Meet The New John Kerry: Sounds Like The Old Ronald Reagan

Uh-oh. I’ll admit that last week I publicly muttered that it was looking like John Kerry might actually have a good chance at winning in November. I should have added: ”that’s if he can bail out from his sinking campaign boat."

Indeed, Swift Boat Captain Kerry seems to be steering straight for the rocks. He let himself get suckered by George W. Bush’s challenge ten days to publicly state if, in retrospect, he still would have voted for the Iraq war resolution. Kerry, as you know, said yes to Bush’s query. And now we have the surreal situation of Kerry being on the defensive about the war instead of Bush.

Here’s what Kerry should have said: "I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed, that all things being considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action, especially without a broad and engaged international coalition...the cost in casualties is already large and growing, and the immediate and long-term financial costs are incredible." So.. the answer to Bush should have been NO!

That quote above came not from Kerry but rather from conservative Nebraska Republican Congressman Doug Bereuter whose position as announced today now puts him to the left of Kerry. (Note to Pwogessives: Maybe you should invite Dougie over to your next Take Back America confab... He’s retiring in a month or so and will be available as he sure ain’t gonna be invited to any GOP rallies).

Make no mistake. Kerry wasn’t just tongue-tied when he sped directly into Bush’s trap. This pandering on the war is a calculated strategy to win over the undecided. In case you have any doubts, check out Kerry’s further pandering today at the VFW convention. Now, he’s moved to Bush’s right on the administration’s just-announced plan to withdraw 70,000 troops from Europe and Asia.

Yes, Bush is pushing the withdrawal to give himself more troop flexibility in the Middle East. Kerry should be free to take up that line of critique. Instead, Kerry sounded just like Ronald Reagan today, vigorously arguing that we would be betraying our friends if we pared down any of our foreign imperial troop outposts: "With Al Qaeda operating in 60 countries, we need closer alliances in every part of the world to fight and win the war on terrorism."

This is sheer poppycock. Isn’t it Kerry who has, correctly, argued that the War on Terrorism requires more than a military component? What do U.S. infantry and tanks stationed in Germany have to do with fighting Al Qaeda? Kerry’s also wrong when he says the plan to cut U.S. troops from about 30,000 to 20,000 in South Korea will encourage rogue behavior from North Korea. Come on… one nuclear-equipped sub is enough to level Pyongyang on a moment’s notice.

The American troops now scheduled for withdrawal should have been brought home long ago and Kerry insults our intelligence to argue otherwise. If you want to denounce Bush’s motives—then go ahead. But do it without the Scoop Jackson impersonation. Anyway, the sort of multilateralism that Kerry's been promising requires, precisely, that the U.S. reduce its overwhelming military presence on allied soil.

Cranky colleague Helen Thomas called Kerry out on all this today in her column for the Hearst papers. She zeroed in on Kerry’s piss-poor excuse for saying he would vote for the Iraq authorization again if he had a second chance:

Kerry explained that he believes a president should have the "authority" to go to war, and he voted accordingly. But he insisted that Bush subsequently misused the authority by rushing headlong into combat based on faulty intelligence about Saddam's weapons arsenal.

Kerry is mistaken on a key point. Under the U.S. Constitution, the president does not have that sole right to declare war. Despite its mindless default, that right still belongs to Congress.

Kerry has passed up several chances to distance himself from the Iraqi debacle. But instead he has left himself wide open to Bush's ridicule. What's he got left -- stem-cell research?

Perhaps. But what Kerry supporters ought to be doing now is expediting advanced research on spinal cord transplants. Looks like their candidate could use one… and fast.

Comments

[steve]

"I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed,

--such a statement would be as silly as the Post's excuses for hyping up the then utterly unbelievable claims Bush was making about "WMD"s in Iraq before the official invasion took place. Kerry should have just stuck with his record, I woulda voted for it and I would have made a mistake, that would be a great alternative to Bush, who can admit doing no wrong:

http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040816/018197.html

[Bruce Lohmann]

Kerry is scary, to me, because I just can't find in him any trace of a decent human being; and at least a trace should be observable in any person that wants to be president. My closest friend says we're to vote for Kerry inspite of our feelings/thought about the man, because if elected then many cabinet positions would be filled by democrats more aligned with the 'progressive' opinions we generally seek.
But what has Kerry proposed during his campaign(or opposed) that would show at least a veneer of a strong progressive or left-leaning view on any of the important issues of the day?
How can I vote for him? I felt a whole lot more comfortable about chameleon Al Gore in 2000 and got my four kids to vote for him, while I cast a sympathy vote for Nader--in California Gore had the race locked anyway.
Bruce Lohmann

In the original article, Marc writes: "Republican Congressman Doug Bereuter whose position as announced today now puts him to the left of Kerry."

Not to the "...left of Kerry." Just more nuanced.

[GMRoper]

Sorry about the "anonymous" again. I'm getting forgetful in my old age. I'm wondering Marc, why a Republican can't have misgivings about why we went to war and that it was a mistake. The concept of Republicans as a monolithic bloc of "think-a-likes" is a lefty chimera. Were it not so, we wouldn't have people as different as Santorum and Spector. As different as Bush and Schwarzenegger. As different as me and you. Oh, wait, your not a republican. (Yet) :-)

[steve]

The concept of Republicans as a monolithic bloc of "think-a-likes" is a lefty chimera

--I recommend you go over to Totten's blog comments sections and listen to the prowar crowd, for them the antiwar movement is entirely entirely leftist traitors. on other prowar blogs it's the same. if you bring up antiwar activists on the right (like say the fellow who runs antiwar.com Justin Raimondo) the prowar echochamberists just resort back to attacking the 'leftist' antiwar movement. i'm afraid your belief that the idea of the antiwar movement not having anyone from the right [especially libertarian right] is mistaken.

[steve]

i'm afraid your belief that the idea of the antiwar movement not having anyone from the right [especially libertarian right] is mistaken.

--i meant to say, your idea that that idea is a construct of the left is mistaken.

[GMRoper]

Steve writes: "i'm afraid your belief that the idea of the antiwar movement not having anyone from the right [especially libertarian right] is mistaken." and "your idea that that idea is a construct of the left is mistaken."

Wrong on both counts. That you don't (can't/won't) see it certainly says something don't you think?

[gmroper]

Marc writes: "Perhaps. But what Kerry supporters ought to be doing now is expediting advanced research on spinal cord transplants. Looks like their candidate could use one… and fast."

Marc, There is a reason that Kerry does not have a backbone, and it has to do with his reputation as a flip-flopper. I know, I know, it is a cliché, but clichés are frequently grounded in truth. Kerry only adopts a policy for as long as it makes him look good, then if the winds of politics (with apologies to Herman Wouk) change, he changes.

John "Do you know who I am." Kerry is for Kerry and only for Kerry. His "macho-man" sporting behaviors (baseball - and boy is he bad at it - windsurfing, sno-boarding etc.) are to convince everyone that though he wants to have a more sensitive war, he also has a brass pair. He says he's for the little guy, but falling off a snow-board and throwing a ball in the dirt from a little league distance and blaming the Secret Service fellow and a returning vet for his foibles is despicable IMO.

Boston is rife with the “JFK stands for Just For Kerry” meme, and even my beloved brother-in-law who is as adamant a democrat as anyone I know and from Boston as well has remarked on the same.

If Kerry had any real beliefs, any policy other than a 35 year quest for the White House, it's not apparent. My God, going back to an "ambush site" to re-create his daring-do for the 8mm film (Hmmm, would that make it a "film-flam?") is nuts and given that the VC in spite of how we feel about them were a.)Brave, b.)Dedicated and c.)Absolutely committed to their POV and very likely to have "re-taken" that little old spot of ground. Thus, he endangers his crew for a tiny bit of self-aggrandizement.

Further, and I am winding down (I promise, just like Bill the Clinton), Kerry (imitating other politicians - including many republicans) often speaks out of both sides of his mouth. For example blaming Bush for the 527 ad by the SBVT folk but never saying a word about the MoveOn.org folk which seems to be working to his benefit.

Nope, Kerry will never have a backbone until Kerry has convictions other than “I deserve to be President, it’s my due.”

(Hmmm, wonder what the trolls will make of this?)

[steve]

Wrong on both counts. That you don't (can't/won't) see it certainly says something don't you think?

--hmm, that's strong evidence. show me where the prowar commenters on totten's comments board are attacking the rightwingers who are active in the antiwar movement. it's all about 'leftist traitors' in their book. ditto roger simon's list, green footballs, etc. ya'd think the justin raimondos of the world didn't exist.
----------------------
Marc, There is a reason that Kerry does not have a backbone, and it has to do with his reputation as a flip-flopper.

---can't be any worse than Bush's flipflopping though, can it?
-----------------------------
Nope, Kerry will never have a backbone until Kerry has convictions other than “I deserve to be President, it’s my due.”

--are there no issues, or does the election revolve entirely around personality issues? what a bizarre phenomenon in the worlds most developed capitalist democracy..
----------------------------

(Hmmm, wonder what the trolls will make of this?)

--translation: i wonder what those who disagree with me will make of this.
-----------------------------

[steve]

Bush has apparently lost the endorsement of the Iraqi soccer team, not a good sign:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/olympics/2004/writers/08/19/iraq/index.html

[MWS]

It's obvious that most of the prowar types on blogs are conservative and continue attacking the "leftist" antiwar types. But I don't see how that invalidates the notion that Republicans are not a monolithic bloc any more than the fact that almost all leftists oppose the war makes them a monolithic bloc. The blogs don't represent all of a particular group. And even so, there is a Moderate Republican blog that disdains the hard right. What I see on blogs, especially the partisan blogs, is a whole lot of stereotyping (both on right and left) that I think is unjustified. People, I think, are generally (although not always) more complex in their thinking than their ostensible labels indicate. Obviously, there are a lot of hard-core right wingers out there that appall me, but I think it's a mistake to assume to all Republicans think alike on everything or that they are all rabid right-wingers. Maybe this is naive, but I really think people should be looking for common ground--at least to be able to talk to each other--rather than demonizing each other. (And the demonization comes from both sides.) I am often surprised and appalled at how easily liberals will stereotype Republicans/Conservatives/Southerners in ways they would not think to do with other groups.

[steve]

but I think it's a mistake to assume to all Republicans think alike on everything or that they are all rabid right-wingers.

--I'd agree, though it's fair to say that the people out on comments sections that GM is on who agree with GM are constantly obsessed with what they see as a monolithic leftwing antiwar conspiracy. I would have it otherwise, but the prowar commenters on prowar blogs tend to be pretty uniform in their attacks on the left's role in the antiwar mov't and ignore the right wingers who are active in the same mov't. And they don't even wanna go near a Tom Clancy or General Zinni discussion.

Now, there is something to the fact that the left dominates the antiwar mov't, to the extent that something like a 'left' exists in the US as a social force--an open question surely. But it's hard to imagine how that could be otherwise, surely the antiwar mov't won't be led by liberals who fear being accused of being 'unpatriotic'.

[steve]

Boy oh boy, I wonder how the armchair warriors out in blogistan are gonna respond to this, Jesse Ventura is setting up an organization to help vets returning from Iraq tell how poorly planned their missions were! Jesse Ventura Traitor? Leftist? Immature?

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1762/4939214.html

[GMRoper]

Steve writes: "Jesse Ventura Traitor? Leftist? Immature?"

How about Jesse Ventura: American.
Protesting, having different opinions, and looking at facts then coming to a conclusion is the american way. TWISTING facts in order to support a conclusion previously made is ... well, you call it.

[steve]

Protesting, having different opinions, and looking at facts then coming to a conclusion is the american way. TWISTING facts in order to support a conclusion previously made is ... well, you call it.

--hmmm, how odd, I almost never, if ever, see this perspective expressed on the prowar blogs, especially in the comments sections. It's almost always, if not always, about leftist traitors, 'stupid liberals', etc. in the antiwar movement.