🚀 go-pugleaf

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/10/31
/a_question_of_character/


A question of character

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist  |  October 31, 2004

IF YOU were to choose just one vignette to illustrate John Kerry's worst 
character flaw as a public official -- his lack of political courage -- 
what would it be?
ADVERTISEMENT
	

You might pick the speech on "Race, Politics, and the Urban Agenda" that 
Kerry gave at Yale in 1992 -- the first, he said, of a series on race and 
urban issues. His speech drew attention because of its mild criticism of 
affirmative action, which had led, in his words, to "a reality of reverse 
discrimination that actually engenders racism." For uttering the obvious, 
Kerry was instantly condemned on the left. One Boston paper accused him of 
having "embraced tactics that . . . widen the country's racial divide." 
Because of him, a journalist wrote, blacks felt "stabbed in the back."

Kerry could have stuck to his guns. But he backed down. He delivered no 
more speeches on the subject and has obediently endorsed affirmative action 
ever since.

Another episode involved the questionnaire Kerry answered during his first 
Senate race in 1984. The questions came from Freeze Voter '84, an 
antidefense group whose endorsement Kerry sought in the Democratic primary. 
To get it, he said he would vote to cancel a host of weapons systems: the 
B-1 and Stealth bombers, cruise and Pershing missiles, many others. He 
excepted only the Trident submarine, whose development he supported. Then 
he was told that if he stood by the Trident, the endorsement would go to 
his main opponent, who had come out against all the weapons on the 
questionnaire.

So Kerry changed his answer. He agreed to oppose whatever Freeze Voter '84 
opposed -- including the Trident. The group got the answers it wanted, and 
Kerry got the endorsement he craved.

But my choice for most telling vignette would be the one about the Gulf War 
letters.

On Jan. 9, 1991, as the crisis over Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was building 
to a climax, Kerry received a letter from a constituent, Walter Carter of 
Newton.

"Dear Senator Kerry," it began. "I urge you to support President Bush's 
request that Congress approve the `use of all necessary means' to get Iraqi 
forces out of Kuwait. To deny the president's request would encourage 
further aggression."

On Jan. 22, Kerry replied.

"Dear Mr. Carter," he wrote. "Thank you for contacting me to express your 
opposition to the Bush administration's additional deployment of US 
military forces . . . and to the early use of military force by the US 
against Iraq. I share your concerns. On Jan. 11, I voted in favor of a 
resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more 
time to work and against a resolution giving the president immediate 
authority to go to war."

Nine days later, he replied again.

"Dear Mr. Carter," Kerry's second letter said. "Thank you very much for 
contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush. . 
. . From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally 
supported President Bush's response to the crisis and . . . our military 
deployment in the Persian Gulf."

As his glaringly inconsistent responses to Carter -- both form letters, of 
course -- make clear, Kerry's habit of coming down firmly on two side of 
controversial issues didn't begin with his presidential campaign. It has 
been a hallmark of his political career.

If voters have learned anything about Kerry by now, it is that time and 
again he will unhesitatingly say "flip," only to subsequently say "flop." 
The war in Iraq, executing terrorists, stiffer sanctions on Cuba, free 
trade agreements, pre-emption, defense-of-marriage laws, Israel's security 
fence, the Grenada invasion, the Patriot Act, reducing troop levels in 
Korea -- on all of these and more, Kerry has taken contradictory positions, 
often abandoning a politically difficult stand for one more convenient or 
popular.

Did he throw away his medals in 1971? First he said yes, then he said no. 
Should taxes on dividends be reduced? First he said yes, then he said no. 
Is the war on terrorism basically a "manhunt?" Yes, no. Does own an SUV? 
Yes, no.

All thinking people change their minds occasionally. But it is one thing to 
alter an opinion because of new information or further reflection. It is 
something very different to do so out of a compulsion to tell each audience 
what it wants to hear. Kerry has many gifts, but political courage is not 
among them. As president, could he take a tough stand and stick with it, 
even if there were a price to pay for doing so? All the evidence to date 
says no.

George W. Bush is far from perfect. He refuses to admit mistakes. He 
resists constructive criticism. His humor can be petty or cutting. His 
administration is secretive and self-righteous -- traits that presumably 
start at the top.

But Bush, unlike Kerry, has the courage of his convictions. He can take a 
strong stand and not run away from it when the political winds shift. On 
the big issues, the crucial issues, he is a decisive man who means what he 
says -- and isn't afraid to say it even when his listeners disagree.

For a nation going to the polls in wartime, no issue matters more than 
character. Kerry has much to recommend him, and Bush's flaws are many. But 
Bush has the character and backbone of a leader. And Kerry doesn't.

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com. 



-- 
A Voice Of Freedom in the
United States of America