It would be nice if the press—both professional and amateur,
stop[ped] digging for dirt for more smear campaigns and turn this election over to a serious debate on the issues that matter to this country, like jobs, growth, the situation in Iraq, bringing Americans together, etc.as one of my readers, zzi, puts it.
But this fine-toothed combing of Senator John Kerry's naval service is—as is all too obvious--a feces-storm of his own making.
Senator Kerry is the one who made his Vietnam service the issue of his campaign, not the blogosphere, not the Swiftboat Vets and certainly not the mainstream media. He invited all and sundry to dig.
I would like to be pointed to some examples of Senator Kerry’s leadership abilities, since the ones demonstrated during his Vietnam service are suspect at best and, in the aftermath, word and deed show a damning propensity of disloyalty to those whom he commanded, as well as to their peers and to his.
Did he wake up and smell the coffee as the Lt. Governor of Massachusetts or as a US Senator? I have gone to the Senate website for examples of any putative demonstrations of executive and/or Senate leadership on his part. There are several sponsorships and co-sponsorships. Can anyone suggest something that stands out?
In my opinion, however, nothing is more important to our country than the war on those who would see us converted to Islam or dead. Dead people cannot hold jobs and the country cannot grow in any significant manner in the wake of terrorist attacks along the lines of 9/11 or worse. (We got an inkling of how an economy reacts to such in the last three years.) As it is, Senator Kerry’s few ideas regarding this subject leave much to be desired. Of course I don't expect him to be a foreign policy/terrorism expert. I do, however, expect him to chose the types of advisers in this area that can get him and keep him pointed toward the most important task for which he wants to be chosen: protecting us from enemies foreign and domestic.
From Kerry foreign policy adviser, James P. Rubin:
John Kerry regards an Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism armed with nuclear weapons as unacceptable. [SNIP]
…he [Kerry] has proposed that rather than letting the British, the French and the Germans do this [secure nuclear materials around the world] themselves, that we together call the bluff of the Iranian government, which claims that its only need is energy. And we say to them: "Fine, we will provide you the fuel [for a nuclear reactor] that you need if Russia fails to provide it."A leader is only as effective as the quality of his/her advisers. What he/she should demonstrate, however, is the ability to chose wisely. (Additionally, should the bulk of a leader’s advisers be of high quality, the leader has to be smart, canny and humble enough to listen to them. The latter leadership quality is especially important when the counsel differs from the opinion of said leader.) There are always lemons in the adviser bunch, as President Bush has found out a few times. If Mr. Rubin’s brand of advice was an isolated case, there would be little room for criticism.
However, if the myriad faux pas of the various Kerry campaign advisers are an indication of his ability to choose competent consultation on nearly any subject, I shudder to think of what kind of advisers might be running a theoretical Kerry Administration.
(Thanks to Vodkapundit)
