April 24, 2004
50-0
Sniffing out the reasons for Kerry's April slide (David Broder, 4/24/04, Washington Post
If you watched Kerry on "Meet the Press," you saw many examples of dodginess on his part. At the very start, moderator Tim Russert asked for a "yes or no answer" to the question, "Do you believe the war in Iraq was a mistake?" Kerry's response was: "I think the way the president went to war was a mistake." By restating the question, he left the fundamental issue unanswered.Over the course of the hour, Kerry struggled to explain why he had once (decades ago) advocated placing U.S. forces under the direction of the United Nations, why he had said in 2000 that America's effort to isolate Cuba was a "frozen, stalemated, unproductive policy," why he had voted in 2002 for the resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein and why he now criticizes that policy after promising he would not do so "once the shooting starts."
This is not a new problem for Kerry. As Boston Globe reporters Michael Kranish, Brian Mooney and Nina Easton write in their newly published biography of the senator, despite instances where Kerry showed himself "a lawmaker willing to stand up to prevailing political winds ... he is trailed by a reputation for political opportunism. ... Unlike many who are driven to succeed in public life by a core belief system, the arc of Kerry's political career is defined by a restless search for the issues, individuals and causes to fulfill a nearly lifelong ambition" for the White House.
The election is still six months away. But Kerry's reputation has been built over 40 years. And the voters seem to be sniffing it out.
April 24: Broder bails.
MORE:
-Kerry's 1971 testimony on Vietnam reverberates: Vivid words alleged atrocities by soldiers (Candy Crowley, 4/23/04, CNN)
"I think the way I characterized it at that time was mostly the voice of a young, angry person who wanted to end the war," Kerry told CNN's Candy Crowley in an interview broadcast on Thursday's anniversary of his Senate testimony."I regret any feeling that anybody had that I somehow didn't embrace the quality of the service. But I have always said how nobly I think every veteran served."
The senator concedes he wouldn't say the same things in the same way today, that talk of "atrocities" back then was over the top. Yet, he insists he's still proud he stood up against the war. While he has regret for the words he chose, he defends the legitimacy of the sentiment he so starkly articulated.
"They were honest expressions of the passion that we brought to the cause," said Kerry. "I'm older, I'm wiser. I'm farther from it. But they were the words that came out of my gut at that time, based on the anger and frustration that I felt back when it was happening."
He also told Crowley, "I'm not going to back down one inch on what I've fought for and what I've stood for all of these years."
Such qualified regret doesn't go far enough for some Vietnam veterans, who can't forgive the stigma they still see attached to those long-ago words.
A bigger problem even than the despicable things he said and did is that so few believe that's how he really felt. Being anti-war was just good politics in MA so he was.
-Kerry Role in Antiwar Veterans Is Delicate Issue in His Campaign: Senator John Kerry's antiwar past, after he returned from five months of combat in Vietnam, is coming under new scrutiny. (DAVID M. HALBFINGER, 4/24/04, NY Times)
When questions were raised last month about whether a 27-year-old John Kerry had attended a Kansas City meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War where the assassination of senators was discussed, the Kerry presidential campaign went into action.It accepted the resignation of a campaign volunteer in Florida, Scott Camil, the member of the antiwar group who raised the idea in November 1971 of killing politicians who backed the war. The campaign pressed other veterans who were in Kansas City, Mo., 33 years ago to re-examine their hazy memories while assuring them that Mr. Kerry was sure he had not been there.
John Musgrave, a disabled ex-marine from Baldwin City, Kan., who told The Kansas City Star that Mr. Kerry was at the meeting, said he got a call from John Hurley, the Kerry campaign's veterans coordinator.
"He said, `I'd like you to refresh your memory,' " Mr. Musgrave, 55, recounted in an interview, confirming an account he had given to The New York Sun. "He said it twice. `And call that reporter back and say you were mistaken about John Kerry being there.' "
Such little-noticed moments in Mr. Kerry's past — including his decision at age 26 to meet the Vietcong emissaries to the Paris peace talks — are coming under new scrutiny now, as Mr. Kerry finally makes the presidential run that his comrades in arms, and in the antiwar movement, half-mockingly predicted decades ago.
In an interview about his antiwar activities, Mr. Kerry said that he knew nothing of attempts by his campaign to tinker with the past and that he disapproved.
As the old saw goes: those who are on the wrong side of history are condemned to rewrite it. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 24, 2004 8:26 AM
So we're supposed to ignore Kerry's nakedly anti-American political activites as youthful indiscretions while Bush's DUI arrest when he was younger and apolitical was a disqualifier? Is this country really as stupid as the Dems are counting on?
