April 3, 2003
KERRY CUTS OFF OWN NOSE (via Drudge):
Kerry says US needs its own 'regime change' (Boston Globe, 4/3/2003)"What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States," Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough Town Library....[T]he Massachusetts senator and Democratic presidential contender seemed to be reaching out to a newly invigorated constituency as rival Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont and a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq, closes in on Kerry in opinion polls....
"I believe we can have a golden age of American diplomacy," he said, outlining his own foreign policy credentials in the speech. "But it will take a new president who is prepared to lead, and who has, frankly, a little more experience than visiting the sum total of two countries" before taking office.
The criticism appeared to contradict statements Kerry made on March 18, just a day before Bush authorized military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
Kerry, who previously had been critical of Bush's efforts to reach out to the international community, was reluctant that day to answer when a television crew asked him whether the administration had handled its diplomatic efforts poorly.
"You know, we're beyond that now," the senator said after addressing the International Association of Fire Fighters. "We have to come together as a country to get this done and heal the wounds."
There are easy ways to tell serious candidates from pretenders:
- Serious candidates don't flip-flop and contradict themselves, especially when running for an executive position. They know flip-flops will come back to hurt them.
- Serious candidates pick an agenda that will help them win the general election and stick with it. In the end, Democratic primary voters will migrate toward the candidate who has the best chance to win the election. Only unserious candidates appeal to vulgar extremists for temporary advantages.
Kerry is the epitome of unseriousness. He may live next door to New Hampshire, and have a rich wife, but his candidacy has no hope.
"In the end, Democratic primary voters will migrate toward the candidate who has the best chance to win the election."
This is almost always true, but I'm not sure it'll be true next year. I wouldn't be surprised if either of the following happen: after a successful war and with a rebounding economy, the Democrats decide to run left in order to energize their base, shut down the Greens and make the case for a centrist in '08; or, the Democratic primary electorate is so captured by the 2000 election and antiwar sentiment that they vote for an extremist candidate.
Dukakis?
Posted by: Mike Petrik at April 3, 2003 4:40 PMThis could easily be a Goldwater moment for the Democrats, an election where the true party core demands its own candidate after years of cutting and trimming and thereby reinvents the Party in its original image. Forb the Democrats this will mean ditching the DLC and veering back to the Left.
Posted by: oj at April 3, 2003 7:11 PMNader?
Posted by: Genecis at April 4, 2003 1:14 PM