I don't agree that the Kerry /VVAW/Fonda/extreme
radical connections are just a sideshow nor do I think
the comparison to some cocaine party attended by Bush
is apt.
The Bush comparison was an attempt to be humorous, though I do think that there are legitimate questions about both candidates' character that in each case have been exaggerated for effect by each candidate's detractors. In the case of Bush, as incumbent, we have been through those issues before. He has a DUI, there are unsubstantiated though widespread rumors of drug use, admissions of alcohol abuse, all during his youth and its aftermath. In the past two decades or so he has not exhibited any of those traits, so many (me included) are willing to write off those issues as irrelevant to the man's character today.
Kerry is a new character in the sense that he has never been this close to the office of President before, and therefore scrutiny is appropriate. The question in my mind is, what should be scrutinized most closely? The late 60's and early 70's were a turbulent time (of course, you and I are way too young to remember that so we must speak from the descriptions of others <vbg>). Radicalism and speaking out against the "establishment" was a mainstream activity for large numbers of people of Kerry's generation.
Is it a character flaw that he spoke out? No. But how he spoke out, or didn't, is important, so we agree there. The real key is this:
To me, Kerry is nothing more than a cheap opportunist,
willing to sell his own mother to further his political
career. Stripped to its essence, the rhetoric
about his flip-flops, etc. boils down to a simple charge--
the man stands for nothing and therefore changes with
the winds of expediency.
I agree with that statement. I just don't see the VVAW stuff as evidence which supports the proposition. If people were sitting around saying we ought to kill these politicians, but took no overt acts in furtherance of that talk, then there was nothing for Kerry to report IMO. That was an era where "F*ck Nixon" and even "Kill Nixon" was widespread rhetoric -- should Kerry have been sitting around with a notepad writing down names and calling up J. Edgar Hoover to report each day?
I don't think so. And I think that with so many flaws to choose from, Kerry's opponents would be better served barking up a different tree, one with lower hanging and more persuasive fruit. |
