Kerry,the time is now to clarify.

[tobius]

I have been asking for help reconciling Kerry's positions and have met with resistance and mild annoyance; friends and family say "don't worry he'll go in and fix everything". How can he be elected w/o clearing the air on where he stands in less than 2000 words per issue?

The Washington Post is asking the same questions and I can't see this going away.


Mr. Kerry has surged to the forefront in part because of his biography and in part because he avoided the political misjudgments and verbal gaffes that caused voters to reject onetime front-runner Howard Dean. Now, with the nomination seemingly within his reach, the Massachusetts senator must begin to more fully explain where he stands on the major challenges facing the country.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42826-2004Feb14.html
</snip>
But even a more independent assessment of Mr. Kerry can lead to puzzlement. He says he opposes gay marriage, yet voted against the federal Defense of Marriage act. He voted for the North American Free Trade agreement yet now talks in protectionist terms, promising he will provide American workers "a fair playing field" while accusing Mr. Bush of "selling them out." Would a President Kerry seek additional free trade agreements in Latin America and elsewhere? What's his position on whether his own state should adopt a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage? So far, the answers aren't clear.

</snip>
The most important confusion surrounds Mr. Kerry's position on Iraq.
</snip>

More important, Mr. Kerry should clarify what he believes should be the objectives of the U.S. mission in Iraq going forward -- and what military and aid commitments he is prepared to make.
</last snip>

If he is to offer a credible alternative to Mr. Bush, he must explain how he would manage the real and dangerous challenges the United States now faces in Iraq -- without the fuzzing.

[Mz Pip]

1. Wish they'd

demand that Bush would explain himself.

I'd like Bush to explain why the GAO is wrong about his budget deficit.

I'd like Bush to explain exactly how much his prescription drug beneifts package will actually cost and who it will really benefit.

I'd like Mr. Bush to keep trying to explain how the mounting casualties in iraq really mean that they love us over.

MzPip
:dem:

[NV1962]

2. Here's a single link

http://johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/index.html

[revcarol]

3. Ssh- don't make waves.

He's electable, just go to the back of the bus.

[tobius]

5. 3 replies- yea no more Kerry questions--got it. n/t

Silence is one of the hardest arguments to refute.
Josh Billings (1818 - 1885)

[eileen_d]

7. What exactly is your question though?

You say "Kerry needs to clarify" and posted a WP article that agrees with you. I think you make some good points -- it's constructive criticism. Unless you want Kerry to log on to DU and reply, I don't know what else can be said.

[tobius]

9. wouldn't validate myself if I linked to a story that disagreed!

-good point. I recognize that no candidate is perfect and don't expect it. My question should be clarified--> What is his overall philosophy; opportunism that gets him ahead? or is there a unifying ontology to tie everything together that for me, being numskulled, is way over my head?




edited because I'm a numskull

[RichM]

4. The idea that he "must" explain XYZ without fuzzing sounds nice, but is

unfortunately just not so. He will choose, no doubt, to continue avoiding explanation of the fuzziness. The US political system makes this easy to do, so Kerry will (wisely but cynically) take advantage of it. After all, Bush got to be president without explaining anything, & continues to be president without having to explain anything.

It's a common cultural delusion here that you win elections by "advancing concrete solutions to real problems, " etc. That's bunk. You win by sucking up to the powerful, & promising them loot. You win by winking slyly & slipping coded messages to large voting blocks, like the Christian Right. You win by attacking your opponent's military record, his haircuts, or his love life.

Kerry doesn't have to explain his flip-flops & inconsistencies. First of all, he can't -- even if he wanted to. Second of all, the system doesn't expect it, or demand it.

[Casablanca]

8. That works for Repubs, not Dems ...

Many Dem voters are more discerning. It's a tactical disadvantage in the current system, but an advantage in a more honest one.

[Guaranteed]

12. Yeah yeah just get behind Kerry nt

[Casablanca]

6. He'd better, and soon ...

His dissembling during tonight's debate was terrible. If he doesn't come up with an explanation that doesn't remind listeners of "what the meaning of 'is' is", his stature in the general election will evaporate faster than Dean.

All he had to say at the beginning of his campaign was "We got conned by incorrect info along with the rest of the American people." But he's gone on record with his lame "this is what my vote really meant" line that I think a switch at this point will just play into the "Which Kerry is Kerry this week?" return.

[tobius]

10. crickets chirping (quietly)

[snippy]

11. Just more Turd Blossom Rove Bushshit.

This election will not be about Kerry or whoever the democratic nominee is. It will be about the economy, Iraq, and Bush's compulsive and incessant lying.