In today's New York Times Op-Ed page...

[dlgood]

What I consider to be a pair of pretty apt op-ed pieces today.

Paul Krugman: The Rambo Coalition
In this election, a man who plays the action hero is questioning the patriotism of a man who risked his life in war...

David Brooks: The Vietnam Passion
The John Kerry who argued passionately against the Vietnam War is a man who no longer exists...

Krugman speaks to the nature of Bush's governance, his campaign, and the questionable manipulation of Patroitism and Patriotic imagery. Probably not revelatory for many of the readers of this list, but well articulated nonetheless.

Brooks, speaks to Kerry's past record, which seems at odds with his current public persona. I don't entirely agree with how strongly Brooks carries the assessment, but I do think about it with respect to Kerry. On the one hand, he's always been center-to-left and I've wondered whether he might be too liberal for the public to vote for. On the other hand, the reason I'd want to vote for Kerry in the first place was what I saw of him during Iran-Contra, and what I know of him from the 1971 hearings. Where is that guy? I bet a lot of people would vote for him. But it's hard to recognize that guy and the 2004 Kerry as the same person. I'm all for candidates who can see and deal with shades of grey. I am worried that something is missing.

I link the two articles, because the John Kerry of 1971 and 1986 made a strong and convincing case against the "Rambo" ideal that the Bush Administration hangs itself on. And a John Kerry of 2004 could beat them over it if he could display the qualities he showed in the earlier cases. The dividing line, I suppose, is a question of whether Kerry's still got that in him. The election is still two and a half months away, but it's getting to the point in the cycle where I'm going to have to stop waiting. Oh, I'm gonna vote for John Kerry, but I do think it's what people are looking to see from him. To not just tell about being a War Hero and Man of Conscience, but to show it more...

Comments

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

I think back during those two time periods he was more free to speak his mind, and today he has too many people around him that censor his speech for fear that if he "says too much" he'll lose the election for sure.

I think that's a fair assessment. What he says indicates something about him, although what that is, I'm not certain.

politics seems to be the person who plays to both sides of the fence the best, wins and I just feel that that is what Kerry is trying to do.

It can be. When I worked on the Van Hollen campaign, we were in a different circumstance than Kerry is now. The essential goal, though, is to get the most votes. (Electoral College Calculus aside) And you can do that in a few ways:

1. Convincing undecided voters to vote for you instead of the other guy
2. Getting people who normally would be expected to vote for the other guy, to not vote.
3. Expand the pool of voters.

In our campaign's case, the incumbent was a modestly popular moderate Republican with 8 terms in a district that was 70-30 democrats. Most of the republicans who were going to vote for Morella were already voting. So we won with a combo of #1 (which is what Kerry seems to be working for) and #3 - when turnout went up, all the new voters were people who were going to vote for our candidate.

So that's what informs me - I think higher voter turnout helps Kerry, and that this would increase the turnout more than playing cautious would.

[stars91.livejournal.com]

I agree. I would much rather him stand up and say *exactly* what he thinks, but I doubt that will happen for the reasons I said before.

And I definitely think that more voter turnout will be a plus for Kerry. I hope that's the case anyway!