Posted on 08/02/2004 5:51:06 AM PDT by OESY
Edited on 08/02/2004 9:51:31 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
...
They think the voters have already decided to fire President Bush, so Democrats didn't need to make the case themselves. Their task was merely to present Mr. Kerry as a safe alternative. Then come November, as in 1980 and 1992, the undecided will break largely for the challenger and Mr. Kerry will realize his lifelong ambition.
So they staged a convention that was all biography and flags. Don't propose a new idea because it might create a political target. Make the campaign instead about Mr. Kerry's life, or at least that part of it before 1984 when he entered the Senate. And sound very tough on terrorism. On the latter point, I had to rub my eyes sometimes to make sure these were Democrats. Some of the rhetoric was so hawkish I half expected Donald Rumsfeld to show up. "You cannot run. You cannot hide. And we will destroy you," said John Edwards about "al Qaeda and the rest of these terrorists."
...
In his speech and the party platform, Mr. Kerry's disagreements with Mr. Bush on Iraq were distilled to two: He'll never "mislead" the country into war, and he'll persuade (somehow, but don't ask for details) more of the world to "share the burden." The Democrat said "I know what I have to do in Iraq" without saying what else he'd do differently than Mr. Bush.
...
Yet the very vagueness of Mr. Kerry's promises is what gives the Bush campaign a chance to counterattack. Especially if you re-read his Thursday speech, it is not nearly as muscular as it tried to sound. Its hawkishness was mostly personal, more or less stopping in 1970 in the Mekong Delta. My guess is that this is all by design, since the last thing Mr. Kerry wants is a debate about his own antiterror policies. He wants to compare medals, not philosophies.
...
Some conservatives think they can still score points by talking about Mr. Kerry's antiwar record after Vietnam, but this is a losing hand. Winning three purple hearts trumps tossing ribbons over a fence. In the autumn debates, Mr. Bush could learn from Bill Clinton's treatment of Bob Dole and George H.W. Bush and praise Mr. Kerry's Vietnam service, before pivoting to say the real issue is what he would do as president.
And it is here where Mr. Kerry's Senate record becomes important. Most politicians want voters to forget what they did as younger men. The 60-year-old Mr. Kerry wants voters to forget what he did after he turned 40. "I ask you to judge me by my record," Mr. Kerry said on Thursday -- and then promptly said almost nothing else about it. "Something tells me you'll see that line in a TV ad somewhere," says one Bush strategist. And rightly so. Nineteen years in the Senate are surely a better guide to presidential behavior than four months in Vietnam.
.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
"I know what to do in Iraq" but he offers no details. I actually heard him say, over the weekend, that "I'm not going to disclose details until after I'm elected. I've been around a long time and I know how to do this." Huh? Does anyone buy that? Anyone?
but he is happy to let our Troops stay in harms way till he gets elected..
Traitor now just as he was in Vietnam!
Kerry has to know how the troops feel about him, unless he's got his head in the sand, especially after the confrontation at Wendy's last week. (Phony photo op)
Does he even care? He didn't in Vietnam..
I am no longer in uniform and would just love him to point his finger at me..
just once, just once.......
Anti-war 35 years ago, "war hero" in '04. Huge disconnect. I'd pay to see what you'd do with his finger.
LOL!!
the secret service guys would like to see it to..
Bush should simply air out his whole biography alongside John Kerry's:The bottom line is that John Kerry has been a leader all his life, and so has George Bush. They are however quite different leaders; Kerry has been political all his life, Bush has lead in private life.. Kerry has claim to a history of valor in the distant past and a subsequent political history of opposition to the US military and intelligence budgets. Bush only recently became a serious, highly successful, politican, and he runs on his recent performance. Kerry says essentially nothing about his political record. The trouble is that you could go to any VA hospital on any given day and find people with more of a military record than John Kerry. If Kerry doesn't run on his political record, the Republicans could nominate any one of them and, by Kerry's logic, have the better candidate.
- When Kerry made his decision to enter the Navy, what year was it? Who was president, and what was the news from Vietnam?
- When Bush made his decision to enter the Guard, what year was it? Who was president, and what was the news from Vietnam (and, BTW, what was the casualty rate of pilots learning to fly single engine when he engaged to do that)?
- What is John Kerry's post-grad education, and what is George Bush's?
- What is John Kerry's business experience, and what is George Bush's
- What are John Kerry's political experience and accomplishments?
- What are George Bush's political experience and accomplishments?
NOW we see Lt. Kerry running for office as Monsieur Nuance. And we are supposed to trust the man.
That is the record of Kerry the senator. That, and support for a draft-dodger for president in 1992 and 1992 - and support for a perjurer for president in the impeachment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.