February 5, 2004
WHAT DO YOU EXPECT FROM THE SANDANISTA SENATOR?:
Pop Quiz: The Council for a Livable World asked the Democratic candidates a series of illuminating questions. John Kerry's responses are worth paying attention to. (Hugh Hewitt, 02/05/2004, Weekly Standard)
WITH JOHN KERRY far ahead of the pack and almost certainly the nominee, the digging into his record has begun. Kerry hasn't made it difficult to unearth troubling stances when it comes to his positions on national security matters.One of the more damning sets of responses from Kerry are his answers to six questions posed to all the Democratic presidential candidates by the way left "Council for a Livable World." Read them all for a comprehensive survey of Kerry's fractured views on national security, but focus especially on Kerry's answer to Question #2, on whether he supports or opposes deployment in Alaska and California of a missile defense system. Kerry answers with a simple "Oppose." Dean, Lieberman, and Edwards felt compelled to give nuanced responses that attempt to assuage the left's suspicion of all antiballistic missile defenses while retaining some credibility with a public that, quite understandably, thinks missile defense against rogue regimes like North Korea is a very good idea indeed.
Not Kerry: Damn the defenses, let's depend on the good will of Kim Jong Il! Kerry's with Kucinich on this one.
The Senator's just lucky there are no freedom fighters in North Korea, because, based on his record in the '80s, he'd have said he opposes such a liberation movement Posted by Orrin Judd at February 5, 2004 10:37 PM
Just before last Tuesday's primary, one of the local stations ran snippets of each candidate standing in front of the camera explaining why voters should support them. Kerry rambled somethign about fighting for jobs and health care and then he said this:
"... and in the 1980s I fought against the illegal wars in Central Amreica."
That's a winning campaign message -- "I opposed the overthrow of Daniel Ortega and the instalation of democratic governance in Nicaragua."
Posted by: "Edward" at February 6, 2004 1:31 AMI find it hard to believe that Bush won't be able to tear Kerry to shreds on all of his flip flops and positions.
The only thing giving me pause is that the US voters elected Clinton twice and NY voted in Hillary so I don't have rock solid confidence that Kerry won't win.
You have to look at a map of the 2000 election results and then figure out what states Kerry might win that Gore didn't, and then take into account that he could still take New Hampshire and West Virginia (for example) and their six electoral votes and lose, since Bush's remaining states have added seven electoral votes after the 2000 census.
While I still think Bill Richardson is the most likely choice for VP for Kerry, to shore up the Hispanic vote among Democrats and try to pick off Florida, he could also go with a midwesterner like Evan Bayh (mentioned elsewhere on the web Thursday), in a bid to pick off some rust belt states. But how much of a difference a VP pick makes overall is always open to question.
Posted by: John at February 6, 2004 11:33 AMNH is the most Republican state in the country and has a popular governor and Senator on the ticket.
Bayh has been vetoed by "women's groups" as insufficiently murderous.
Posted by: oj at February 6, 2004 11:42 AMBy July, there will be far fewer Democrats eager to say "yes' to Kerry than there are today.
Even Edwards will ponder deeply, because a loss this time around makes him Joe Lieberman in 2008.
Posted by: jim hamlen at February 6, 2004 11:43 PM