Wednesday, August 27, 2003
Scripps Howard story: Candidate for commander in chief
Candidate for commander in chief
By MARTIN SCHRAM
Scripps Howard News Service
26-AUG-03
In 2004, America's disastrous deficit may well top half-a-trillion dollars, its trained and able workers may still be reeling from millions of lost jobs, health security may still be an unkept promise. And the plain political truth is that those probabilities should boost the prospects of any Democratic presidential nominee.
But one thing is certain to happen _ it is a political truth that has been nothing but bad news for Democratic presidential hopefuls for more than 30 years and it figured to be even more so since Sept. 11, 2001: Millions of Americans will be voting in 2004 not to choose the nation's chief executive but to elect our commander-in-chief.
That was always a large part of the undoing of George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. The Democrats' only presidential victories of the last three decades occurred in years when there were no overriding national security crises. Economic concerns proved decisive for Jimmy Carter '76 and Bill Clinton '92 and '96.
But the 2004 election will occur while the United States is still waging its unwon War on Terror against its proven terrorist enemies including al Qaeda, and with U.S. military men and women still in harm's way and dying, perhaps a few each week, in Iraq. So it was that the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in San Antonio this week has provided a valuable vantage point.
There, and through the excellence of C-SPAN, anywhere where there was cable television it was possible to witness the unimpressive best efforts of the Bush administration's top guns _ national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. They made their best case: Rice urged us to be patient in Iraq; Rumsfeld assured us that more troops are not now needed in Iraq.
And then, onto the stage of the VFW came one of their own, a battle-decorated veteran who talked of the experience he gained in battles aboard a PT boat in Vietnam, where college grads served alongside high school dropouts, and where he earned a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts. He told some painful truths _ about how he and his fellow Vietnam vets came home to a country that gave them no thanks.
Then, Sen. John Kerry, a Democrat running for president, observed that one of the lessons of Vietnam is that veterans "have learned to tell the truth" when it mattered most. And he went on to tell a number of tough truths in which he was clearly sticking up for America's fighting men and women in uniform _ often voicing some tough criticisms of the nation's present commander-in-chief.
"In Iraq," he warned, "we have over-extended our troops." He said "a lack of candor with the American people" has placed U.S. troops increasingly in harm's way. Still, Kerry was not one of the pack of liberal Democrats now demanding a quick exit strategy in Iraq. "The only exit strategy is called victory _ mission accomplishment."
Throughout his speech, Kerry was clearly sticking up for America's war veterans, whom he said repeatedly are not getting the medical treatment, service or benefits that they are due. He spoke of the need to pursue an all-out effort "to defeat radical terrorism." He cited a report by a commission headed by Warren Rudman, a former Republican senator from New Hampshire, that U.S. homeland security efforts are "dramatically under-funded" and "dangerously unprepared." He said a nation that can afford to be paying for fire houses in Iraq should not be shutting down fire houses at home because of lack of funds.
Much of the time, in the first months of his sometimes sputtering campaign, Kerry seemed unfocused and unimpressive. Indeed, the Massachusetts Democrat gave the impression that he might be nothing more than a tall Mike Dukakis.
Nevermore. At the VFW, Kerry sounded like a leader who has fortified his stump speech by adding a cohesive framework. He also sounded a bit like a Democratic John McCain. All of that might be good news for Democrats. It certainly is not good news for President Bush, yet another of our commanders-in-chief who never saw combat, and his strategist-in-chief, Karl Rove.
In closing, Kerry told the VFW audience that if he is chosen to serve as America's commander-in-chief, "I won't just bring to that profound responsibility the perspective of sitting in the situation room _ I'll also bring the perspective of someone who's fought on the front lines."
On the stage of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, it began to seem that at last the Democrats have a candidate for president who can, for millions of voters, be their candidate for commander-in-chief.
And in the wings, there may well be another _ General Wesley Clark, still unannounced, but thinking about running.
(Martin Schram writes political analysis for Scripps Howard News Service.)
By MARTIN SCHRAM
Scripps Howard News Service
26-AUG-03
In 2004, America's disastrous deficit may well top half-a-trillion dollars, its trained and able workers may still be reeling from millions of lost jobs, health security may still be an unkept promise. And the plain political truth is that those probabilities should boost the prospects of any Democratic presidential nominee.
But one thing is certain to happen _ it is a political truth that has been nothing but bad news for Democratic presidential hopefuls for more than 30 years and it figured to be even more so since Sept. 11, 2001: Millions of Americans will be voting in 2004 not to choose the nation's chief executive but to elect our commander-in-chief.
That was always a large part of the undoing of George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. The Democrats' only presidential victories of the last three decades occurred in years when there were no overriding national security crises. Economic concerns proved decisive for Jimmy Carter '76 and Bill Clinton '92 and '96.
But the 2004 election will occur while the United States is still waging its unwon War on Terror against its proven terrorist enemies including al Qaeda, and with U.S. military men and women still in harm's way and dying, perhaps a few each week, in Iraq. So it was that the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in San Antonio this week has provided a valuable vantage point.
There, and through the excellence of C-SPAN, anywhere where there was cable television it was possible to witness the unimpressive best efforts of the Bush administration's top guns _ national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. They made their best case: Rice urged us to be patient in Iraq; Rumsfeld assured us that more troops are not now needed in Iraq.
And then, onto the stage of the VFW came one of their own, a battle-decorated veteran who talked of the experience he gained in battles aboard a PT boat in Vietnam, where college grads served alongside high school dropouts, and where he earned a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts. He told some painful truths _ about how he and his fellow Vietnam vets came home to a country that gave them no thanks.
Then, Sen. John Kerry, a Democrat running for president, observed that one of the lessons of Vietnam is that veterans "have learned to tell the truth" when it mattered most. And he went on to tell a number of tough truths in which he was clearly sticking up for America's fighting men and women in uniform _ often voicing some tough criticisms of the nation's present commander-in-chief.
"In Iraq," he warned, "we have over-extended our troops." He said "a lack of candor with the American people" has placed U.S. troops increasingly in harm's way. Still, Kerry was not one of the pack of liberal Democrats now demanding a quick exit strategy in Iraq. "The only exit strategy is called victory _ mission accomplishment."
Throughout his speech, Kerry was clearly sticking up for America's war veterans, whom he said repeatedly are not getting the medical treatment, service or benefits that they are due. He spoke of the need to pursue an all-out effort "to defeat radical terrorism." He cited a report by a commission headed by Warren Rudman, a former Republican senator from New Hampshire, that U.S. homeland security efforts are "dramatically under-funded" and "dangerously unprepared." He said a nation that can afford to be paying for fire houses in Iraq should not be shutting down fire houses at home because of lack of funds.
Much of the time, in the first months of his sometimes sputtering campaign, Kerry seemed unfocused and unimpressive. Indeed, the Massachusetts Democrat gave the impression that he might be nothing more than a tall Mike Dukakis.
Nevermore. At the VFW, Kerry sounded like a leader who has fortified his stump speech by adding a cohesive framework. He also sounded a bit like a Democratic John McCain. All of that might be good news for Democrats. It certainly is not good news for President Bush, yet another of our commanders-in-chief who never saw combat, and his strategist-in-chief, Karl Rove.
In closing, Kerry told the VFW audience that if he is chosen to serve as America's commander-in-chief, "I won't just bring to that profound responsibility the perspective of sitting in the situation room _ I'll also bring the perspective of someone who's fought on the front lines."
On the stage of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, it began to seem that at last the Democrats have a candidate for president who can, for millions of voters, be their candidate for commander-in-chief.
And in the wings, there may well be another _ General Wesley Clark, still unannounced, but thinking about running.
(Martin Schram writes political analysis for Scripps Howard News Service.)
Comments:
Post a Comment
