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.
“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.”
HA! You’re talking about the party whose last Presidential candidate had no national security experience, no fewer than 3 failed businesses behind him, no overseas service, only 6 years of elected office, a total of 3 DUI convictions in just the top two spots on the ticket (Bush 1, Cheney 2), and traded SAMMY SOSA TO THE CUBS! YOU GUYS HAD JOHN MCCAIN AND YOU CHOSE BUSH! I don’t want to hear about how Republicans choose leaders–you picked the Fortunate Son over the Conservative Insurgent.
Yes, and since then Bush has:
– liberated nearly 50 million people
– ended the rule of 2 horrible autocracies
– killed or captured 2/3rds of al-Qaeda
– forced Libya to abandon its nuclear program
– brought North Korea into multilateral talks with China
– captured Saddam Hussein
– forced Syria to begin major internal reforms
– brought the economy out of recession
After 30 years in the Senate, John Kerry has been:
– on the wrong side of the Cold War
– been on the wrong side of the first Gulf War
– voted for the second Gulf War, then tried to back away from it when it became politically opportune to do so
– voted against nearly every major military hardware acquisition that have allowed us to win in Iraq and Aghanistan
– named a few federal buildings
– followed sheeplike in the broad shadow of Ted Kennedy
And in nine months Kerry will add a brand new failure to his resume…
You left out alienating the entrie globe, but whatever.
Again, completely missing the point, you haven’t yet got that, considering what came BEFORE THOSE THINIGS YOU JUST CITED, HE HAD NO EXPERIENCE AND WAS COMPLETELY UNQUALIFIED! So, when you talk about how “Republicans look at what a person has done” you’re really saying “I can’t figure out when I’m making moronic claims to promote a partisan belief with no basis in fact.”
And all you did in your last post was to make that point yet again. When you say “and since then Bush has” you concede the point to me. My point was Republicans completely ignored Bush’s past to nominate him the first time, which is directly contrary to your assertion. I pointed that out, you failed to deny it. Thanks!
JR,
Er, wrong.
You are doing the ignoring, by cherrypicking Bush’s background for the “failures” while ignoring the successes that drew many Republicans to him (and bear in mind, I was a Forbes supporter until the gavel rang down on the convention).
He was a successful governor of a major state, with a great record of forming consensus between Texas’ perpetually-warring parties. And fat lot ‘o good Sosa’s done the Cubs most of the last bazillion years. (I say that as a lifelong Cubs fan).
And if the comparison is on, oh, I dunno, this election, it’s no contest. Jay articulated Bush’s record in the last four years pretty capably. What has Kerry done for us lately?
Besides cover up the existence of POWs and MIAs, I mean?
If we’re voting based on merits, Kerry should lose all 50 states, and maybe a few in advance for 2008 for good measure.
You were backing FORBES and you want me to trust your judgement about Bush’s pre-election qualifications?
Moreover, let’s take a minute and consider the fact that you’re upset at me for focusing on Bush’s business failures despite the fact that he campaigned on running America like a business? You’re telling me that Kerry having served overseas in the military is not a qualifier for office, but governing the state with the highest per capita murder rate in the country is a plus?
Jay’s statement is incompatible with the reality of 2000: if Republicans cared more about what a person had done instead of who a person is, the former POW with decades of experience beats the son of a past President with ties to big business any day of the week.
So should Liddy Dole, for that matter.