Here is a feeble attempt at humor: A Bush supporter says,
“Kerry’s education and health-care plans are terrible.” To which a
Kerry supporter replies, “You’re attacking his Vietnam service
again!”
Yes, feeble, but it illustrates a point. We are going to hear
about John Kerry’s Vietnam service over and over again this
campaign season because Democrats think it is an effective strategy
for winning back the White House.
Last week Senators Frank Lautenberg and Tom Harkin were in high
dudgeon over remarks Vice President Dick Cheney made in a speech at
Westminster College critical of Kerry. Lautenberg denounced Cheney
as a “chickenhawk” and stated that “He was in Missouri this week
claiming that Sen. Kerry was not up to the job of protecting this
nation. What nerve. Where was Dick Cheney when that war [Vietnam]
was going on?” Harkin was particularly piqued: “I don’t want
someone like Mr. Cheney coming back and trying to wave the flag and
call someone like John Kerry who risked his life in Vietnam, who is
a genuine war hero, and come back and cast aspersions on his
character. To me that is really galling, for someone like a
chickenhawk like Dick Cheney who was afraid to go serve.”
The problem is that nowhere in the speech did Dick Cheney cast
any aspersions on Kerry’s character (indeed, the word “Vietnam”
isn’t even in the speech). Rather, Cheney questioned Kerry’s
national security record, a legitimate topic in a presidential
election. But the senators defending Kerry did not defend his
voting record in the Senate. Rather, they went straight for the
Vietnam-service defense, as though having served in Southeast Asia
answers all questions about a politician’s national security
credentials.
But Kerry keeps giving us reason to question his ability to lead
this nation. Kerry’s own speech last Friday at Westminster College
was devoid of any new ideas on Iraq. He repeated the worn-out
liberal tripe about the need to “bring in more countries,” to “go
to the U.N.” for another resolution, and “to bring NATO members and
others in.” Why will countries that didn’t support us before now
join in? According to Kerry, “For one simple reason: it’s in their
self-interest. For the Europeans, Iraq’s failure could endanger the
security of their oil supplies, further radicalize their large
Muslim populations, threaten destabilizing refugee flows, and seed
a huge new source of terrorism.” Yet, if it is so obviously in the
self-interest of these other countries to join us in Iraq, why
haven’t they done so already?
This week the Kerry campaign has launched two new television ads
purported to introduce the Massachusetts senator to the voters.
Guess which theme dominates the ads? Indeed, it seems odd to
introduce a candidate by highlighting something that most people
already know about him. If you ask the average citizen to quickly
name three things about Kerry, Vietnam vet is surely one of the
first things he will mention.
Yet that’s not the point. The ads themselves are very light on
policy ideas. They mention his fighting for children’s health-care,
and cleverly — if deceptively —tout his 1993 vote for the largest
tax increase in history as casting “a deciding vote that created 20
million new jobs.” Given how Kerry’s policy initiatives have thus
far fallen flat, it is little wonder that the ads avoid mentioning
them. The ads suggest that the Kerry campaign hopes that the
emphasis on Vietnam service will substitute for any meaningful
discussion of policy.
Yet that is a dicey strategy in a time like ours. As November
nears, voters will want to know what Kerry’s plans are for the
future, especially his plans on Iraq and the War on Terrorism.
Kerry had better come up with some good ideas between now and then.
Otherwise, Kerry and the Democrats will discover that Vietnam
service is not by itself a qualification for high office.
