September 8, 2004
ALONG THE GAPING CHASM:
Kerry Comments in August Have Him Playing into GOP Hands: Democrat Trying To Make Up for Setbacks on Iraq (Jim VandeHei, September 8, 2004,
Washington Post)
John F. Kerry's August swoon began with a detour on Iraq.Standing just feet from the edge of a sunny Grand Canyon one month ago, a calm and confident Kerry interrupted a day dedicated to domestic politics to discuss, once again, his 2002 vote for the resolution authorizing war with Saddam Hussein.
President Bush -- hoping to blur differences between the two candidates over the explosive issue of Iraq -- had challenged Kerry to declare whether he would have supported the war knowing what he does now about Iraq's weapons program. Kerry strolled up to reporters, took what two of his own aides privately called obvious political bait and declared without equivocation that "yes, I would have voted for the authority" for Bush to wage the conflict.
With one simple answer, Kerry stepped on his message for the week and provided the Bush campaign the political ammunition it sought. Kerry has since struggled to explain how he would handle Iraq differently -- and more effectively -- than Bush, as polls have shown voters losing support for his ability to do a better job than the president on this issue. [...]
As the Grand Canyon incident and a similar fight over Kerry's Vietnam War legacy showed, Kerry often played into the GOP's hands over the past month.
"From a tactical point . . . [Kerry] lost the imitative in making this election about George Bush," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), an official in the Clinton White House. "George Bush cannot handle an election about his last four years, [but] Kerry has to make this election about" that. [...]
Aides say Kerry may soon apologize for some of his most heated comments during the Vietnam War protests of the early 1970s, a move that would rekindle the debate for a few more days.
Yet strategists from both sides said the effectiveness of anti-Kerry ads speaks to another ominous development for Kerry last month: the large numbers of voters who said they still do not know what he stands for and whether they can trust him to do a better job on the twin threats of Iraq and terrorism. This was the crux of the ads run by the Bush campaign this summer and the president's argument against Kerry on Iraq, which voters rank as one of the top three issues of this presidential campaign.
Presumably the Clinton folks he's brought in are too smart to let him apologize for his anti-war activities. No matter how he phrases it the statement would be seen as an admission that he opposed his own country's best interests in that war. Never mind how disastrous that is, it would also raise the question of whether he isn't making a mistake opposing his own country in the Iraq War.
You can hear the ad now: "John Kerry admits now that his anti-war activities damaged America during the Vietnam War. Can we afford to let him do further damage to America in the war on terror?"
Posted by Orrin Judd at September 8, 2004 12:00 AMPresident Bush -- hoping to blur differences between the two candidates over the explosive issue of Iraq -- had challenged Kerry to declare whether he would have supported the war knowing what he does now about Iraq's weapons program.
How in heck does the writer know Bush's motives? Why would Bush want to make blur this difference? It seems obvious that he's just trying to force Kerry to take a clear position on the issue.
Posted by: PapayaSF at September 8, 2004 1:45 AMActually, it works just as well if he doesn't appologize:
John Kerry refuses to recognize that his anti-war activities damaged America during the Vietnam War. Can we afford to let him do further damage to America in the war on terror?
Posted by: David Rothman at September 8, 2004 6:26 AMPapaya makes my point. It was a nice little trap, where Kerry was going to alienate a sizable chunk of voters no matter what he said.
Posted by: David Cohen at September 8, 2004 7:41 AMAn apology made over 30 years after the fact, during the course of a failing campaign which is flailing about for a lifesaver, will be an unmitigated disaster. Could anyone doubt its insincerity? If Kerry does this, it will be clear evidence that the Clintonites are sabotaging the campaign and that Kerry is too brain-dead to see it.
Posted by: Bart at September 8, 2004 8:09 AMKerry has to do something to respond to (or at least fend off) all the damage from Vietnam, because there are areas yet unmined in his words and conduct. If he doesn't answer now, he'll still be prevaricating on Nov. 1.
Posted by: jim hamlen at September 8, 2004 8:28 AMI just realized that there is another Campaigning 101 lesson here: Don't respond to your opponent's demands. The responder is the loser, proving to the entire troop that he is the submissive beta-male.
Posted by: David Cohen at September 8, 2004 8:50 AMKerry is hoist on his own petard as they say. What would his apology look like? He could say that he engaged in knowing hyperbole back then in order to encourage America to quit the war. He lied to Congress because he honestly believed that getting out of a disastrous, meaningless war in a far-off land of little consequence was more important than simple matters like perjury. It was a wrong decision and a stupid mistake. Doing this however would effectively end his political career.
He can of course say that he still believes in what he said in the 70s, showing that he is a delusional lefty fruit-loop. While he would undoubtedly remain a popular campus speaker for the rest of his life as well as a host of a show on PBS, he would be disqualified from political life except maybe in Cambridge or San Francisco.
If he shuts up about Vietnam and tries to change the topic at least he has the MSM's complicity to help him. But the more I watch him, the more he seems like Basil Fawlty 'Don't Talk About the War.'
Posted by: Bart at September 8, 2004 8:51 AMBart:
That's it. It's been killing me that he reminded me of somebody. Basil Fawlty. Yeah.
Posted by: Jeff at September 8, 2004 9:32 AMThis is the basic problem of the entire Left. They're wrong on the facts and in the long term no spin can overcome that.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at September 8, 2004 11:52 AMBasil Fawlty is pretty good, but Kerry even more reminds me of Kramer, the Robert Stack character in Airplane. He was talking down Ted Stryker at the end of the movie, and went on an hilarious rant--
Kramer : Ted that was probably the worst landing in the history of this airport, but some of us here, particularly me would like to buy you a drink and shake your hand . . and Ted I just want you to know that when the going got rough . . .
Attendnt: Okay alright, have a nice day . . .have a nice day, thank you for flying TransAmerican.
Kramer : Loneliness, thats the bottom line. I was never happy as a child . . . Christmas Ted, what does that mean to you? It was living hell. Do you know what its like falling in the mud and getting kicked, in the head. With an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does, that never happens. Sorry Ted, that's a dumb question.
Attendnt: Have a nice day.
Kramer : Municipal bonds Ted, I'm talking double A rating. . . the best investment in America.
( Ted and Elaine go off into the sunset and Otto and his
inflatable friend Ottoette fly the plane off )