kerrying a lot of baggage
As much as I hate publicly criticizing the candidate I hope will win, it is necessary for Democrats to recognize that John Kerry has his faults. Most obvious is the characterization of Kerry as a wishy-washy, flip-flopping, pander-bear. These accusations will be no more harmful than in the realm of national security.
The argument that Kerry is wishy-washy, having no strong ideological beliefs, is evidenced by his varying positions on the War in Iraq. On October 11th, 2002, Kerry voted in favor of the legislation authorizing the President to “use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” in Iraq (Text of resolution). On October 15th, 2002, however, Kerry told a group of Democrats that he had not voted to give the President the authority to act unilaterally, which he said would be unjustified. Instead he argued that, “every single member of the United States Senate moved to take it to the UN with a willingness to enforce through the United Nations if that is the will of the international community."
Kerry’s position on the Israeli security fence shows his tendency to flip-flop on issues and pander to his audience. On October 17, 2003, Kerry told a conference of the Arab American Institute that he understood “how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government's decision to build the barrier off of the green line - cutting deep into Palestinian areas. We don't need another barrier to peace," he concluded (Kerry's remarks). Only four months later, on February 29, 2004, at a meeting with 40 Jewish organizational leaders, Kerry assured them that he supported Israel’s right to build a security barrier, which he saw as a matter of self-defense.
A final example, noted on January 28 on The New Republic’s “etc.” blog, demonstrates the extremes of Kerry’s pandering, taking whatever side is most politically opportune. A Kerry constituent wrote the Senator twice, conveying two contradictory positions about the 1991 Gulf War. In the first letter he thanked Kerry for his opposition to the war and received a response saying, “I [Kerry] share your concerns…[and] voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war." Nine days later, he received a response to his second letter, in which he had expressed support for the war, to which Kerry responded: “From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf" (Etc. blog entry).
What must Democrats do to ensure that this doesn’t cripple to party on what will be the most important issue in November? First, Kerry must choose which side he’s on, in the policy areas in which he has yet to clearly articulate a position (i.e. most of them). Then, he should adopt the “winning, democratic national security strategy” that I propose here: http://www.princeton.edu/~in/may04/grinberg.htm.
The argument that Kerry is wishy-washy, having no strong ideological beliefs, is evidenced by his varying positions on the War in Iraq. On October 11th, 2002, Kerry voted in favor of the legislation authorizing the President to “use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” in Iraq (Text of resolution). On October 15th, 2002, however, Kerry told a group of Democrats that he had not voted to give the President the authority to act unilaterally, which he said would be unjustified. Instead he argued that, “every single member of the United States Senate moved to take it to the UN with a willingness to enforce through the United Nations if that is the will of the international community."
Kerry’s position on the Israeli security fence shows his tendency to flip-flop on issues and pander to his audience. On October 17, 2003, Kerry told a conference of the Arab American Institute that he understood “how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government's decision to build the barrier off of the green line - cutting deep into Palestinian areas. We don't need another barrier to peace," he concluded (Kerry's remarks). Only four months later, on February 29, 2004, at a meeting with 40 Jewish organizational leaders, Kerry assured them that he supported Israel’s right to build a security barrier, which he saw as a matter of self-defense.
A final example, noted on January 28 on The New Republic’s “etc.” blog, demonstrates the extremes of Kerry’s pandering, taking whatever side is most politically opportune. A Kerry constituent wrote the Senator twice, conveying two contradictory positions about the 1991 Gulf War. In the first letter he thanked Kerry for his opposition to the war and received a response saying, “I [Kerry] share your concerns…[and] voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war." Nine days later, he received a response to his second letter, in which he had expressed support for the war, to which Kerry responded: “From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf" (Etc. blog entry).
What must Democrats do to ensure that this doesn’t cripple to party on what will be the most important issue in November? First, Kerry must choose which side he’s on, in the policy areas in which he has yet to clearly articulate a position (i.e. most of them). Then, he should adopt the “winning, democratic national security strategy” that I propose here: http://www.princeton.edu/~in/may04/grinberg.htm.
posted by Marc at 2:01:00 AM
<< Home