by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright July 28, 2004
All Rights Reserved.

ne day before he delivers his acceptance speech, Democratic nominee Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) walked a tightrope, unwilling to stake out a clear position on Iraq. Already painted as a flip-flopper by the GOP, Kerry finds himself at odds with his party's base, more closely aligned with the antiwar positions of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, both of whom expressed unambiguous antiwar views before a frenzied crowd at Boston's Fleet Center. Delivering the speech of his life, Kerry's running mate Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) tried to arrest nagging doubts about Kerry's equivocation, promising to hunt down and “destroy” Al Qaeda terrorists. Edwards' remarks sounded unconvincing, attempting to rehabilitate Kerry's credibility, realizing Democrats remain vulnerable on national security—despite all the crowing and tough talk.

      Kerry's reluctance to oppose the war stems from his Party's pacifism, embodied in George McGovern's 1972 landslide loss to President Richard M. Nixon, during the waning days of Vietnam. Though Democrats paint Kerry as a courageous war hero, his antiwar protesting presents a different picture. Letting others, like Kucinich and Rev. Al Sharpton, rant about the war doesn't get Kerry off the hook. With the race neck-and-neck, Party strategists caution against opposing the war, potentially alienating precious undecided voters whose shrinking percentages could mean the margin of victory in November. Edwards went out of his way to emphasize Kerry's military heroics, failing to mention his 24-year liberal voting record in the Senate. During the next few months, the GOP promises to highlight Kerry's antiwar and liberal voting record, giving swing voters reason to pause.

      Without opposing the war, or at least the reasons for going to war, Kerry leaves himself vulnerable to his flip-flopping on Iraq, having voted for U.N. Resolution 1441 authorizing war, then voting against the whopping $87 billion appropriation. Kerry claims he voted against the $87 billion, after learning that Bush went to war on fraudulent intelligence, in effect, undermining Democrats' chief indictment that the administration juiced up claims about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction Sept. 11 Commission's reluctance to blame either Bush or Clinton, hurt Democrats' conspiracy theory that Bush knew all along that Saddam's alleged arsenal never existed. While Sharpton has no problem calling Bush on the carpet, Kerry finds himself unwilling to alienate voters by opposing the war. Much of the GOP's strategy hinges on keeping Sept. 11 fresh in voters' minds.

      Democratic strategists expect Iraq's ongoing bloodshed to sicken voters by Election Day. If terrorism remains center stage—and the GOP intends to keep it that way—Kerry will have a problem convincing voters to switch national security teams in midstream. National polls have consistently shown that Bush beats Kerry on matters of national security and terrorism. Wednesday's suicide bombing in Baquoba—a city 35 miles northwest of Baghdad—killing 68 civilians makes voters reluctant to switch management. Ongoing homeland terror alerts also breed a cautious atmosphere for prospective voters. With the economy rebounding, Democrats expect Iraq to decide the election. Keeping Sept. 11 fresh in voters' minds keeps the electorate in a retaliatory mood, seeking to take on terrorists in Iraq. If Kerry refuses to oppose the war, it only gives Bush more credibility.

      Kerry's argument, outlined in Edwards' speech, faults bad intelligence and blames Bush taking the country to war. Bush's main talking point insists it's better fighting terrorists in Iraq than on the streets of New York. Without opposing the war, Kerry has difficulty criticizing Bush for using fraudulent intelligence. Despite mounting casualties now exceeding 900, Kerry hasn't promised to get U.S. forces out of harm's way. Kerry and Edwards have committed U.S. forces to “finish the job,” though promising to get the U.N. and NATO involved. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell hinted at an exit strategy, discussing with the Saudis the prospects of creating an all-Muslim army to replace U.S. troops. Before meeting in New York in late August, the GOP hints at a possible exit strategy. While Kerry promises to internationalize Iraq, only Bush boldly took terrorists to task.

      More violence in Iraq gives voters reason to pause when it comes to switching national security teams in November. Without Kerry staking out a decisive position, voters have no real choice heading to Election Day. Promising to hand Iraq over to NATO and the U.N. breeds skepticism about turning U.S. national security over to the European Union. No matter how ineptly the administration handled post-war Iraq, it still showed the courage, conviction and, yes, action. Bush's commitment to American military superiority resonates with anxious voters unwilling to compromise national security. Opposing the war carries inherent risks but might be less objectionable than trying to out-duel Bush on national security. Democrats' vociferous opposition to the war juxtaposed against Kerry's reluctance to take a stand, gives the GOP a field day branding Kerry as the ultimate flip-flopper.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.