Here's a couple of interesting little pieces from The New Republic Online:
AUTHENTICITY
by Michael Crowley
Candidate: John Kerry
Category: General Likeability
Grade: B
Kerry's "major" economic speech yesterday contained few real surprises. But his address offered a small sign that Kerry might have an effective response to the whipping he's been taking from from Howard Dean lately. Speaking in Durham, New Hampshire, Kerry explained, as he has before, that he would not repeal all of the Bush tax cuts--only those affecting incomes below $200,000. This seems like smart politics (even if, as others have argued, Democrats shouldn't be ashamed of returning to Clinton-era tax rates). What was especially shrewd, however, was Kerry's phrasing of this point: "Some in my party are so angry at George Bush and his unfair tax cuts," Kerry said, "that they think the solution is to do the exact opposite."
It sounds to me like Kerry is speaking here directly at his nemesis, Howard Dean. (It must have sounded that way to other journalists, too, since it was the line pretty much every newspaper played up in the coverage of the speech.) Dean's velocity clearly has a lot to do with the visceral anger he shows towards at the Bush administration. But as Kerry probably knows, angry men rarely get very far in politics. Voters tend to like optimism, not vitriol. This may be less true in a Democratic primary admittedly populated by lots of seething activists. But Kerry can never come across as angry as Dean anyway. In recent weeks Kerry tried aping Dean and insisting he was an angry guy himself, only to have the sentiment sound forced--more like a concept than a real emotion. Kerry is shrewder to cast himself as he did yesterday: as a level-headed alternative to the short-fused Dean. Oddly enough, he may finally have found a way of sounding authentic.
BE ALL THAT YOU CAN BE, KERRY
by Clay Risen
Candidate: John Kerry
Category: Foreign Policy
Grade: B
For months it's seemed that on foreign policy matters, John Kerry was the right guy at the right time with the wrong message--or no message. Despite being a decorated Vietnam veteran and a guiding light on international relations in the Senate, Kerry wasn't being all that he could be on Iraq, terrorism, and all the other global security issues that are bound to dominate the campaign.
Recently, though, it seems Kerry has found his voice. His critique goes like this: The Bush team talks tough on military matters, but when it comes to carrying through on issues like soldiers pay, peace building, and veterans' benefits--the nuts-and-bolts reality of running a war--the administration fails completely. In effect, the argument makes clear that Bush isn't strong on the military at all--just the rhetoric.
Thus Kerry told a luncheon in Iowa, "I just learned something that makes my blood boil, that the Bush administration is considering cutting the pay of our troops in Iraq. ... It's a betrayal of our troops." While outlining a "new compact with America's veterans," he told a VFW meeting in San Antonio that "our veterans health care shouldn't depend on the yearly whims of budget cutters. They've earned their benefits. Those benefits ought to be there. And if I am president, they will be." And when it comes to the actual fighting, he told the same crowd that "winning military victories is only half the struggle. The mission will not be over until we win the peace--and until the last man and the last woman come home. ... In Iraq even more than Afghanistan, our post-war planning has failed to do the job and in the process we've over-extended our troops and our reserves."
It's a strong line of argument, and one that perhaps only Kerry, with his hawkish bona fides, could make: Unlike some of the candidates, he established himself as a liberal hawk long before this summer. His critique threads the needle of sounding tough on foreign policy while also appealing to a wide array of constituencies: military families and veterans, doves and hawks, unilateralists and internationalists, alike. Whether Kerry is willing to take this one to the bank is a different question, but with even Republican senators now calling for more troops in Iraq, he'll have a receptive audience if he does.
AUTHENTICITY
by Michael Crowley
Candidate: John Kerry
Category: General Likeability
Grade: B
Kerry's "major" economic speech yesterday contained few real surprises. But his address offered a small sign that Kerry might have an effective response to the whipping he's been taking from from Howard Dean lately. Speaking in Durham, New Hampshire, Kerry explained, as he has before, that he would not repeal all of the Bush tax cuts--only those affecting incomes below $200,000. This seems like smart politics (even if, as others have argued, Democrats shouldn't be ashamed of returning to Clinton-era tax rates). What was especially shrewd, however, was Kerry's phrasing of this point: "Some in my party are so angry at George Bush and his unfair tax cuts," Kerry said, "that they think the solution is to do the exact opposite."
It sounds to me like Kerry is speaking here directly at his nemesis, Howard Dean. (It must have sounded that way to other journalists, too, since it was the line pretty much every newspaper played up in the coverage of the speech.) Dean's velocity clearly has a lot to do with the visceral anger he shows towards at the Bush administration. But as Kerry probably knows, angry men rarely get very far in politics. Voters tend to like optimism, not vitriol. This may be less true in a Democratic primary admittedly populated by lots of seething activists. But Kerry can never come across as angry as Dean anyway. In recent weeks Kerry tried aping Dean and insisting he was an angry guy himself, only to have the sentiment sound forced--more like a concept than a real emotion. Kerry is shrewder to cast himself as he did yesterday: as a level-headed alternative to the short-fused Dean. Oddly enough, he may finally have found a way of sounding authentic.
BE ALL THAT YOU CAN BE, KERRY
by Clay Risen
Candidate: John Kerry
Category: Foreign Policy
Grade: B
For months it's seemed that on foreign policy matters, John Kerry was the right guy at the right time with the wrong message--or no message. Despite being a decorated Vietnam veteran and a guiding light on international relations in the Senate, Kerry wasn't being all that he could be on Iraq, terrorism, and all the other global security issues that are bound to dominate the campaign.
Recently, though, it seems Kerry has found his voice. His critique goes like this: The Bush team talks tough on military matters, but when it comes to carrying through on issues like soldiers pay, peace building, and veterans' benefits--the nuts-and-bolts reality of running a war--the administration fails completely. In effect, the argument makes clear that Bush isn't strong on the military at all--just the rhetoric.
Thus Kerry told a luncheon in Iowa, "I just learned something that makes my blood boil, that the Bush administration is considering cutting the pay of our troops in Iraq. ... It's a betrayal of our troops." While outlining a "new compact with America's veterans," he told a VFW meeting in San Antonio that "our veterans health care shouldn't depend on the yearly whims of budget cutters. They've earned their benefits. Those benefits ought to be there. And if I am president, they will be." And when it comes to the actual fighting, he told the same crowd that "winning military victories is only half the struggle. The mission will not be over until we win the peace--and until the last man and the last woman come home. ... In Iraq even more than Afghanistan, our post-war planning has failed to do the job and in the process we've over-extended our troops and our reserves."
It's a strong line of argument, and one that perhaps only Kerry, with his hawkish bona fides, could make: Unlike some of the candidates, he established himself as a liberal hawk long before this summer. His critique threads the needle of sounding tough on foreign policy while also appealing to a wide array of constituencies: military families and veterans, doves and hawks, unilateralists and internationalists, alike. Whether Kerry is willing to take this one to the bank is a different question, but with even Republican senators now calling for more troops in Iraq, he'll have a receptive audience if he does.
posted by Pamela J. Leavey at 1:30 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home