It has been only 2 days since John Kerry won the New Hampshire Primary, and
the Republicans are already testing out the exact set of attacks they will use against him throughout the entire campaign. This was printed in the LA Times today, and my first reaction was, "Damn, that didn't take very long."
Those who are thinking that the reason they should vote for John Kerry is simply that he seems more electable should read this article well and realize that it doesn't matter who the Democrats run, they will all get exactly the same treatment.
To his credit, he was one of the Democrats who voted Oct. 11, 2002, for the resolution giving President Bush the authority "to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in Iraq. This has caused Kerry a lot of grief among Deaniac Democrats, and he's twisted himself into a pretzel to explain away this vote.
He claims that "I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period," and that he had no idea that Bush would use the authority granted to him to actually go to war. If you believe this, Kerry is too naive to be president. A likelier explanation is that he's trying to be pro-war and antiwar at the same time.
That impression was reinforced in his speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. He said that "we had to hold Saddam Hussein accountable," but only if we had united "the international community." He was asked: "Do you think you really could have brought the Germans, the French along in a commitment to use force?" Kerry brazenly answered "yes" but offered no credible explanation of how, beyond saying that he would have shown a lot of "patience and maturity." As if Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair hadn't spent six months dickering at the United Nations. Does Kerry also think that he could have gotten U.N. approval for military action in Kosovo -- something that Clinton failed to achieve in 1999?
Then Kerry had the nerve to criticize the Bush administration for a "cut and run strategy" in Iraq. That's pretty rich coming from someone who voted against the $87-billion aid package that's essential to our nation-building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Kerry's inconsistency is stunning: He (like Sen. John Edwards) supported the war -- kind of -- but then refused to give our troops the resources necessary to finish the job.
Democrats, don't lie to yourselves. This is precisely what will happen to any one of our candidates. Kerry will be attacked for his inconsistencies. They'll be attacked for not supporting the troops. They'll be attacked for being too political. They'll be attacked for being without a plan.
It will happen to Dean too, if he manages to turn it around. He'll get attacked for his position on the war by saying that the world is safer now that Saddam is gone. Edwards will get attacked just as much for his vote against the $87 billion appropriation for Iraq, which will very easily be spun into saying he refused to support the troops.
The only way we're going to beat these people is to fight back. We're going to be under as much fire as the French were under at the first day of the Verdun attack. If we stand there and take it, we're going to lose, because they will be able to fire back at us that much with all the dollars they have and all the media outlets they control.
If you are voting for Kerry because you think somehow his policies make him more electable, just remember, it's not the policies any mroe that make a person electable. There will be no difference in the Republican spin on a person who is a war here or on a person who is a doctor. There will be no difference in the Republican spin on a person who was totally against the war and that on a person who was against only a small part of it.
If you're voting for Kerry because you think he's a better fighter, then go for that. I don't feel that. I think that the thing we need most right now is a fighter. If we don't stand up and challenge these points back, we won't win. It is that simple.
Visit my web page, please