One begins to wonder if the lack of media coverage of John Kerry's blunders is a deliberate attempt to shield his confusion and dissembling. During a press interview yesterday Kerry offered this on judicial appointments:
On the Supreme Court, Kerry said he has voted in favor of "any number of judges who are pro-life or pro-something else that I may not agree with," some of whom were nominated by Republican presidents."Do they have to agree with me on everything? No," Kerry said. Asked if they must agree with his abortion-rights views, he quickly added, "I will not appoint somebody with a 5-4 court who's about to undo Roe v. Wade. I've said that before."
"But that doesn't mean that if that's not the balance of the court I wouldn't be prepared ultimately to appoint somebody to some court who has a different point of view. I've already voted for people like that. I voted for Judge Scalia."
[...]
Kerry said he regrets his vote for Scalia, saying he didn't see at the time of the vote in 1986 "such a level of ideology and partisanship" that he now sees in the justice.
Wut? One can only image the scurrying behind the scenes, as this was offered later in the day.
Aides said later that "some court" was not a reference to the Supreme Court, only lower federal benches. In his clarifying statement, Kerry said, "I will not appoint anyone to the Supreme Court who will undo that right" to an abortion.
However the flip and counter flop can't be papered over by aides or flacks as it reveals an inability to think on his feet and maintain a cogent position on issues that is startling for a man of his political experience. The Presidency requires clarity of purpose, the ability to quickly make a decision within a very narrow context. Bush is roundly condemned by the Left for his inability to explain his "vision", yet they turn a blind eye to much worse in their nominee. Kerry simply cannot state a position clearly and hold to it. How will he deal with the realities on the ground, the daily stream of choices over which he has no control? The though of Kerry confronted with decisions that may determine if my family lives or dies is not comforting.
Kerry's inability to exploit five months of wall-to-wall negativity and bad news must be worrying the Dems. The harshness of Kerry's surrogates only serves to contrast his tepid presentation. The Dems might have been better off betting the farm with Hillary, in the least they would have a candidate that stands for what they believe and speaks clearly about the differences, not Kerry's mish-mash of empty platitudes and vague concepts.
No thanks, I'll keep Bush. Yes Virginia, unhip, devout, dumb as a stump Bush, for he has proven that he can make a decision that puts my safety first, not his re-election, his party, polling or European opinion.
Posted by feste at May 21, 2004 10:23 AM | TrackBackIf Kerry wasn't so pathetic it'd be comical. What's worse is watching the moorlocks try to twist into positions to explain away Kerry's idiocy.
This keeps up and they'll have to change their name to the Gumby party.
Posted by: beaker at May 21, 2004 07:03 PMIt comes as no surprise that Bush has had his share of flip flops too. Sadly, they're actually about issues that effect all of us rather than simply misleading examples of a senator's historical voting record.
President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief
Posted by: Ed Kohler at June 1, 2004 06:08 PMEd: did you even bother to read the post? You miss the point entirely, Kerry backing off abortion rights is not a small issue. Yes, Ed, I am pro-choice, and pro-gay marriage and pro on a lot of quality of life and issues on which Kerry continually waffles.
You don't get do you? I'm a swing voter, and you've lost me and every voter in my immediate family, including the family Yellow Dogs. The Dems are going to wake up Nov 3rd and realize just what a lousy candidate they've chosen.
Posted by: feste at June 1, 2004 08:08 PM