The week was looking up as I read the sunny reviews of John Kerry’s great performance in last week’s debate, but now I am left profoundly disappointed by the earlier segments of the vice presidential challenger’s debate appearance. Edwards was flustered, redundant and reliant on campaign catch-phrases – not so different from George W. Bush in last week’s appearance, as a matter of fact – and seemed completely unable to answer a question straight out. He redeemed himself later on, but this presidential race is too close for Edwards to put forth an image which is anything less than positive and assertive, and he did not do that for a good half of the debate.
For a ticket which vows to turn over a new leaf and start telling America the truth about political goings-on, I was astounded by his evasions, especially because I know from research that the Democratic ticket of Kerry and Edwards has the answers to the questions Americans are asking. I know that they have specific plans for the war in Iraq, the war on terror, the revival of our economy and job market and other important areas in which the Republicans have proven sadly incompetent. Sadly enough, though, Kerry and Edwards seem so busy asserting their machismo and beating the dead horse of Republican error that they have not yet been able to answer questions about their platform, and it may cost them voters.
One would think that after the last election in which the Democratic defeat was largely due to a third-party presence, the Democrats would be careful not to foster the formation of a group of voters who are disenchanted with partisan politics and want a new option, but the catty exchanges we have seen so far between Democrats, with their ominous warnings of “more of the same” and criticism of the past without discussion of how they would change the future, and the incumbents…well, it’s more of the same.
Here’s where I think the difference between Bush and Kerry really lies, and I base this analysis on research from JohnKerry.com and GeorgeWBush.com and the glimpses of real substance in public appearances of the Democratic candidates. The Democrats are not against Republican initiatives; they are against Republican strategies and methods. They have the same goals as the Republicans, but they differ drastically in how they want to achieve those goals.
For example, Kerry wanted to confront Saddam Hussein; however, he did not want to do so through unilateral force, unsupported claims of nuclear threat or without a roadmap for eventual peace, for all of which President Bush has stood. He wanted to use American funds to better equip our troops and train Iraqi forces, but he did not want Halliburton or any big corporation to benefit by conducting this business, which they would have according to the resolution Kerry voted against. He does not want formal global approval any time America wants to take an action with global implications but rather hopes to take actions and use judgment which will be generally approved of and which will not cost America its reputation of legitimate power.
John Kerry is not a flip-flopper or panderer, John Kerry is a man who appreciates the semantics and subtleties of the political world, and he is a man who will not settle for second-best but will fight until he believes something has been done the right way. For John Kerry, no end will ever justify immoral means. If George W. Bush can do no more than criticize this appreciation of semantics, perhaps he is not qualified to act as this country’s political leader.
So answer the questions, guys—the truth will set you free.
Leave a Reply