Mitch Berg has an absolutely brilliant piece on just why Kerry may have been a hero, but he’s not a leader. This is where the Democrats just don’t get it. Yes, Kerry’s actions were brave, and he was by all accounts an excellent soldier. But that in no way excuses everything he has done since. As Hugh Hewitt noted:
Kerry was wrong about the Viet Cong.
Kerry was wrong about the North Vietnamese.
Kerry was wrong about the Cubans in Grenada.
Kerry was wrong about the Sandanistas in Nicaragua.
Kerry was wrong about the Soviets and their reaction to Reagan’s defense build-up.
Kerry was wrong about Saddam in 1991.
Kerry was wrong about Saddam in 2003.
As Berg then asks:
Disregard it all, and ask yourself one simple question – is heroism itself a qualification for office, much less an assurance of competence at leadership?
The answer, based on Kerry’s record, is that Kerry is not a leader in any sense of the term. If anything, he’s a consumate follower – someone who simply does whatever everyone else is doing. He’s blindly followed the legislative agenda of Ted Kennedy liberals, he argued that military service (or a lack thereof) was irrelevant when Clinton was running, but now he’s reversed himself. He was against the first Gulf War (a position that is completely untenable) then reversed himself for the second (now backing away from his own choices). He’s for trade, then against it. If you don’t like Kerry’s positions today, don’t worry, as tomorrow they’ll be something different.
And here we arrive at the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans in choosing a leader. Democrats look at who someone is while Republicans look at what people have done. Kerry may have acted bravely in the jungles of Vietnam, but in the walls of the Capitol he’s been just another follower. When it comes to making the decisions necessary to being a Commander-in-Chief during this time of war, Kerry is not fit for duty.