Since – by the way – he was in Vietnam, I’ll use one of my touchstone Vietnam experiences to comment.
ARMED LIBERAL WAKES UP, STAGGERS TO WINDOW, PULLS CURTAIN ASIDE, LOOKS OUT.
“Kerry. Shit, it’s going to be Kerry.”
At this point, Clark is out, Dean is running so that he doesn’t disappoint his supporters (except that Joe Trippi is already starting a new organizing effort that will suck what oxygen is left out of his room), Edwards is doing “OK”, and were there other candidates? I forget.
I was almost in a brutally tough position on this one, but Kerry’s impending coronation makes it somewhat easier. While Bush’s domestic policies aren’t criminal, exactly, they are amazingly stupid in almost every dimension in which I can think to measure them. But he is doing the war thing sort of right. Unless he’s planning to pull out too soon in the face of domestic political pressure. Now my head really hurts.
And if the Democrats had a candidate who had a strong track record on foreign policy and had some kind of remotely consistent plan for what to do now that we’re here (see some of my ideas, as examples of what I’d like to see), I’d have to weigh the cost of switching teams mid-game against the net advantages of domestic policies I liked better against the likely effect of the proposed foreign policies against the fact that I’ve always supported Democrats, and that a strong Democratic Presidential showing would have coattails in local races that I value a lot.
I’d been watching and reading about Edwards, and had pretty much set myself to actually do some work on his behalf in the event it was close come the California primary.
I can rebudget that time elsewhere, it appears.
And, to be frank, I think that I can dodge the tough issue of whether I’d rather support a Republican – for the first time in my life – or someone whose foreign policy makes me all itchy and nervous. It won’t matter who I support, Kerry is going to get tubed.
Why do I say that? Glad you asked!
He’s being supported because people believe he can be elected, not because of any deep attachment to him or his policies, which are almost as variable as Boston weather.
On every issue where Kerry ought to be able to just nail Bush, there is a strong and obvious counter.
* Unlike Bush, Kerry served in Vietnam, while Bush did (something) in Texas [Wrote an antiwar book featuring radically unkempt demonstrators, threw (someone’s) medals over the White House fence, was on stage with Jane Fonda, gave testimony to the Senate that certainly challenged the notion that he supported the troops, appeared in a photo in front of the NVA flag];
* Unlike Bush, Kerry didn’t trade on his father’s position to get bailed out of bad businesses [married his way to wealth];
* Unlike Bush, Kerry didn’t use his political connections to reward campaign investors [well, OK, skip that one];
* Unlike Bush, Kerry isn’t guilty of malapropisms [Unlike Bush, is perceived as an arrogant ass by many who come in contact with him]
Look, there is nothing in the world I’d like more than a serious debate about our national ends and the means we intend to use to get from here to there. If there were a Democratic candidate who combined some rational domestic policy with a serious foreign policy, I’d take out a HELOC and spend three or four months helping out.
This is arguably the most serious election in my adult life. I believe that the Communists would have collapsed sooner or later even if Reagan hadn’t spent them into the ground (although he certainly made a difference). I think that Clinton did some good stuff in refocusing our domestic social-welfare programs.
But there’s a big-ass hole in lower Manhattan, and our people are being beheaded on home video. It’s not going to get better by itself, and we need to have a coherent set of policies and the resources and will to carry them out. Kerry’s actions and statements to date don’t give me an ounce of confidence that he’s the guy to do this.
Bush is challengeable on that front, and I’d like to see him challenged in order, if nothing else, to get him to better articulate and defend what he’s doing.
I’m not going to stay up late seeing if Kerry can make that challenge.
Exactly, A.L. My head hurts too. I need a sign.
Read this from
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=352185
Kerry said that the United Nations should have control over most of our foreign military operations. “I’m an internationalist. I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”
On other issues, Kerry wants “to almost eliminate CIA activity. The CIA is fighting its own war in Laos and nobody seems to care.” He also favors a negative income tax and keeping unemployment at a very low level, “even if it means selective economic controls.”
“While Bush’s domestic policies aren’t criminal, exactly, they are amazingly stupid in almost every dimension in which I can think to measure them.” Wait till we get “negative income tax” and “selective economic controls”.
Ic, just so you know… AL supports redistribution… thus that isn’t going to upset him as much as it might you. But that other stuff is pretty big. I want to hear him publicly say that he has changed his mind on that. Because that is reason enough for me to vote against him.
Otherwise, I know how AL feels. Its just tough to see the Dems picking such a lousy group of candidates.
read Kaus much?
Maybe I’ve missed it, but I would like to see someone lay out a convincing argument as to why Kerry makes some people nervous wrt the war against islamic fundamentalist terrorists. On Totten the other day, there was a whole lot of moaning about this: “Al Qaeda wants Bush to lose,” etc.
What I want to know is what, exactly, is the mechanism by which Kerry would, in your minds, screw things up? Take me through a step-by-step argument as to what would happen.
In other words, what would Kerry do differently from Bush, and how would it lead to catastrophe?
praktike –
An eminently fair question, and one that I will try and answer tomorrow.
A.L.
IC,
A lot of college students wrote stupid things where they were in school. That is why it is called “learning.”
Kerry’s writing there, then, matter very little.
Point in fact most Americans 40 years or younger would be hard pressed to find Vietnam on a world map.
What matters is how much or how little Kerry’s positions have changed since then and that is where he will die the horrible electoral death A.L. sees coming.
“But there’s a big-ass hole in lower Manhattan…”
IWPTA “big ass-hole” and I thought you were talking about Bloomberg. Now I’m trying to pick up the pieces from my train of thought wreck and get back to your column.
See, Steve, that’s why punctuation matters…
:^)
A.L.
Most of the time, our brains ignore punctuation and only see what we want to see. If something looks wrong or sounds wrong it probably is. Go back and read again. Its amazing how many times I have done that and found my first impression was incorrect, due to reading something that wasn’t on the page (or screen, nowadays) but only in my mind.
Dear A. L.:
I didn’t vote for Mr. Bush in 2000. I don’t want to vote for him now but… I think I disagree with you on his handling of issues of war and peace. It’s not that his handling of the WoT is more right, it’s that it’s less wrong.
Mr. Kerry does have a track record. Ignore what he says–he’s taken nearly every imaginable rhetorical position on most subjects–and concentrate on what he does. Would the America that Mr. Kerry has voted for be a stronger America?
I’ve read every position paper of Mr. Kerry’s I could put my hands on. As best as I can tell he wants to:
a) treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue which is a policy that has failed
b) internationalize the effort which seems to mean enlist the support of France which is impossible
or
c) do the same things as Mr. Bush has done but do them better which is petulant.
Where are the bold new Democratic ideas on this subject? Where is the credible alternative?
My beef with Kerry (and I agree strongly with A.L. that Shrub is sadly and merely the least worst of available candidates) is his Senate record in dealing with MIAs/POWs, and VietNamese boat people refugees.
Kerry wanted to normalize relations with Vietnam in the ’90s. That may or may not be the mainstream view — it’s not mine, but I could be in the minority there. But the stake he drove thru the heart of on-going private investigations into the POW issue, in furtherance of his normalization goals, was Nixonian in its duplicity, savagery, and mendacity.
Similarly, when after TWO DECADES of U.N. (high commission on refugees) farting around with the problem of the 100,000’s of refugees (Kerry had predicted 3-to-4000 … great forecasting talent, there, John.) had come to little, and when the choice facing this country was polarized down to essentials: (a) let them into the U.S. or (b) force them back to Communist VietNam , Kerry came down firmly in favor of choice (b). Afterall, the Vietnamese government PROMISED not to hurt anybody. (These, the same guys that promised not to invade South Vietnam as part of the Kissinger/Le Duc Tho peace deal.)
When Haiti falls apart and boat people start arriving in Florida, do we want Kerry in charge? What about if Castro has a heart attack for real?
Frankly, Shrub may be a complete failure on those two scenarios, too. I dunno. But he’s an unknown. Kerry has a track record. A lousy one.
Well, **IF** Drudge is right, it might well NOT be Kerry.
Gary – was just noticing that…one can only hope.
A.L.
If it were Edwards, then perhaps there is some hope yet for genuine debate on the WOT.
The recent news has raised some maybe dumb questions:
Have Clark, Gephardt, and Liberman released their delegates? Are they allowed to? Could they get back into the race? Or instruct their delegates to vote for Candidate X?
I’m not a Democrat, so I don’t really understand the “super” delegate concept. Can they vote for anyone they want to? Change their minds repeatedly all the way to Boston?
Could someone else get into the race? Would he be in time for Super Tuesday? Or is it too late to file? While I doubt Gore or Clinton would be interested, maybe some Governor of a midwestern state perhaps? There are still many, many primaries to come.