I’ve been spending at least a couple of posts in the last week, (And some follow up via e-mail and comment sections both here and on other blogs) about the relationship between authority and trust. That’s mostly because I’m coming to the conclusion that this presidential race is about trust. Who do we trust with the authority of the Presidency?
Kevin Drum, [1] who I’m amazed is still a Democrat, given the comments he’s been making of late, puts these thoughts this way:
“It’s fine to hammer away on domestic issues with specific target groups. It’s fine for John Edwards to focus on the two Americas. But anyone who thinks the primary message of Kerry’s campaign should be anything other than national security is just deluding themselves. To paraphrase James Carville, “It’s 9/11, stupid.”
So… Kerry’s already tried the war hero bit… In fact, it’s a no-brainer: somehow Kerry has to convince people that he can be trusted with national security and Bush can’t ? and if he doesn’t, he’s going to lose.
But I guess he still doesn’t get that.”
Well, Kevin, the fact is, he does get it, but Kerry has ceded the national security issue to President Bush… Though he’d never admit it; The ‘war hero’ bit has failed miserably so.
Admitting it to us aside, he apparently has been admitting it to himself. Kerry keeps trying to change the issue off National Security because but knows it’s a fight he can’t win. Given the choice of President Bush or John F’ing Kerry, most people… even most Democrats, say President Bush is by far the person they trust more. It’s now to the point where Bill Clinton has been telling Kerry from his hospital bed, to stop talking about Vietnam. [2]
His being rejected by the vast majority of Vets from every era didn’t help this matter either, frankly, particularly the charge of a lack of loyalty… Something which rings true with the American public, if we can trust the polling numbers.
But let’s be honest; what has Kerry got to run on, that’s going to be enough to sway the voters?
He can’t run on his war record… Once the truth came out about it, it’s been his undoing. So what else, then? His record while in government? No. Matter of fact, let’s explore this one…I issue an open challenge: Can anyone give me a list of what great work John Kerry has accomplished during his 20 years in the Senate?
Then, there’s the argument that all which is in the past should remain there, and we should be making judgments based on each man’s ideas for the future. However, that assumes that Kerry’s word can be taken as being worth it’s weight in air. His record of being all over the board in every single matter before this nation today.
“I voted FOR the $87 billion before I voted against it.”
So what else can John Kerry run on? His legistlative record? Fox news, who has investigated this angle at some length, reports
“WASHINGTON ? Asked what he has accomplished during his 19 years in the Senate, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (search) gives a lengthy answer but has a short list of laws that bear his name.”
Kerry tries to defend himself against the charges of such a shallow record in this area…
“Can I say that it wouldn’t be done, that somebody else might not have picked up the cudgel?” he said in an Associated Press interview. “I don’t know. But I know I led a lot of fights in the Senate that nobody else was doing and that made a difference.”
Kerry then goes on to list exactly none of these fights.
Says Kerry in the Kerry friendly Boston Globe [3]:
“I think I have a much longer legislative track record and accomplishment than vast numbers of people have any inkling of. From writing the flood insurance laws for the country to redoing the marine mammal protection act to writing the fisheries act two or three times to amendments on money laundering — there are whole bunches of things that are legislative accomplishments.”
Trouble is, none of these are popular in the least. The Flood insurance laws he mentions as one example, have done nothing but raise insurance rates for everyone concerned.
The Globe tells us further:
“On education, for example, Kerry says he has quietly and successfully pushed measures for early childhood education.”
Ah, yes. That would be the demonstrably failed Head Start program that fellow far-leftist Jesse Jackson was pushing. That’s not going to sell either, particularly when Mr. Kerry voted AGAINST “No Child Left Behind”.
No, that’s not going to sell, either.
So what’s he going to run on?
However; Even assuming all those questions were answered with something that could be sold the public; it still comes down to defending this nation, and the world. Kerry has repeatedly, since 1971, demonstrated a decided lack of willingness to deal with these issues correctly. His answer to Iraq, for example: Cut and run.
Yeah, that’s gonna go over big, huh?
This election is about trust. It’s that simple. At the moment, the people are coming to the conclusion that there’s not enough in John Kerry to trust… ceratinly not enough to replace President Bush to Mr. Kerry.
So can someone please tell me what about Kerry is worth voting for?
Other than he’s got better hair, I mean.