning left.

A better measure of ideology for Kerry and other Democrats is their position on the big issues that have divided centrist and liberal Democrats over the last decade, and defined the New Democrat transformation of the party agenda. And by that measure, Kerry cannot possibly be considered "the most liberal Democrat in the Senate."

• He supported a variety of deficit reduction measures in the 1980s, which a majority of Democrats opposed.
• He supported the "100,000 cops" crime bill of 1994, which most liberal Democrats opposed.
• He supported a long series of trade expansion measures throughout the 1980s and 1990s, which most liberal Democrats opposed.
• He supported the 1996 welfare reform legislation, which roughly half of Congressional Democrats opposed.
• And he supported the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement, which many liberal Democrats opposed.

History aside, Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, today strongly advocate a New Democrat agenda for the country, including a stronger and smarter military; a more aggressive effort to defeat terrorists; a greater commitment to homeland security; a tough series of policies to cut federal budget deficits; an attack on corporate and other special interest subsidies; a decisive stance in favor of private-sector strategies for universal health care, environmental protection and energy independence; and a clear identification with mainstream cultural views and middle-class economic aspirations.

The Bush-Cheney campaign needs to come to grips with the actual Kerry-Edwards record, and the actual Kerry-Edwards agenda, instead of relying on tired stereotypes of the Democratic Party of the past, and bogus evaluations of the Democratic Party of the present.