Kerry's Character

Talking with other debaters around the country, I find many disillusioned with the format and tone of the recent debates. "I wish they'd stick to issues," or "I can't stand the ad hominems." As debaters, we're trained to avoid ad homs like the plague, to debate the policy and leave the person alone. However, when electing a president, we're not electing a policy. We're electing a person.

As Mr. Clinton adequately proved, character counts in an executive. I think we'd all agree that President Bush has adequately proved [or disproved, depending on your persuasion,] his character over the past four years.

Our attention turns, then, to Mr. Kerry. Thursday's exchange with the press was a unique opportunity to observe Mr. Kerry in action.

To be honest, I'm confused by the Kerry campaign. I really don't think he's stupid, but alot of what he's saying really doesn't make sense.

What I'll tell you is, I have a plan. I have laid out my plan to America, and I know that my plan has a better chance of working. And in the next days I am going to say more about exactly how we are going to do what has been available to this Administration that it has chosen not to do.

Um...alright. This is characteristic of the Kerry campaign. We have the promise, "I have a plan!" But I've been hearing this for months. It's not like Mr. Kerry has been short on time to develop a plan, so I have to wonder at either Mr. Kerry's indecision, or his cowardice. I can't see a whole lot of strategy in holding back a major part of your platform until the last few weeks before an election, but maybe I'm naive.

The next exchange knocks my socks off:

Q. Duelfer also said that Saddam fully intended to resume his weapons of mass destruction program because he felt that the sanctions were just going to fritter away. A. But we wouldn't let them just fritter away. That's the point. Folks! If You've got a guy who's dangerous, you've got a guy you suspect is going to do something, you don't lift the sanctions, that's the fruits of good diplomacy. This Administration...I beg your pardon?
Q. You just said [Bush] fictionalized him [Saddam] as an enemy. Now you just said he's dangerous?

Mmhmm...There we have it. You can't get it both ways, Mr. Kerry. It seems to me that he's so desperate to attack Bush that he abandons all reason. Now, I can see if a politician changes his mind based on new information - if he didn't, I'd be concerned. But contradicting yourself from one sentence to the next seems slightly obsessive.

A. No. What I said. I said it all the time. Consistently I have said Saddam Hussein presented a threat. I voted for the authorization, because he presented a threat. There are all kinds of threats in the world, ladies and gentlemen. Al Qaeda is in 60 countries. Are we invading all 60 countries? 35 to 40 countries had the same --more-- capability of creating weapons, nuclear weapons, at the time the president invaded Iraq than Iraq did. Are we invading all 35 to 40 of them? Did we invade Russia? Did we invade China?

I find this interesting in light of Kerry's bluster during last night's preseidential debate. "If we have to get tough with Iran, we will get tough!" Right. Okay. I hear more nebulous "plans" from Mr. Kerry than you can shake a stick at. In fact, the standard Kerry line, which we heard over and over again last night, is "Look at all the mistakes this president has made...look how I kept telling him he was wrong...and I have a plan!" It gets old after awhile.

The point is that there are all kinds of options available to a president to deal with threats and I consistently laid out to the president how to deal with Saddam Hussein, who was a threat. If I'd been president, I'd have wanted the same threat of force.

Excuse me, sir, how many times do you want to utilize that "threat" of force? Isn't that what the U.N. was? A threat of force? For 12 years? I really don't get it.

But as I have said a hundred times if not a thousand iin this campaign, there was a right way to use that authority and a wrong way. The president did it the wrong way. He rushed to war without a plan to win the peace, against my warnings and other people's warnings.

"Without a plan to win the peace. " We've heard this over and over again in recent days, but I remain unclear as to it's actual meaning. Last night it was, "The military wins the war, the President wins the peace." Huh?

I have a hard time with Mr. Kerry's "allies" policy, which I think is what he's referencing in this statement. Even last night, he denegrated our allies because of their size. I loved the president's response to the anti-americanism question. "I don't think you want a president who tries to be popular, and makes the wrong decision."

So, all this leads us to the illustration of Mr. Kerry's character.
From what I can make out, he's arrogant, elitist, and a sleazy politician.

You see, I could say that he is deluded, that he think he's made himself clear, but I'd like to give him more credit for intelligence than that. I think he knows exactly what's he told us. And I think it gives a picture of what he's like.

You see, Mr. Kerry vastly underestimates the intelligence of the average American. He thinks we don't get it when he fudges verbage to cover up contradictory statements. "I made a mistake in how I talked about the war, he made a mistake in going to war." I really don't think I'm the only one who notices that this doesn't answer the question of his inconsistency on funding the troops. Please. If he thinks we're so dumb, he's in for a surprise on November 2nd.
Again, Kerry's view off allies strikes me as elitist. In a war that involves thirty countries, he keeps plugging the "unilateral action" line. In last night's debate, he implied that our allies aren't important, because they're small. Who would we have to get for the senator to be happy? It's a horrid mindset - you aren't good enough. No, I don't want your help. Not a way to win friends and influence people, Mr. Senator.

Maybe I'm naive, but Mr. Kerry comes off as unctuous in the extreme. He tries so hard to grab people on all sides of an issue, all the while going out of his way to demean the president in every possible way - it simply doesn't work. Instead, he alienates voters on both sides.

Aish. I keep holding out hope that I'm really misjudging this guy. I'd like for someone who's been in public office for 20 years to be a nice guy [even though he's wrong]. I just don't see it.

Sometimes I wish politics wasn't so political. All this pandering, and saying what they think we want to hear...drives me nuts. To quote Ryan, "I wish they would stop trying to appeal to my demographic. I've looked all over...I have a brain, logic and reason, but for the life of me, I can't find a demographic."

Perhaps the exchange in Pride and Prejudice is fitting:

"May I ask to what these questions tend?"
"Merely to the illustration of your character. I'm trying to make it out."
"And what is your sucess?"
"I do not get on at all. I hear such different accounts of you as puzzle me exceedingly"
"I could wish, Miss Bennet, that you were not to sketch my character at the present moment, as there is reason to fear the the performance would reflect no credit on either."
"But if I do not take your likeness now, I may never have another opportunity...."

Indeed. It's a shame that my opinion of any public figure must be based on publicity. I fear it does no credit to either of us.