Kerry Spot    [ jim geraghty reporting ]
[ kerry spot home | archives | email ]

Kerry exits his plane at Reagan Airport, June 13, 2004.

On Tuesday, John Kerry went to the Reagan library to pay his respects at the Reagan Library to the 40th president.

While it's easy to think Kerry is just doing what any decent man would do, we see the typically classless "cartoonist" Ted Rall choosing this moment to say"I'm sure [Reagan's] turning crispy brown right about now," and Editor and Publisher senior editor Joe Strupp declaring the outpouring of praise for Reagan "too much to take," proving not everyone is capable of decency. While a snide word or two about the Gipper might have jazzed Kerry's liberal base and inspired the kind of love that only Howard Dean and Al Gore have experienced, Kerry resisted that temptation. His words and actions have been respectful, admiring, and appropriate.

But something's missing.

If Reagan's death is enough to make partisan tongues hold back their fighting instincts, to make everyone take a moment and appreciate a life lived to the fullest, why can't it spur a little more introspection?

Kerry is saying everything right, now that Reagan has left this earth. But couldn't Kerry — and a lot of people in Washington — take some time to reexamine what they said about the man while he was alive? Couldn't Kerry say, "You know, looking back, I think I was wrong when I said:

Reagan's deployment of the MX missile is 'destabilizing' and that it increases the chances that the Soviets will launch a nuclear strike." (John Ellement, States News Service, 3/19/95)

President Reagan should reorder his priorities. We don't need expensive and exotic weapons systems." (Lt. Gov. John Kerry, Letter To Constituent, April 1983)

The defense expenditures of the Reagan Administration are without any relevancy to the threat this nation is currently facing...." ("Kerry Asks $54 Billion Cut In Reagan Defense Budget," Berkshire Eagle, 5/30/84)

We don't need another Ronald Reagan type in Washington. Let me tell you that." (PBS's NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, 6/5/96)

I'm proud that I stood against Ronald Reagan, not with him." (Deborah Orin, "Real Reason I Want To Be A Dem: Clark," New York Post, 10/4/03)

'We've seen governors come to Washington who don't have the experience with Washington and they get in trouble real fast. And they don't have the experience in foreign policy, and they get in trouble pretty fast,' Kerry said. 'Look at Ronald Reagan. Look at Jimmy Carter and now, obviously, George Bush.'" (Ron Fournier, "Kerry Seeks Shift Amid War Funds Request," Associated Press, 9/8/03)

Of the Reagan White House, "They were willing to literally put the Constitution at risk because they believed there was somehow a higher order of things, that the ends do in fact justify the means. That's the most Marxist, totalitarian doctrine I've ever heard of in my life.... You've done the very thing that James Madison and others feared when they were struggling to put the Constitution together, which was to create an unaccountable system with runaway power . . . running off against the will of the American people." ("Not Too Late For A War Crimes Trial," OC Weekly, 2/1/02)

I think it was a silly and rather immature approach," of Reagan's dismissal of a "peace offer" from Sandinista junta leader Daniel Ortega.

More Kerry: "I am willing...to take the risk in the effort to put to test the good faith of the Sandinistas." (John F. Kerry, The Complete Biography by the Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best, p.217) Days later, Ortega went to Moscow to collect a $200 million loan from the Soviets, leaving Democrats "embarrassed," in the words of then-Speaker Tip O'Neill.

When Reagan bombed Libya in response to a Berlin disco bombing (killed one U.S. soldier and wounded 51): "It is obvious that our response was not proportional to the disco bombing and even violated the Administration's own guidelines to hit clearly defined terrorist targets, thereby minimizing the risk to innocent civilians.... We are not going to solve the problem of terrorism with this kind of retaliation. There are numerous other actions we can take, in concert with our allies, to bring significant pressure to bear on countries supporting or harboring terrorists."

When American troops invaded Grenada, Kerry denounced the action as "a bully's show of force."

While ripping Wesley Clark in a Democratic debate: "I'm not going to characterize other people, but while he (Clark) was voting for Richard Nixon and for Ronald Reagan, I was fighting against both of their policies and what they did, frankly, to the average working person in this country and to some of our hopes and dreams."

Senator, should any of those previous comments be rescinded? Perhaps, in Senate-speak, you should revise and extend those remarks?

It's admirable that John Kerry now recognizes that Ronald Reagan is deserving of praise, and that most Americans across the political spectrum see, now, that he had the right approach for dealing with the Soviet Union. But hindsight is 20/20. Shouldn't those people who passionately insisted that Ronald Reagan was wrong then take a moment to see whether they might be mistaken now, on the war on terror?

Shouldn't one-time Reagan bashers like Kerry consider that perhaps their harsh criticism, denunciations, and dismissals about today's policies will look as foolish, too, in the future?