Posted on 11/13/2004 5:47:59 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
So it's come to this: I'm John Kerry's last defender.
Two pieces of conventional wisdom emerged from last week's election. (1) Republicans owe their victory to anti-gay marriage initiatives and a massive values divide; and (2) John Kerry was a lousy candidate. Both are wrong.
David Brooks has fairly dispensed with the first trope, I'll tackle the second.
Writing in the Progressive, Matthew Rothschild complains that Kerry "never could give a decent speech." Since November 3, other Democrats have seconded this notion, and more. In Salon, Farhad Manjoo called Kerry "a pretty poor candidate"; Alexandra Pelosi went one further, pronouncing him "a terrible candidate." Mark Halperin laid nearly all of the blame for Tuesday's loss at Kerry's feet, saying, "John Kerry had a lot of problems too. ...the Kerry campaign, with a bad candidate, a worse candidate, was not good enough to win."
Martin Peretz has recently written an entire ode to his dislike of Kerry.
And even before the election, people like Mickey Kaus and Noam Scheiber dumped on him from the beginning of his candidacy until almost the very end. This caterwauling is silly and unfair to John Kerry.
Did John Kerry Run A Poor Campaign? Yes. Kerry never articulated where he stood on Iraq or, more importantly, how -- exactly -- he would be tougher than Bush in the war on terror. Every other issue -- from taxes to gay marriage -- is frosting. Had Kerry emulated John McCain's handling of his Vietnam record, taken a single position on Iraq, and come up with a single, detailed plan for combating terrorism, he might well have won.
Was Kerry A Bad Candidate? No. I have to assume that many of these critics never actually followed the candidate around, because close-up, Kerry was a pretty good candidate. I saw Kerry blow away crowds in New Hampshire. He gave a very good convention speech. He was excellent in the first presidential debate (but for the "global test" line, which haunted him afterwards). His day-to-day performance on the stump was also very fine -- I saw him handle tough questions from voters with aplomb; and when he was interacting with a crowd, his rich and haughty caricature disappeared completely.
And let's not forget his résumé: volunteered for service in Vietnam, saw combat, served as a prosecutor and then for two decades as a United States senator. In many ways, Kerry was a better candidate than Bush.
Was There A Better Democrat In The Field? Maybe. Dick Gephardt would have been a formidable opponent for President Bush -- and perhaps a better candidate than Kerry. But he's about it. Joe Lieberman had a better chance of winning the Republican nomination. Howard Dean would have been an unmitigated disaster. Ditto the not-ready-for-prime-time Wesley Clark, and the oddball Sharpton/Kucinich show.
And how about that John Edwards? If his performance as a vice presidential candidate is any indication, he might have been as bad for the Democrats as Dean. Edwards' only electoral victory came in his 1998 Senate race against a 70-year-old first-term senator. Then he lost every presidential primary save South Carolina, delivered a disappointing convention speech, was beaten in the vice presidential debate, and was an ineffective campaigner for Kerry down the stretch. His supposed strength was that he could connect with Southerners, but forget carrying his home state: Edwards couldn't even carry his home precinct. Never has so large a reputation been created by so little actual success.
Did Kerry Do Anything To Damage His Party Structurally? No. In fact, he did quite the opposite. At a time when all of the cultural tension was pulling Democrats toward the lefty fringe, Kerry, for the most part, resisted. A Howard Dean-style campaign -- based on isolationism and pacifism -- would have been truly disastrous for Democrats and might have realigned American politics for a generation.
Granted, Kerry didn't help the party as much as he could have by jettisoning the Michael Moore wing. Had he done so, he would have done for Democrats what George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole did for Republicans in the '90s by throwing Pat Buchanan overboard.
But that shouldn't overshadow Kerry's very real accomplishment: He stood his ground as anti-Americanism and knee-jerk pacifism roiled the base of the Democratic party. He prevented the main body of his party from giving in to the Moores, Deans, and MoveOns of the world. And in doing so, he has given them the chance to fight again another day.
There are a host of reasons John Kerry lost, and he bears his share of responsibility for the defeat. But the liberals heaping scorn on him today and insisting that because of him, their enterprise was doomed from the start, are looking for an easy alibi. They're doing a good man disservice. And they're not doing the Democratic party any favors going forward.
Jonathan V. Last is online editor of The Weekly Standard and runs the blog Galley Slaves.
The Democratic party, is a far cry from your grandparent's DNC, it is America's Socialist Party pure and simple. The pundits seem to overlook this very important issue and pursue with great lamentations, the people must be wrong for all reasons American. This author seems to think John Kerry an able but inarticulate candidate regardless of the praise heaped on J. Kerry for his "articulate nuances and down right erudite utterances."
I beg to differ – Kerry changed horses through out the campaign, running in all directions clearly looking for the right end of the horse and comforting a ethereal wife prone to making head line remarks. At no time did he try to rid himself of the socialist cloak, one he is very comfortable in. He was far more at home with the diatribes from Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Henry Waxman, Alcee L. Hastings, Hillary & Bill, Barney Frank, John Conyers, and all of the DSA members and the “Progressive Party”. Michael Moore, George Soros, MoveOn.org and Ickles who did all they could to bring the American Republic to it’s knees. I believe, one could safely say that the American esprit de corps is alive and well – Americans do indeed love their Republic, something the Democratic Party refuses to recognize. Like Sisyphus, they continue to try and roll the Socialist dogma up the hill in a country where the people love the Republic, the freedom and liberty it stands for. In a free society, socialist/Marxist ideologies are condemned to never reaching the top of that hill – America and Americans like their country just the way the Founding Fathers planned it – warts and all!
|
Was Kerry A Bad Candidate? No. I have to assume that many of these critics never actually followed the candidate around, because close-up, Kerry was a pretty good candidate. Saving John Kerry
|
|
election-day update!11.02.04 |
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004 |
What is this guy smoking, and why does he have a job at the Weekly Standard?
Kerry couldn't communicate better because he had a ton of guilty secrets under his bed that he couldn't afford to let out.
He had the most liberal voting record in the senate. He was probably the biggest absentee in the senate, as well. So he couldn't talk about his 20 year record at all without screwing himself.
He lied about his wounds and his heroic deeds in Vietnam, and he probably was given a dishonorable discharge, so he couldn't release his military records.
He was a traitor to his fellow veterans, and he cooperated with the enemy in wartime--a treasonable offense.
The chief business of his life was marrying rich women as, essentially, a gigolo.
He pretended for twenty years to be a Boston Irishman, when he was half Boston Brahmin and half Jewish.
He couldn't define his position on Iraq because he didn't have any. He can't even run a campaign, let alone a country.
He looks like a walking corpse which has been resurrected, blow-dried, pumped full of botox, and had its nails manicured.
This is a great candidate?
Who cares? He's a bum. He's not coming back. Neither is the bum at the top of the ticket. They are already so over I'm having trouble picturing their formerly very scary faces.
We've got a reprieve, for a little while, before the elections of 2006, and then the big fight of 2008, which, I guarantee you, will have nothing to do with either of the two bums who just lost this last election.
Edwards' only electoral victory came in his 1998 Senate race against a 70-year-old first-term senator. Then he lost every presidential primary save South Carolina, delivered a disappointing convention speech, was beaten in the vice presidential debate, and was an ineffective campaigner for Kerry down the stretch. His supposed strength was that he could connect with Southerners, but forget carrying his home state: Edwards couldn't even carry his home precinct. Never has so large a reputation been created by so little actual success.
Oh, sweet; and thanks for pointing that out!
Explain what you mean by murderous.
I just couldn't go on or I'd upchuck what I just ate.
As I recall, he was in the MA DA's office for two and a half years, during which time he did get a conviction in a trial for which most of the work had been done by someone else. Then, according to Howie Carr, he was pushed out by his boss -- obviously qualified for nothing but a political career!
But that shouldn't overshadow Kerry's very real accomplishment: He stood his ground as anti-Americanism and knee-jerk pacifism roiled the base of the Democratic party. He prevented the main body of his party from giving in to the Moores, Deans, and MoveOns of the world. And in doing so, he has given them the chance to fight again another day.
Hey, Last, sober up! Kerry never cast out Moore or the Move Ons. He gave them free reign to say or do anything about GW, and Kerry never stopped them.
"And let's not forget his résumé: volunteered for service in Vietnam, [Joined Navy to avoid combat/draft]
saw combat, [due to change of swiftboat missions]
served as a prosecutor [never campaigned this item]
and then for two decades as a United States senator. [Most liberal senator]
You are absolutely correct. Frankly, the Democrats simply did not have a better candidate to offer. Kerry's ersatz Viet Nam resume was all that they had, and the Swifties took care of that BS!
Everyone says Hillary has it in the bag in 08, but she is an worse candidate than Kerry.
I think we can be thankful John McCain, in a temporary moment of clarity, turned down the number 2 spot with Kerry. McCain might well have put Kerry in the White House.
You think that the use of the word murderous is okay?
Why not? It's fun to watch these guys continue to not get it.
That first falls on the candidate. He's the boss.
Had Kerry emulated John McCain's handling of his Vietnam record, taken a single position on Iraq, and come up with a single, detailed plan for combating terrorism, he might well have won.
Kerry went nuts trying to say "I'm tough. I'm a hero, damnit" instead of hitting Bush's weakness. The economy. Kerry has the anti-war vote by default. The pro-war vote was going to Bush. Period. If I was Kerry's campaign manager, I'd be running on the economy, jobs, outsourcing, and how Bush was neglecting the economy because of Iraq. I'd keep the message simple and stick to jobs first.
I saw Kerry blow away crowds in New Hampshire.
He got 400 in Ypsilanti. Ypsi is as dem or more dem than its next door neighbor city. Ann Arbor. Bush got 15,000 in swing areas. Farmington Hills.
He gave a very good convention speech.
No he didn't. He gave an average political speech. Clark gave the best one there.
He was excellent in the first presidential debate (but for the "global test" line, which haunted him afterwards).
Then it wasn't that excellent since he blundered bad. Bush sucked in the debate, but Kerry was actually as it turned out - worse. He gave bigtime ammo to his opponent with its "Global Test"
And let's not forget his résumé: volunteered for service in Vietnam, saw combat, served as a prosecutor and then for two decades as a United States senator. In many ways, Kerry was a better candidate than Bush.
That only matters on paper. Bob Dole(A REAL war hero) crushed Klinton on paper. That don't mean nothin'. And Kerry's senate record sucked and IMO, Bush didn't attack it enough.
Dick Gephardt would have been a formidable opponent for President Bush -- and perhaps a better candidate than Kerry. But he's about it. Joe Lieberman had a better chance of winning the Republican nomination. Howard Dean would have been an unmitigated disaster. Ditto the not-ready-for-prime-time Wesley Clark, and the oddball Sharpton/Kucinich show.
1. Dean was an outsider as governor. He balanced a budget. He could play the 'middle' on gun issues. He might have been a disaster, but I saw disaster predictions for W in 2000 as well.
2. Gephardt could have pounded on outsourcing. He comes from the midwest. No one I knew in the party wanted to take on Gephardt.
3. Edwards was a stronger presidential candidate than a VP.
4. Wes Clark was the military outsider and kicked ass in his convention speech. He could have been stronger as the campaign went on.
5. Lieberman was a wildcard. If the left sucked it up for him, he'd be a tough candidate. He's boring as hell, but that might not matter.
based on isolationism and pacifism -- would have been truly disastrous for Democrats and might have realigned American politics for a generation.
Kerry tried to have it both ways - and that's worse.
He prevented the main body of his party from giving in to the Moores, Deans, and MoveOns of the world. And in doing so, he has given them the chance to fight again another day.
We all knew they were there though.
Only liberals, who have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of treason, who in their nuanced confabulating brains "don't know it, when they see it"...have rendered the term meaningless...and without any moral impact on them whatsoever. Hence we need to reach for a term which, however weakly, still connotes some moral opprobrium to them...
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.
