Months ago, some advisor told John Kerry to be as “macho” as possible when he is interviewed. Every answer he gives is overly aggressive, in the manner of someone uncomfortable in his own skin. Clearly, he prefers the quiet, dismissive arrogance that endeared him to Massachusetts voters; acting like He-Man doesn’t quite fit.
Senator Kerry, caught in a web of his own words about whether he threw his medals over the White House fence a third of a century ago, has decided to criticize President Bush’s military service. He sputtered, “This comes from a president who can’t even show or prove that he showed up for duty in the National Guard.”
Actually, the original criticism to which he responded was from Karen Hughes, not the president, but leave that aside. I think the whole Medalgate episode is uninteresting in itself: he was a strident anti-war protestor, which everyone knows, and you’ll think that was admirable or disgraceful according to your political beliefs.
What’s interesting is a couple of things: first, that despite his initial reluctance to be “above the fray,” Kerry abandoned that stance when his attacks on Bush have gone nowhere. (Why do we have to revisit the whole Guard thing again? Bush served honorably, and the pay records prove it beyond question.)
Second, I’m totally confused by t Kerry was supposed to have done or said or thrown. I bet most people are, too, if they’ve paid any attention. The relevant datum is that Kerry doesn’t remember what he has said over the last 33 years because it’s changed so much — yet he can’t escape his own words because his statements were recorded. Instead of just saying, “Look, I may have been unclear in the past, but here’s the truth: I did ______, and if I said anything contrary to that, then I apologize for misspeaking.”
Instead, Kerry lashes out at the interviewer and Bush and everyone else involved, because he can’t show weakness or humanity. The whole incident makes him look as personally insecure as Algore, and as mendacious and slippery as Bill Clinton. Probably not the best combination in a general election.
1 comment
Comments are closed.
yes, Kerry doesn’t convey warmth very well orally. He has a certain “lofty” style that works better penned than spoken. He ends up sounding aggressive especially after being hounded relentlessly about his Vietnam experience. You know that Pres. Bush is spending an unprecedently amount in campaign ads, most of them negative. And 73% of his ads are misleading and contain misinformation. Add to that, the character assassination, and smear campaigns by Bush’s surrogates. The fraudulent pic of Kerry and Fonda together, their attacks on the legitimacy of his Purple Hearts (if they weren’t, shouldn’t they be taking it up with the military? It was the military after all who awarded them), their questioning his patriotism when he disagreed with the Vietnam war.
With the amount of money Bush is spending, imagine the volume of onslaughts, attacking Kerry on the same issues, over and over and over again, even after Kerry has answered, and then right-wingers asking him the same question again and again. I would be wary of him if he didn’t show some emotional ourtburst and attack Bush back even once or twice.
Can’t Bush now start talking about real issues? Maybe join Kerry in a debate, so we can start hearing their thoughts on relevant issues affecting people right now? Kerry would really like to be able to talk to the President.