SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : THE VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (6261)3/7/2004 7:55:11 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 6358
 
washingtonpost.com
Win One for the Flipper

By Marjorie Williams
Sunday, March 7, 2004; Page B07

I've been trying, really I have. As a charter member of the ABB Society -- Anybody But Bush -- I've tried not to fret over the alarmingly tautological nature of John Kerry's victory. He was inevitable because voters picked him to win because he had won over earlier voters and therefore must be a winner. I've tried not to worry over the fact that he has all the social bonhomie of one of Edith Wharton's ambivalent society stiffs. We know that some crucial part of the presidential electorate votes on impressions of likability, but I've assured myself that between now and November Kerry will warm up.



And I've labored to turn my eyes from his career-long opportunism, the knowledge that Bay State political junkies trade their favorite Kerry flip-flops like baseball cards. Bush is already having fun with Kerry's zigzags of the past three years alone: Kerry voted for so many of Bush's major initiatives that in order to disown them now he can only argue that they were wrongly or dishonestly "implemented." This amounts to a confession that his opponent made a chump of him for the past three years. In fact, one might argue that Kerry is a poster boy for all the ways in which congressional Democrats have allowed themselves to be rolled by the Bush administration. But this is something I am trying hard not to notice about him.

It's been especially difficult, but I work to achieve a kind of amnesia about Kerry's incoherent and changing explanation of his position -- no, his positions -- concerning the crucial issue of Bush's war in Iraq.

Okay, so he's kicked away both a grand political opportunity and -- much more importantly -- any sense of confidence that he would lead the war on terrorism more wisely than Bush. But surely it's a coincidence that all of his war-related votes, going back to his vote against Bush pere's 1991 resolution for the Persian Gulf War, found him on the side of short-term political expedience?

I finally lost my grip, though, when I opened my newspaper a few days ago to read of Kerry's latest lunge in the direction of some politically feasible position on gay marriage. In general, Kerry, like most Democrats, has taken shelter in the mantra that (a) it's a matter that should be decided in the states, and (b) civil unions are the acceptable way to go about conferring equal rights on gays; marriage itself is off the table. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman," Democrats say, as if that took care of the matter. Outside of a religious context, of course, that statement is a prejudice rather than a policy -- a prejudice that, in many cases, the speaker does not actually hold.

But Kerry was managing this footwork just fine until Feb. 4, when the Supreme Court of Massachusetts interpreted the state's constitution to require the option of gay marriage. Kerry responded by endorsing an amendment to the state's constitution that would forbid gay marriage but allow civil union. He was the only member of his congressional delegation to take this stance, for good reason: Endorsing a constitutional amendment at the state level seriously undermines the arguments for fighting an amendment at the federal level. One of the best arguments against forbidding gay marriage in the Constitution is that the spirit of the document is to confer rights, not confiscate them.

This more-than-theoretical move against gay marriage was at odds with Kerry's brave 1996 vote against the reprehensible Defense of Marriage Act, which is easily one of the most principled votes he ever cast. He was one of only 14 senators to oppose it, while Bill Clinton, ever triangulating, cynically signed it into law.

But never mind. On Feb. 27, Kerry quietly told a group of unhappy gay donors that he would work to confer full federal benefits, including Social Security survivor benefits, the right to file taxes jointly, and more than a thousand others, on gay couples joined by any state-sanctioned union -- which would of course include marriage. So while wishing to forbid gay marriage in his own state, he is promising to reward it in others.

To watch Kerry floundering in the impossible contradictions of this issue is to see starkly how little he is guided by core principle -- or even by a consistently wise sense of where his political interests lie. To respond to every unpleasant political stimulus that presents itself is to throw away the chance to make even an expedient long-term commitment to something.

There's no doubt that John Kerry has his good points. His heroism in Vietnam, though not the perfect magic amulet of Democratic fantasies, does give him one kind of alpha-dog dominance over President Bush. It sure feels refreshing, as a Democrat, to have a candidate whose claim to toughness doesn't seem slightly ridiculous.

But in eight out of nine Super Tuesday primaries -- even in his home state! -- Kerry voters who were acting on the belief that he offered the best chance of beating Bush outnumbered those who thought Kerry agreed with them on major issues. The one exception was Ohio, where the Issues camp outstripped the Beat Bush camp by four points.

Eight months is a long time for Bush to pile up a home-field advantage while Kerry's campaign decides how to fill in, complete and polish the invention that won the primaries. It's going to be hard to sustain, for so many months, the party's fond illusion that there is such a beast as "electability."

But I'm trying, I really am. Cover your eyes, and clap if you believe in Tinkerbell.



To: calgal who wrote (6261)3/8/2004 1:58:00 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 6358
 
washingtonpost.com Concerned Over Flip-Flop Image
Monday, Mar 08, 2004; 8:45 AM

The race to define John Kerry is not just a battle between the GOP and Democratic camps. The media are weighing in, too, especially now that they don't have Edwards and Dean and Clark and Gephardt and Lieberman to kick around anymore.

Along with the usual policy excavations, stories are cropping up everywhere that try to examine the Kerry persona, get inside his head or divine his place in the culture. Such things matter when the presidency is at stake.

Unfortunately from the Kerry camp's point of view, one narrative taking hold in the press is that of Kerry as Flip-Flopper, which just happens to coincide with the 'says one thing, does another' line being pushed by the Bush team. Take, for instance, this New York Times piece:

"When Senator John Kerry was speaking to Jewish leaders a few days ago, he said Israel's construction of a barrier between it and Palestinian territories was a legitimate act of self-defense. But in October, he told an Arab-American group that it was 'provocative and counterproductive' and a 'barrier to peace.'

"On Feb. 5, Mr. Kerry reacted to Massachusetts' highest court's decision legalizing same-sex marriages by saying, 'I personally believe the court is dead wrong.' But when asked on Feb. 24 why he believed the decision was not correct, he shot back, 'I didn't say it wasn't.'

"Throughout his campaign, Mr. Kerry has shown a knack for espousing both sides of divisive issues. Earlier in the race he struggled to square his vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq with his loud criticism of the war and his eventual vote against $87 billion for military operations and reconstruction.

"Now with the general-election campaign under way, President Bush and Republicans are already attacking Mr. Kerry for precisely this characteristic. In California this week, the president said Mr. Kerry had 'been in Washington long enough to take both sides on just about every issue.'"

The New York Post reports the Bush spin:

"Republicans launched a 'Kerry vs. Kerry' Internet boxing game, using online humor to try to zap Democratic nominee John Kerry by painting him as an unrepentant flip-flopper.

"The move underscores how the crucial phase of the 2004 election could be the next few months as Republicans seek to tarnish Kerry's image.

"Clicking on the game's Web site produces a loud 'ding' to start the match, and a mirror image appears of two cartoon Kerrys sizing each other up -- and then 30 rounds of flip-flop charges with detailed citations for each issue."

Even the Kerry camp is worried about the senator's rhetoric, says the Boston Globe:

"Ask John F. Kerry for his views on the environment, and he'll smile as he recalls painting Storrow Drive 'biodegradable green' to celebrate Earth Day in 1970, or he'll borrow a phrase from President Kennedy and declare that America should 'go to the moon right here on Earth' in a quest for alternatives to fossil fuels.

"Other times, the senator will tie environmental protection to the economy, calling himself an 'entrepreneurial Democrat' who would create 500,000 jobs by investing in alternative energy while castigating oil and gas companies as 'polluters.'

" 'I want to continue to drill where we ought to drill,' Kerry told about 800 people yesterday at Houston Community College. 'But I haven't met one parent in America who's written a letter to anybody saying, "I want dirtier air for my kids to breathe" or "I want dirtier water for my kids to drink." '

"Kerry strategists like the line about 'dirtier water'; it aligns the candidate with families across the political spectrum. Yet they shudder at 'Kerryisms' that reinforce an image that his campaign staff is now preoccupied with shaking: Massachusetts liberal. Kerry's line about going to the moon on Earth, some advisers say, can evoke the moonbeam caricatures of Democrats like Al Gore and Jerry Brown as off-the-wall thinkers on the environment and other issues."

The New York Post strikes again with this John & Yasser piece:

"Democratic presidential nominee-to-be John Kerry called Yasser Arafat a 'statesman' and a 'role model' in a 1997 book that Kerry cites as proof of his own foresight about foreign policy.

"Kerry expressed the opposite view eight days ago, when he told Jewish leaders in New York that he shares President Bush's belief that Arafat must be isolated because he's not a 'partner for peace' -- much less a statesman."

Maureen Dowd tells us about Kerry the Poet:

"Mr. Kerry is not a simple brush-clearing, ESPN-watching fellow. Just as he has an almost comically vast palette of aggressive masculine sports and hobbies, with costumes and gear, he has a vast palette of cultural preferences.

"He not only reads poetry -- 'I love Keats, Yeats, Shelley and Kipling' -- he writes it. 'I remember flying once; I was looking out at the desert and I wrote a poem about the barren desolation of the desert,' he said. 'I wrote a poem once about a great encounter I had with a deer early in the morning that was very moving.' (Sometimes he shoots deer, sometimes he elegizes them.)"

David Brooks zeroes in on Kerry the Wealthy:

"Kerry's second wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, is worth over $500 million. Between them they have a $4 million mansion in Georgetown, a $6 million townhouse on Louisburg Square in Boston, a $6 million summer home on Nantucket, a $3 million estate in Pittsburgh and a $5 million ski lodge in Idaho, which is a 15th-century English barn that was disassembled and imported to the U.S." He is also "a guy whose 42-foot powerboat, the Scaramouche, sells for upward of $700,000."

Mickey Kaus looks back to Kerry the Playboy:

"The NY Post's Page Six gossip column recently had an item noting that the wife of NYT executive editor Bill Keller -- back when she was single -- once went out with Senator John Kerry (who was then between wives). . . . I trust Keller, unlike his predecessor, to play it straight when it comes to the Times' Kerry coverage. But NYT readers are certainly entitled to know about the connection. . . .

"The response of the Kerry campaign was: 'Americans care about jobs, health care and national security, not gossip,' declared Kerry spokesman David Wade. 'John Kerry's coverage in the New York Times will be determined by his vision for the country and the fights he wages and nothing more.'

"Please! Wouldn't a less pompous and on-message -- in a word, a less Lehanish --response, be more effective? Something like: 'Yes, they went out when they were both single. So what?' "