From thebin re: Kerry

[kchoya]

Bin says he's having trouble with the message board. He wants me to post this for him so y'all don't think he's hiding or something (maybe he's off looking for lost national guard records).

Here is a column with questions George Will wishes to ask of Flip Flop Kerry:

www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/national/will/story/8254587p-9185229c.html

[jerseyhoya34]

I don't know how to respond because I don't speak for the Senator. It is often easier to respond if there are citations in the attacks so I can put the questions in their proper context as I did recently with the RNC "Fact Sheet."

[Z]

i must admit that even as a strong supported of kerry's candidacy, i am troubled to some degree by his seeming oscillations on various policy isssues. however i think that much of kerry's "inconsistency" can be attributed to the murky compromises and back door deals that, as a political reality, every legislator faces. the very nature of our system prevents legislators, republican or democrat, from maintaining a voting record reflecting ideological purity. i think this phenomenon helps explain the paucity of senators who have ascended to the presidency--their voting records become an easy mark for pundits with 20-20 hindsight.

overall, i'm much more interested in analyzing where kerry stands today than engaging in a hyper-critical dissection of his voting record.

[kchoya]

Z said:

overall, i'm much more interested in analyzing where kerry stands today than engaging in a hyper-critical dissection of his voting record.

Umm, maybe an examination of Kerry's record oer 20 years (??) in Congress gives a much better idea of who the man is and what he believes than an analysis of his campaign positions? Maybe how he voted on an issue back in 1995 is a better measure of what he believes than a nuanced and vetted position on an issue in a presidential campaign where all he cares about is getting a majority of the votes?

[Z]

you are missing the point of my post. i dont think that one should lap up the campaign promises of a candidate, but i also dont think congressional voting records are an infalliable way of getting to the heart of "the man." for every vote you find to throw in kerry's face, i can find one on the same issue that supports the positions he currently stakes.

again, i think the approach you are taking to evaluating candidates ignores the political realities that underly congressional service. it also gives unfair leeway to candidates (see w and dean) who, by virtue of the office they held, never had to definitively address many tough policy questions one way or the other under they began their campaigns for prez.

[kchoya]

Z said:

you are missing the point of my post. i dont think that one should lap up the campaign promises of a candidate, but i also dont think congressional voting records are an infalliable way of getting to the heart of "the man." for every vote you find to throw in kerry's face, i can find one on the same issue that supports the positions he currently stakes.

again, i think the approach you are taking to evaluating candidates ignores the political realities that underly congressional service. it also gives unfair leeway to candidates (see w and dean) who, by virtue of the office they held, never had to definitively address many tough policy questions one way or the other under they began their campaigns for prez.

Simply because Kerry voted different ways on the same issue doesn't meant his record is not relevant. I would argue it gives us a much more complete picture of who he is. It also shows how he flip flops on certain issues. I'm a firm beleiver in the notion that the more information you have, the better decision you can make.

Plus, when we're dealing with a 20+ year senator and a President running for reelection, I think they both have sufficient records for the other to attack. Plus, that's the rub when you're a long time Senator and you run for the Presidency.

[Z]

i think your approach would effectively disqualify any longstanding senator, democrat or republican, from waging an effective campaign for the presidency. i'm not comfortable excluding such an esteemed (if oft maligned) group from the pool of presidential possibilities.

[kchoya]

Z said:

i think your approach would effectively disqualify any longstanding senator, democrat or republican, from waging an effective campaign for the presidency. i'm not comfortable excluding such an esteemed (if oft maligned) group from the pool of presidential possibilities.

Well, how many Senators have you seen win the race for the White House this century? I'm not excluding anyone. There's already a de facto exclusion.

[Z]

yeah, im just saying that some pretty solid candidates have been fenced out--and your evaluative approach cements this irrational (IMO) de facto exclusion.

[jerseyhoya34]

No senator has won the Presidency this century and only one governor has won, but we can note that the former Senator received more votes than the Governor.

As far as the 20th century is concerned, Kennedy is a name that comes to mind, and I am sure that there are others. LBJ was a senator (never elected), as was Truman (elected once), methinks.

Anyway, I'd also like to say that it is nice to see another conservative voice in this forum. I think Bin was getting lonely. Plus, it makes for a better debate now that you've come over to even up the sides a little bit.

[kchoya]

Thanks for the compliment. Usually I don't have the patience and energy to post on the boards, but for some reason I'm feeling feisty lately.

Let's see how I can do off the top of my head with 20th century presidents:

Roosevelt - VP (former Gov.)
Taft - nuthin
Wilson - Gov.
Harding - Sen.
Coolidge - VP (former Gov.)
Hoover - SecCom
FDR - Gov.
Truman - VP
Eisenhower - nuthin
JFK - Senator
LBJ - VP (former Sen.)
Nixon - nuthin (former VP)
Ford - VP (former Rep.)
Carter - nuthin (former Gov.)
Reagan - nuthin (former Gov.)
Bush 41 - VP (former Rep.)
Clinton - Gov.
Bush 43 - Gov.

[jerseyhoya34]

Yeah, I am aware of that history, but I say damn it all as a supporter of Kerry. If I bought into that conventional wisdom, I would be supporting Dean, who could not on his best day stand next to the President on national security issues. Republicans criticized him because of this lack of experience, which is a direct product of his being a Governor of a small state. So, no matter who the nominee is, the Dems would face the lack of experience line of attack.

In this post-9/11 world, voters are looking for experience, as has been shown in the polls. As such, the voting trends indicate that people perceive Kerry as having the strongest resume. I believe that this perception is correct, especially when you compare Kerry with Edwards, Dean, Clark, Kucinich, and Sharpton.

[kchoya]

I always thought that is was funny how, in 2000, it was a huge issue about how Bush had no foreign policy experience and that was a negative. Yet, in 1992, I don't remember the lack of experience of Bill Clinton being an issue.

[TrueHoyaBlue]

National Focus... 1992, America clearly was more concerned about the recession and issues on the homefront. Bush I was probably one of the greatest foreign policy minds to ever assume the presidency, but that wasn't what the nation was looking for.

In 2000, and even moreso now, the world as a whole is looked at as a more dangerous place, and foreign policy experience is a much bigger issue. Foreign policy experience certainly didn't decide the 2000 election, as untravelled governors of big states don't necessarily have any more experience than governors of small states, but it looks to have a significant impact in this one, although domestic issues are again pushing to the fore.