Posted on 10/16/2004 12:56:57 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The best indicator of what people will do in the future is what they've done in the past.
So it is with John Kerry and George W. Bush.
Throughout the campaign and in a series of debates, Kerry's pitch is unwavering: Everything from your dead fescue to childhood measles is Bush's fault. Had he been in office, Kerry assures, all outcomes would have been pleasing because he is smarter, wiser and more competent.
That is a recurring mantra of the left. It is the core of their claim to an entitlement to govern and to regulate: That belief, combined with a deeply abiding distrust of the legislative process, where the unwashed and unnuanced masses behave with intolerance, shortsightedness and irresponsibility, has been the hallmark of the left's use of government for decades.
In the '60s and '70s, for example, Congress and the bureaucracy intentionally avoided working through state and local governments in creating social programs, creating instead districts that, as we later discovered, were utterly without accountability or effectiveness. The mistaken belief was that Washington could be smarter, wiser and more competent.
That's what Kerry would have us believe now, whether the issue is the war on terrorism, the economy, health care or any other domestic program. The premise is competence, and a smarter, more nuanced approach. Details? They get fuzzy.
In the vice presidential debate, John Edwards was asked: "You and Sen. Kerry have said that the war in Iraq is the wrong war at the wrong time. Does that mean that if you had been president and vice president, Saddam Hussein would still be in power?"
Answer: "Here's what it means: It means that Saddam Hussein needed to be confronted. John Kerry and I have consistently said that. That's why we voted for the resolution [authorizing force]. But it also means it needed to be done the right way."
Would Saddam still be in power? No answer. But a hint that their competence would have produced the desirable outcome because they would have done it the "right way."
Edwards has no military or foreign policy experience. Kerry does have a record. And that record is the best indicator of future performance.
While Kerry, in the last debate, embellished his Senate history, the Associated Press examined the record. It found that only eight laws — eight in almost 20 years — had Kerry as lead sponsor. Two were resolutions designating "World Population Awareness Week." Another designated a day to honor the 10th anniversary of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Another designated a day to honor POWs and MIAs. Another renamed a federal building in Waltham, Mass. Two others related to the fishing industry, and the other provided grants to support small businesses owned by women.
That's the Senate record of accomplishment of a man who offers competence in all matters related to national security and the health care delivery system in the United States. The talk is not supported by the do.
The other concern is that the past is a guide to how Kerry would lead in the war on terrorism. Here his post-Vietnam record is entirely relevant. It is an indicator of how he would perform in the future. Talk doesn't matter. Character does. Kerry's a debate hawk chosen by an anti-war party.
Not surprisingly, when people in military service and their families were asked who they would trust to be the commander in chief, Bush was preferred 69 percent to 24 percent, almost a 3-1 margin.
Talking points and debate style don't matter to potential adversaries nor to those who stand against them. What matters is core convictions and the resolve to abide by promises made.
John Kerry looked his fellow servicemen and women in the eye — and then betrayed them, by misrepresenting their service in a way that helped turn the country against them. That's the record of past behavior. And that is the best predictor of future actions.
• Jim Wooten is associate editorial page editor. His column runs Sundays, Tuesdays and Fridays.
Whoo Hoo! This is great!
Jim Wooten? Is he the former ABC reporter?
Thanks for posting. I live in Atlanta and HATE THIS PAPER (AJC), it is like the New York Times SOUTH. But this article is fantastic.
Outstanding op-ed. Because he has no political ax to grind, he's not a raving partisan. He simply looks at the man's record and says "Kerry has no proof that he can do what he claims he would."
Say what you will about George W. Bush - and a range of embittered Democrats deeply despise him - he does have a vision.
He laid out a domestic agenda with unmistakable clarity in his speech to the GOP convention, just as he laid out a worldview in his remarks at the United Nations. It's optimistic, premised on the belief that we are a decent people who can adapt to changed circumstance and alter, without destroying, our institutions.
Bush's domestic agenda, like his vision of a world where the rule of law prevails, where property rights are protected, where free speech, equal justice and religious tolerance are honored, is based on the idea that, with greater responsibility and self-reliance, we can enjoy expanded freedoms.
The premise of '60s radicalism, with its assault on institutions and its personal liberty without responsibility, was that individuals ought to be free to behave as they choose. It meant, for example, that free-spirited adults could have children without the constraints of marriage, because government would provide, and would pick up the pieces of damaged lives………***
Wake Up Atlanta, you have been burned before.
Dont let this dirty theiving Yankee fool you this time.
Wooten nailed it!
Ouch, ouch, ouch
Isn't that what Dukakis ran on? Bodes well!
These are hardly the traits of someone we should entrust to lead this great country. Unlike Bill Clinton, John Kerry doesn't even possess the ambition to flim flam his way to the top by building a record of achievement before running for the highest office in the land
'national party of scold without coherent vision or messeage'
That sums it up nicely. Bush called it a 'litney of complaints without a plan'. either will do
Yeah, and remember Hillary was going to have a "health plan" for all of us when Bubba was doinking in the White House?
Great bump!!!!
Jim Wooten is on of the sane people at AJC.
But like Clinton his goal has always been the White House.
Nice read!
bump
No, just like Gore, it was his daddy's goal to have his boy in the White House. He was raised for the job. (To complete his daddy's goal of a one world government in the form of communism.)
And just like Gore, Kerry is nuckin' futs.
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.