Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kerry's big idea? There isn't one
The Guardian ^ | 8/9/2004 | Simon Tisdall

Posted on 08/09/2004 7:21:22 PM PDT by Sam the Sham

(Desperation shouldn't blind us to the faults of Bush's challenger)

The lack of an appreciable post-convention "bounce" in John Kerry's poll ratings is significant. The Democratic party's Boston shindig last month was supposed to present him as a strong, experienced replacement for President George Bush. But Boston's main achievement may have been to highlight the limitations and flaws of Kerry's candidacy. The eviction of a White House incumbent is always an uphill struggle. It requires something special. Bill Clinton possessed that indefinable quality in 1992.

If Kerry lacks Bubba's bounce, it may simply be because he is not, well, very bouncy.

In truth, Kerry is not a lot of things. When it comes to participatory politics, he is not a natural; while worthy of respect, he is not loveable.

He is no ordinary American. His money, upbringing and privileged Washington and New England existence separate him from the mass, marking him down as member of the east coast elite.

Most of all, however, Kerry is not Bush, which is the principal reason why he holds the nomination.

From Iowa onwards, it became evident that Democratic primary voters were picking Kerry not because he enthused them but because they felt he could win.

Yet that is no reason to excuse Kerry's policy positions from more considered scrutiny. A central, underpinning theme is his attempt to present himself as a unifier in contrast to Bush's perceived divisiveness.

But analysis of his campaign contributor base, for example, suggests otherwise. According to data gleaned from independent campaign watchdogs by the Washington Post, Kerry's donor base is overwhelmingly bi-coastal.

He dominates in California and New York; Bush eclipses him in middle America.

Although Kerry claims to have significant business backing, Bush leads massively in terms of campaign contributions from company presidents and chairmen.

Conversely, Kerry has an almost total lock on contributions from professors, social workers, authors, actors, librarians, journalists and gays.

In this sense at least, Kerry's candidacy is entrenching America's divisions, expressed in hard cash.

A closer look at his policy platform also reveals the fault-lines in his overall appeal. Much of what he proposes on healthcare, education, taxes and deficit reduction is familiar to the point of being mundane.

There is no "big idea", no reason to believe a Kerry presidency will make a difference in these areas.

The rest is often vague and unpersuasive. On Iraq, as the Republicans rightly say, Kerry is disingenuous.

Apart from a more consultative approach, he offers no clue as to why US allies should suddenly change their minds about contributing more troops and money.

While he is right to make an issue out of America's addiction to foreign, especially Middle Eastern, oil, he offers no clear cure.

His prescription - which includes tax credits for fuel-efficient vehicles and greater emphasis on renewable energy - will, even if enacted, have little or no impact over the lifetime of a four-year presidency.

On trade, his vow to safeguard American jobs and to review all treaties has a nationalistic, almost protectionist, feel.

On the other hand, he gives little thought to the developing world's trade priorities and poverty reduction goals.

On Israel-Palestine, Kerry appears to promise a continuation of the Bush administration's lopsided approach.

In a speech to the Anti-Defamation League last May, he pledged "never" to pressurise Israel to compromise its security, "never" to push it into unwanted peace agreements, and "never" to halt US political, military and eco nomic aid.

It would have been refreshing to see him offer similar guarantees to the Palestinians.

On terrorism, WMD proliferation and defence, as his Boston address made plain, Kerry is bent on hanging tough with the toughest, promising - in sum - to prosecute the same, endless, unconfined "war" that Bush declared after 9/11 while somehow rendering it more acceptable to Muslims and Europeans.

For example, he would open direct talks with Iran. But he would also double US army special forces and train them specifically to infiltrate countries (such as Iran) tasked with "finding and destroying the most dangerous weapons before they can be used against us".

Even Dubya has not yet dared go that far. Paradoxically, Kerry is likely, overall, to be a non-interventionist in the Clinton mould.

Those who understandably desire, above all else, to see the back of Bush should not be blind to the weaknesses of his would-be replacement.

If Kerry wins, all this will suddenly matter an awful lot.

This November, it may come down to a choice between being bombed or bored to death. Bush can be relied upon for the high explosive.

From Kerry and his "band of brothers" comes a whole new brand of blather.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bigidea; bush; convention; election; kerry
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last
The stupid Europeans (by and large the French) assume that Bush is some kind of aberration. The more intelligent ones realize that Bush and Kerry come from different Americas. They are realizing that if Kerry wins his narrow, bicoastal base will not be strong enough to pull the heartland into the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Treaty, leaning on Israel to produce a "Mideast peace process", or anything that is on the Euro left wishlist.
1 posted on 08/09/2004 7:21:25 PM PDT by Sam the Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham

That is Kerry's big idea...that he doesn't need any big ideas, or ideas at all.


2 posted on 08/09/2004 7:25:21 PM PDT by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham
Most of all, however, Kerry is not Bush, which is the principal reason why he holds the nomination.

Silliness. Howard Dean is not Bush - I believe - and he does not. That Kerry is not Bush is the foundation of the Democratic party campaign of 2004, to be sure. But why Kerry, and not, oh, say, Hillary Rodham Clinton?

The answer is that every political professional with more than a room-temperature IQ realizes that "not-Bush" is the low road to ignominy in the upcoming election. If Kerry persists with it, it's because he's intended to lose. I'm perfectly serious about that.

3 posted on 08/09/2004 7:29:03 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham

4 posted on 08/09/2004 7:33:22 PM PDT by martin_fierro (¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,Slipping into consciousness,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham

Wow this is from the ultralib Guardian?


5 posted on 08/09/2004 7:36:41 PM PDT by mylife (The roar of the masses could be farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham

Picturing John Kerry as "a strong, experienced replacement" for George W. Bush is wishful thinking, as Kerry lacks the strength or experience to replace ANY adult in a responsible position. His record in the US Senate is conspicuous by its very sparse list of accomplishments.

Jimmy Carter with no leadership qualities at all. Whatever made him think he could handle the job in the first place?


6 posted on 08/09/2004 7:40:15 PM PDT by alloysteel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
Kerry's people believe the election is already in the bag - so they don't want to rock the boat with any 'big ideas'.

So we're left with a candidate whose major qualification is that he served 4 months in Vietnam 35 years ago. However, any discussion of what he actually did while in Vietnam isn't related to his qualifications to be president.

It's like trying to get the biggest baseball contract ever based on the fact that you throw a 125 mph fastball. But when the scouts ask to see you throw one, you claim actually throwing the ball isn't relevant to you getting the job.
7 posted on 08/09/2004 7:41:49 PM PDT by flashbunny (Click on my name to see a nifty John Kerry bumper sticker!!! I dare you!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham
Can't discuss his swiftboat dissenters. Can't talk about his proud Senate voting record. Won't tell Americans his "plan" until he becomes President!

I guess that after you are defeated John F'n Kerry, your "plan" that you couldn't tell us about, will not matter much. Maybe you can sell it on Ebay after the election. What a moron!

8 posted on 08/09/2004 7:43:12 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham
"...Paradoxically, Kerry is likely, overall, to be a non-interventionist in the Clinton mould..."

Head...spinning! Must...lie...down...

9 posted on 08/09/2004 7:43:22 PM PDT by BradyLS (DO NOT FEED THE BEARS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny
LOL! Exactly.

...and the documentation on your having ever thrown a 125 mph fastball is private and closely held, and not open to your scrutiny, even after you hire the guy.

10 posted on 08/09/2004 7:45:19 PM PDT by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: Jeff Head
That is Kerry's big idea...that he doesn't need any big ideas, or ideas at all.

Sometimes, I wonder if Kerry isn't subtly pulling the plug on his own campaign. Having one the nomination and is now facing prospect of actually becoming President, he's simply fallen back on his Vietnam record and appears to have punted all the issues to Bush.

In short, Kerry is committing to nothing and hoping that Bush blunders or some other catastrophe overtakes him. That ain't gonna happen. Kerry is quickly becoming the Dukakis of '04.

12 posted on 08/09/2004 7:48:28 PM PDT by BradyLS (DO NOT FEED THE BEARS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mylife
Wow this is from the ultralib Guardian?

I was thinking the same thing!

13 posted on 08/09/2004 7:49:36 PM PDT by BradyLS (DO NOT FEED THE BEARS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham
a non-interventionist in the Clinton mould

Are you kidding me?

14 posted on 08/09/2004 7:50:08 PM PDT by Monti Cello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
Jimmy Carter with no leadership qualities at all. Whatever made him think he could handle the job in the first place?

Could be he simply wanted running for President on his resume. Let the mean, nasty Republicans beat him. Looking at his past, he idolized the Kennedys to the point that anything short of actually running made him look like a total Camelot wannabe.

15 posted on 08/09/2004 7:52:04 PM PDT by BradyLS (DO NOT FEED THE BEARS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BradyLS

Theres one tonight from the gaurdian trashing france too!


16 posted on 08/09/2004 7:54:44 PM PDT by mylife (The roar of the masses could be farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

add that to his 'secret economic plan' and his 'secret plan to get the us out of iraq'.

Kerry sounds almost like gen-u-wine "double naut" spy in the tradition of jethro bodean.


17 posted on 08/09/2004 7:55:54 PM PDT by flashbunny (Click on my name to see a nifty John Kerry bumper sticker!!! I dare you!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham
In a speech to the Anti-Defamation League last May, he pledged "never" to pressurise Israel to compromise its security, "never" to push it into unwanted peace agreements, and "never" to halt US political, military and economic aid.

It would have been refreshing to see him offer similar guarantees to the Palestinians.

Oh, he will. But it's a secret, and he'll tell us after he's elected.

BTW, why is Arafatland so popular with Euroweenies?

18 posted on 08/09/2004 8:02:50 PM PDT by auboy (John Kerry is part of the problem, not part of the solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: auboy
BTW, why is Arafatland so popular with Euroweenies?

Latent(?) anti-semitism, arabists in UK Foreign Office, Grand Mufti was virulent Nazi supporter (anti semite) in WW2, Chirac & co in bed with Saddam for decades. Or perhaps just because it's in vogue to be anti-Israel at the moment (not that there's much new in that).

19 posted on 08/09/2004 8:49:05 PM PDT by 1066AD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Monti Cello

Sure, an non-interventionist in the Clinton mold: he won't intervene when America's interests are at stake, and will try to appease the Muslims by finding some hapless Christian country like Serbia to attack and give pieces of to the local Mohammedans as long as the French and the Germans think it's a good idea.


20 posted on 08/09/2004 9:01:45 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know what this was)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson