A Less Than Ideal Choice(Kerry slammed in WAPO)

Washington Post ^ | 10/25/04 | Daid Broder

[finnman69]

"But we also know much more about his liabilities: a tendency to overstudy issues, procrastinate and avoid hard choices; a willingness to be swayed by conflicting advice; an awkwardness in dealing with colleagues and staff; and a frequent impression that decisions are being guided by opportunism rather than firm beliefs. "

"Instead, what we have are two examples of what Charles O. Jones, the presidential scholar who has ties to both the University of Wisconsin at Madison and the Brookings Institution, says are archetypes reflecting their dissimilar histories.

Bush is the classic business-government executive, measuring his day in decisions made and confident as any CEO could hope to be in both his choice of senior associates and his course of action. But as Jones points out, a business executive who misjudges a plant manager or invests in the wrong product can damage a company -- and its stock price -- but not wreck a nation by refusing to see the error of his ways.

Kerry is, in Jones's phrase, a classic backbench senator, a man who has found his rewards in picking out a few issues to explore and in being noted for the way he talks about them. Such senators do not aspire to leadership posts or committee chairmanships, nor are they noted for the bills they pass. For them, government is a largely verbal arena, not one measured by concrete results.

As a rule, Americans have preferred -- and elected -- executives, rather than legislators; governors (or generals), rather than backbench senators. Former California governor Ronald Reagan easily defeated former senator Walter Mondale; Bill Clinton did the same to Bob Dole. "

[r9etb]

The number one sin in democrat politics is losing.

Not necessarily -- Algore lost, and he's something of an icon now.... I think the number one sin is losing in such a way that it exposes the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of modern liberalism. If it makes them look bad, they'll dispose of the candidate.

[madison46]

Kerry is a back-bencher...his answer to Diane Sawyer that Iraq was worth it? his answer 'That depends on the outcome'

sheeze. He's a wimpy loser.

[winner3000]

David Broder is considered the "dean" of Washington Post columnists. Translation: Because of seniority, he no longer has to make sense.


ROTFL. You're so right! That's what they call Helen Thomas (we prefer "crazy aunt in the attic"!)

[dawn53]

entrusting the presidency to a man whose habits of mind and of action are far removed from the challenges of the White House

Well, that about sums it up.

Even to a lib, Kerry is not up to the challenge.

I actually think Kerry, and Teresa, are too fearful to actually accomplish the job of President.

It takes boldness and courage to walk into public, day after day, knowing you're a target of the terrorist.

[madison46]

We'll see. I think that conspriacy theory has left the bldg. NYT and Clinton on the stump.

[KC_Conspirator]

Three years I predicted that Algore WOULD NOT be the nominee as everyone, and I mean EVERYONE assumed. Some people thought I was crazy. However, I noted that Algore just committed the number one sin in democrat politics - he lost an election that they believe he should have won walking away. I then said that John Kerry would win the nomination (again, told that I was crazy) because he had the most money to compete, especailly since the democrat party front loaded their primary process (a huge mistake), and because the DNC elite just can't help themselves to nominate a northeastern, effete, condencending liberal. Again.

[numberonepal]

Lessee, we've got Broder, Dowd, and Cutie Katie dissing on Jf'nK. Blood in the water indeed. I think it will be an interesting week.

[2ndreconmarine]

But the money and power in the Democratic Party is controlled by former President Clinton and Senator Clinton....

Very nice analysis. I like that you explicitly qualify that this is not a conspiracy theory; more like "emergent behavior" (c.f. "Prey" by Michael Chrichton) of people with similar interests.

I disagree on one point, though. I don't think that Hillary is electable, even if the Demos think she is.

[Nick Danger]

It'd be interesting to know what, exactly, he has done to deserve their contempt.

He isn't fit to be President. As the election approaches, serious people have to stop and think about what they are doing. Yes, it's been fun campaigning on behalf of The Party, and yes, these people want a Democratic Party victory, but at the end of the day they are Americans and they are going to have to live with the guy in the White House.

As the reality of that sinks in, I think a number of the more sober Democrat partisans are realizing that a Kerry presidency would be a horror. The man simply does not have the temperament for executive decision making. He ponders, he thinks, he's nuanced as can be... but 'the buck' has to actually stop somewhere. Kerry isn't that guy.

A Kerry Administration would be Jimmy Carter all over again... lurching from one 'long-range plan of the week' to the next, creating tremendous disruption all around, but no results. No one who really cares about the country wants that, even if it means that their guy has to lose.

[carola]

David Broder is definitely not conservative, but he seems to try to keep his pro-Democrat views under wraps. If you read his column consistently, they come through loud and clear. He shares the whole WAPO love of higher taxes, calling it fiscal responsibility. I was amazed that he was so rough on Kerry. Not really surprised that the WAPO endorsement was complimentary toward Bush in some respects but was surprised that it was lackluster re Kerry. The WAPO has a long history of splitting the difference in editorials. They will start out agreeing with Bush, then smack him down, and end by pointing out how really superior the Democrat view is.

[r9etb]

IOW, he's "coyote ugly."

[nfldgirl]

"Less than ideal choice..."

Yet, they endorsed the creep anyway.

[Vicomte13]

You're right, there's no conspiracy here. It's right out in the open.
Al Gore lost the election because he wanted to be his own man, and advocate left wing policies outside of the centrist New Democrat shadow of Bill Clinton. But you can't win national elections like that.
Clinton nominees control the DNC, because Bill Clinton was the last Democratic President. That's not a "conspiracy", it's the political spoils system. Bush nominees control the Republican Party for the same reason. No mystery there.

Consider this election, this year. Consider if it were Hillary Clinton, and not John Kerry, at the top of the Democratic ticket.
Kerry is a terrible candidate. He is not charismatic. He does not have the women's vote sown up. He has not mobilized his base anything like Bush has mobilized the Republicans. And yet Kerry will come within a whisker of victory anyway (or will seem to, until the election turns out to be the Bush landslide that it'll probably really be).

Now imagine Hillary on the ticket instead.
Republicans would not be more mobilized than they are. They are as mobilized as they can get already.
But the Democrats would be psyched.
Also, Bill Clinton would not have scheduled his heart operation for the campaign season (he and his doctors agreed on surgery 20 months ago, so Clinton's timing of his surgery for Labor Day was a conscious CHOICE to stay out of the Presidential election this year at its crucial moment. He would have made a different choice were Senator Clinton the nominee.)
And were Hillary on the ticket, the Democrats would be doing better among women.

Remember, Senator Clinton has not flip-flopped on the war. She doesn't stand out there and speak pro-war. She critizes the President. But she votes for authorizations, money, etc. She is like Lieberman in that regard: in her votes, she's a pro-war Democrat. If she were on the ticket, she'd be the candidate of "me too" on the war, and she'd offer social policies that the Midwest, especially, would like to see. She'd win the election in the Midwest, the only region of the country that is not solidly one party or t'other.

Now imagine it's 2008, Iraq and Afghanistan are democracies, there has not been a major terrorist attack in America for 7 years, and Hillary, like JFK in 1960, promises to continue to be just as aggressive in pursuing the war as whoever the Republican nominee. She will have credibility because of her two terms of pro-war votes and her seats on the Senate intelligence issue. There will be no oxygen for the Republicans on the war that Hillary will not also have.

Hillary's negatives are high among Republicans, but they aren't going to vote for her anyway. Bush's negatives among Democrats are higher than Senator Clinton's are among Republicans. She'll be the heir apparent as of November 3, 2004, and the Clinton's have always shown themselves eminently capable of commanding a power structure.

Besides, who do the Republicans have with the sort of star quality as Evita?
Frist?
Who?
2008 will be an open field. The Democrats will go in united and disciplined. The Republicans will fight over the prize. And if the war has been largely won (the likely situation), the war dynamic that Bush is using to good effect against the feckless Kerry won't work against the pragmatic pro-war Clinton.

Hillary will be formidable.

[Right_in_Virginia]

I don't think anyone pretends that David Broder is a conservative writer, even by Washington Post standards.

For what it's worth, TWP sure does.

[theoldChief]

"The man simply does not have the temperament for executive decision making."

BINGO! You may proceed to the bonus round! :)

Kerry will ponder and consider and study and listen. He and his staff will study to death the ebb and flow of current events and try to predict situations coming downstream and will do absolutely nothing until he (and his staff) have eventually come up with "the Perfect Plan." But...

"A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow."
--Gen. George S. Patton

That earlier George was key in winning a war by going with the "good plan today" and I will stick with another George who employs the same philosophy.

[Scourge of God]

Bush—Leader!

Kerry—Politician.

That's not a hard choice for times like these.

[BushisTheMan]

"American-Statesman" endorsed W yesterday.

Really? I never read that Commie rag so would not have known had it not been for FR.

Any guesses as to why?

[smonk]

I believe this phenomenon is known as "buyer's remorse".

[wasp69]

But, yet, they still endorsed the commie hairball. Amazing.

[RightWingConspirator]

Here is their "endorsement".