The Cautious Candidate
A piece on The New York Times website tries valiantly to profile John Kerry in some flattering way (again?). While I haven't read the whole thing, (it's looooong), I have read the first 4 or 5 pages, and the last.
The funny thing is, it doesn't appear the reporter is buying Kerry's nonsense.
UPDATE: Apparently I should have "read the whole thing" as the saying goes. There are whoppers throughout, not just the one I quote in the extended entry. (Which, by the way, pales in comparison to some others.) The piece is being picked clean by Scott Johnson, Hugh Hewitt, Roger L. Simon, Charles Johnson, and Matt Margolis, the last of whom points us to the most disgusting quote yet:
''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' Kerry said. ''As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''Incredible. The man is off his friggin' gourd - he's reducing the War on Terror to an episode of Vice Squad Vegas.
ANOTHER UPDATE: This is on Drudge in one of his biggest fonts, so if you didn't know any other way than that, you can take it to the bank it'll be going for a few days like this.
But the DNC and their friends in the MSM are spinning it madly:
Kerry campaign spokesman Phil Singer called the Republican charges "absolutely ridiculous."Listen Phil, you're doing your best for your boss, but you've gotta just give up the ghost and admit he's a pathetic candidate. The RNC is spinning it some, sure - but not beyond where the Times reporter himself went. I didn't quote his ending extensively (below), but how he ends the piece directly refutes your argument."This is yet another example of the Bush campaign taking John Kerry's words out of context, and then blowing it up into something that is nothing," he said.
"The whole article is about how John Kerry recognizes that the war on terror requires a multipronged approach. It's not just the military aspect, but you need diplomacy to be able to enlist your allies. The Bush people have never understood that. John Kerry has always said that terrorism is the No. 1 threat to the U.S."
When Kerry first told me that Sept. 11 had not changed him, I was surprised. I assumed everyone in America -- and certainly in Washington -- had been changed by that day. I assumed he was being overly cautious, afraid of providing his opponents with yet another cheap opportunity to call him a flip-flopper. What I came to understand was that, in fact, the attacks really had not changed the way Kerry viewed or talked about terrorism -- which is exactly why he has come across, to some voters, as less of a leader than he could be. He may well have understood the threat from Al Qaeda long before the rest of us. And he may well be right, despite the ridicule from Cheney and others, when he says that a multinational, law-enforcement-like approach can be more effective in fighting terrorists. But his less lofty vision might have seemed more satisfying -- and would have been easier to talk about in a political campaign -- in a world where the twin towers still stood.Granted, Matt Bai seems to be a 9/12 mind pining for the good old days of 9/10, but the fact remains - he gets it.
And our point, Phil, is that your candidate doesn't.
''Can we get any of my water?'' he asked Stephanie Cutter, his communications director, who dutifully scurried from the room. I asked Kerry, out of sheer curiosity, what he didn't like about Evian.Near the end, the reporter describes how surprised he was at Kerry's claim that 9/11 didn't change him the way it changed the rest of the country. He then finished with the most favorable spin he could for the Senator: Kerry's viewpoint that al Qaeda can be fought like one fights a drug cartel, with law enforcement and military force simply as a form of interdiction, may be right - but that would still leave him in a different frame of mind from the rest of the country.''I hate that stuff,'' Kerry explained to me. ''They pack it full of minerals.''
''What kind of water do you drink?'' I asked, trying to make conversation.
''Plain old American water,'' he said.
''You mean tap water?''
''No,'' Kerry replied deliberately. He seemed now to sense some kind of trap. I was left to imagine what was going through his head. If I admit that I drink bottled water, then he might say I'm out of touch with ordinary voters. But doesn't demanding my own brand of water seem even more aristocratic? Then again, Evian is French -- important to stay away from anything even remotely French.
''There are all kinds of waters,'' he said finally. Pause. ''Saratoga Spring.'' This seemed to have exhausted his list. ''Sometimes I drink tap water,'' he added.
After months of having his every word scrutinized by reporters and mocked by Republicans, Kerry appeared to sense danger in the most mundane of places....
Kerry seems to find presidential politics in the era of Karl Rove as treacherous as riverine warfare, and he has run for the presidency in much the same way. From the beginning, Kerry's advisers said that the election would be principally a referendum on Bush, whose approval ratings, reflecting public anxiety over Iraq and a sluggish economy, were consistently low for a president seeking re-election. All Kerry had to do to win, the thinking went, was to meet a basic threshold of acceptability with voters and avoid doing or saying anything that might be fatally stupid. The riverbanks were lined with hostile Republicans and reporters, lying in wait for him, and Kerry's goal as he sailed upriver was simple: Stay down. Exercise caution. Get to November in one piece.Which is exactly what it's like to interview Kerry as he runs for the presidency; he acts as if you've been sent to destroy him, and he can't quite figure out why in the world he should be sitting across from you.
I'm left with two very basic questions:
1) How can a President be decisive when he can't even decide if he should say what kind of water he likes to drink?
2) How can we elect a Democrat to be President, when even a New York Times reporter thinks of question #1?
When national security is on the line, how can we trust a man who makes McClellan seem like Grant?
Comments
I'll probably get labeled a flamer here, but I'll say it anyway... I understand what Kerry is saying about the nuisance thing. Think of it this way... Will the world ever rid itself of murderers, rapists, child molesters??? Of course not. We can hope that we set laws in place to reduce the risk to the population, but to think that we will some day stamp out all of these horrible traits in people is moronic. This also holds true for the "war" on terrorism. We will NEVER get rid of all terrorism. However, we can reduce it to a level where it is not the focus of our national politics.
So go ahead, flame me! I can handle it!
Posted by: GG | October 12, 2004 10:28 AM
LOL, GG, your interpretation isn't flaming, it is common sense. Just as when President Bush said that we will not have a signed accord ending he war, common sense. But, your interpretation is not necessarily what Kerry meant, though I am certain he will gravitate toward such a sensible explanation for his remark. What is unbelieveable about Kerry's statement is when he envisions a retrun to a time when terrorism was a nuisance. I find that as incredible as his claim to have been in Cambodia during Xmas 1968. Or his testimony before the Senate when he accused fellow soldiers, and the chain of command at all levels of engaging in sanctioned war crimes. Neither of those stories of his are believeable; and there never was a time when terrorism was a nuisance. That he thinks there was such a time, and that we can accept a certain level of terrorism is unconsciable. Even his claim that it is the most dominant thing on ours minds right now is wrong. I don't get up each morning expecting an atack, though I am aware of the danger and I am prepared to notify the authorities, even act, if I see something suspicious going on. But it does not dominate my life. I accepted, within moments of watching the second plane strike the WTC, that terrorism will not end in my lifetime. Anyone who believes he can get us to a point where we are not in need of vigilance is a fool. Anyone who diminshes the threat we will face in future, and gives false hope that the threat can be reduced to a tolerable level, is not in touch with the real world. There is only one answer for this threat, identify them then kill or capture them before they kill us. Kerry is appealing to those of his supporters who yearn to try again the failed policy of treating this problem as one controllable by laws and acting nice. They, those supporters, believe that America is the real evil in the world, and will, if given the chance, give away the store (Nuke material to North Korea is one example, talk of giving it to Iran is another) to prove that they are not bad people. Screw that idea, and screw Kerry for adopting this unworkable solution in order to garner a few votes. The man has no principle, no ideas; but he is a master debater.
Posted by: Richard | October 12, 2004 11:57 AM