Wow, McG, you really put work in that formatting there.
One thing I picked up on immediately was this bit:
Quote:GILBERT: Senator Kerry, President Bush a week ago on "Meet the Press " described himself as a war president. He said he's got war on his mind as he considers these policies and decisions he has to make. If you were elected, would you see yourself as a war president?
KERRY: I'd see myself first of all as a jobs president, as a health care president, as an education president and also an environmental president. And add them all together, you can't be safe at home today unless you are also safe abroad.
The commentator here focuses on safe at home / safe abroad contradiction - which gets priority, domestic or foreign issues? He concludes, "Once again, Kerry's response to a simple yes or no question is: both."
That's fair enough. But what struck me was Kerry's inability to,
even on a domestic scale, choose a priority. Any priority. Whats your signature issue, John Kerry? What point do you want to tell us, voters about - warn us that, "people,
this is whats really important now"? What specific issue do you really,
really care about? What issue evokes your ambition to go down in history on it, like FDR had the New Deal, LBJ the Great Society, Reagan facing down the Soviets?
Well, jobs. And health. And education. And foreign policy. Oh, and the environment. <sighs>
Sure, all of those things
need to be tackled, no doubt, but what do you wanna do foremost? You can't be the jobs-health-education-terrorism-environment president, y'know.
This is consistent with his record: he wants to cater to everyone and estrange noone, and thus tries to define (and redefine) his position in ways that make 'em everything to everyone. But the risks he doesnt seem to acknowledge are that,
a) as President, you sometimes have to lead a country, not just follow all its preferences. You dont have to be a Blair, dragging his country into ever new unpopular causes, but it would help if you sketched at least what personal angle and priorities you would take into your presidency.
b) you wont be able to change everything all at once - if you dont choose your priorities, you wont get anything done at all. Look at what happened to Clinton in his first term.
c) people will want to identify you with a cause, a keynote issue (beyond, get Bush out) - and more importantly: with a sense that here's a candidate who really cares about something. When applied with moderation, commitment is reassuring, it demonstrates that this guy is in it for more than vanity.
d) if they dont see such a personal commitment to some specific thing beyond oneself and 'the general picture', they wont feel much involved with you no matter how you redefine your position to fit their preferences of the moment.
As Saletan noted in the item I quoted above: "I remain mystified at how a man who braved bullets can be so terrified of being pinned down on a political issue." And for Chrissakes, if pander you must, at least dont do it so transparently.