Posted on 10/05/2004 10:23:41 AM PDT by Capitalism2003
How Kerry won Dennis Prager
October 5, 2004
This column, which could be titled, "Whatever your position on Iraq, John Kerry is your man," is dedicated to Sean, a listener who called my radio show the day after the presidential debate. He enabled me to understand why most people believe John Kerry won the debate.
Sean explained that he was an opponent of the war in Iraq and only now could he finally vote for John Kerry. I asked him what Kerry said that confirmed that the Democratic candidate was his man.
Sean: "I believe he has a plan." (Kerry said he has a plan some 12 times.)
Prager: "A plan to do what?"
Sean: "A plan to withdraw our troops."
And then I understood. No matter what position you hold about American foreign policy and the war in Iraq, John Kerry holds your position.
Sen. Kerry accomplished this so subtly that recognition of it had eluded me.
Voters who want America to leave Iraq and voters who want to stay there and win -- both heard Kerry say exactly what they wanted to hear.
Voters who want America to act alone in the world when the world disagrees with us and voters who want America to proceed only when we have the international backing and an alliance with others -- both heard Kerry say exactly what they wanted to hear.
Voters who believe the war was a colossal mistake and voters who believe that our soldiers in Iraq are fighting for a noble cause -- both heard John Kerry say exactly what they wanted to hear.
Voters who want to believe that John Kerry has almost magic-like plans -- to get more allies, to leave the war, to win the war, to end the North Korean and Iranian nuclear threats -- heard John Kerry say exactly what they wanted to hear.
Even voters who share Michael Moore's conspiratorial theories about the war and the Bush presidency heard what they wanted (in Kerry's reference to Haliburton).
Regarding the war and foreign policy, there is no segment of America that John Kerry did not appeal to.
Here are direct quotes from John Kerry in the debate.
On staying in Iraq:
"I'm not talking about leaving. I'm talking about winning."
"Yes, we have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq."
On leaving Iraq:
"And our goal in my administration would be to get all of the troops out of there ..."
"I believe that when you know something's going wrong, you make it right. That's what I learned in Vietnam."
What was it that John Kerry "learned in Vietnam?" To leave a war he regarded as a mistake.
On America acting alone:
"I'll never give a veto to any country over our security."
On America acting only with world support or within an alliance:
"But if and when you do it (act alone), Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test ..."
And what if acting alone does not pass "the global test"? Then presumably we won't act alone. Kerry made references to the need to be in Iraq in alliance with other nations eight times.
On the war being a mistake:
"This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment."
"The president made a mistake in invading Iraq."
"The war is a mistake."
On the war being important enough to have to win:
"I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that."
After hearing Kerry call the war a mistake, the moderator Jim Lehrer asked the logical question: "Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?
John Kerry's answer: "No, and they don't have to, providing we have the leadership that I'm offering."
Now what does that response, arguably the most important thing the senator said in the debate, mean? Does it mean that American soldiers won't die for what John Kerry continually labels a mistake because he will prosecute the war more effectively? Or does it mean that Americans won't die for this mistaken war because he will leave Iraq and then there will be no mistake to die for?
The answer, again, is that it can mean either.
I believe that this debate can lead to only one conclusion: Either John Kerry is a man of few principles who will say almost anything on the most vital issues of life and death in order to get elected; or he is personally so confused on this issue that he will repeatedly make self-contradictory statements.
There is no other explanation for this unassailable fact: John Kerry won the debate because he sounded better; and he sounded better in large measure because he got away with saying whatever any voter wanted to hear.
That is one reason President Bush looked so annoyed at times. It is very hard for the principled to listen to the unprincipled.
©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
I thought this was a great article. Send the link to everyone you know:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20041005.shtml
Wow, someone finally figured it out. Anyone want to bet that Kerry will be for and against higher taxes for the rich?
I heard this live on the air and Sean (the caller) was dead-on serious when he said Kerry had a plan to surrender...er...withdraw.
We need to protest Kerry by asking the question:
What is the plan?
Stop telling me you have a plan, tell me what the plan is.
Had Mr. Prager hung out on FR, I would have happily explained it to him months ago.
Great article...really nailed it. Kerry won because he said whatever anyone wanted to hear...and the moderator did not nail him for his flip flops and inconsistancies (the President was barred from doing so by the rules).
Very interesting.
I don't know why people keep saying Kerry "won" the debate. In terms of substance he lost badly. On a purely superficial level he was more effective. I'll admit that Kerry looked like he had better personal hygeine, but that's about it. His cosmetic and hair team beat Bush's cosmetic & hair team badly.
And always... always, have an exit strategy and/or a statement of capitulation on hand because either one or the other will be necessary.
Ketchup Boy has a plan to tell us what his plan is!
You need to pay attention.
Kerry told us his plan.
It's anything you want it to be.
Comfortable now? ;)
It is a great article.
I don't believe it's one or the other (few principles or confusion) but that both define Kerry.
John Kerry's answer: "No, and they don't have to, providing we have the leadership that I'm offering."
So under the leadership of President Bush they are dying for a mistake that Bush made. Under Kerry's leadership they would be dying for the mistake that Bush made. Therefore Kerry is not responsible for any Americans killed in Iraq.
This sets up his escape for every American soldier who is KIA in Iraq if he is elected to the presidency:
They were sent there by George Bush.
He made a collosal error in judgement by sending them there.
As president, I inherited this mess and I am in the process of making it right
Therefore, I cannot be held responible as president for American lives lost in Iraq.
This guy double talks better than Pat Paulson but Pat would have made a better president.
Why does it have to be either/or? As far as I'm concerned, he's both a man of few principles and one who is confused.
Kerry has had a "makeover" of sorts a "mini-makeover" just for the debates consisting of:
1. MOUSSED, POUFED haircut giving him easily an INCH AND A HALF added to his height. (Look at it and compare it with President Bush's flat, unpoufed cut).
2. I SUSPECT that Kerry is also using whatever help he needs in the shoe department to enhance his height. Like thick soled, expensive shoes and a good pair of arch support insoles. (I know about these things because I have a pair of Good Feet insoles that give me a good INCH in height!)
3. I ALSO SUSPECT a massage, whirlpool session and a nap to go along with his manicure and pedicure(?).
4. A BIT OF HAIR COLOR ENHANCEMENT.
5. A BIT OF TEETH WHITENER. (I'm sure only the BEST would do; not those inexpensive store brands. The two-hour deal at the dentists).
6. I also think someone (at least on the channel I watched) had put a yellow tinged light bulb over President Bush's head. It appeared that Kerry had a full spectrum, subtle kind of light over his podium. How was it on other channels?
I really thought Bush missed a great opportunity to attack Kerry's record on defense. He didn't mention it once...What were they thinking during debate prep? If America knew that this man opposed Reagan virtually 100% of the time, he wouldn't stand a chance.
Well, if Kerry has a plan, then I must be foragainst it.
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.