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

Kerry in Nantucket, July 18, 2004.

The guys at RealClearPolitics said after Edwards was picked, "The ghosts of 9/11 and national security are going to loom large in this election and by selecting Edwards, Kerry is essentially saying he thinks he's fine on the issue of national security. He isn't, and his 20-year voting record proves it."

Kenneth S. Baer, writing in the liberal magazine The American Prospect, put it bluntly: "Voters still give the President a commanding lead on the questions of who can best protect the nation from terrorists and who is a stronger, more patriotic leader...the Post poll also reported that, by a margin of 54 percent to 40 percent, voters think that the statement "he will make the country safer and more secure" applies more to Bush than Kerry. This data is consistent with a survey of 1,515 likely voters commissioned by the New Democrat Network (NDN) at the end of May that showed that 53 percent of likely voters say that Bush would do a better job "protecting America from terrorist attack," and only 35 percent say that Kerry would. This 18-point advantage is Bush's largest on any issue area in this poll."

When President Bush has a national-security-related event like his Monday tour of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee — where Libya's weapons are now being stored — he sends a clear message: These guys disarmed because I pursued tough policies.

His speech there, like almost every Bush address, is full of blunt, direct language. "We oppose those threats with all our power," "we have acted where action was required," "very potential adversary now knows that terrorism and proliferation carry serious consequences, and that the wise course is to abandon those pursuits," "We're staying on the offensive against threats within our own country." "We are defending the peace by taking the fight to the enemy. We will confront them overseas so we do not have to confront them here at home."

Compare this to Kerry's message: "Have we reached out to our allies and forged an urgent global effort? Have we taken every step we should to stop North Korea and Iran's nuclear programs? We will greatly accelerate work to secure nuclear materials at risk and invest the time and leadership needed to address the nuclear threats in North Korea and Iran."

So far, Kerry's offering tepid pledges for more money to secure Russia's material, a return to the Clinton-era money-for-unkept promises with North Korea, and nothing approaching tough talk with Iran. Diplomacy, multilateralism, important international conferences, joint statements, strongly worded declarations of intent worked out over lunches in Brussels....

The American Prospect's Baer puts it well: "Kerry needs to get viscerally and visibly angry about terrorism. Whether it's a bombing in a foreign capital, the beheading of an American contractor, or a suicide attack in Baghdad or Jerusalem, Kerry's reaction must not be one of diplomatic disappointment, but of plain-spoken anger. The American people need to hear in his voice and see in his body language that if given the opportunity, Kerry would not hesitate to serve Osama bin Laden's head on a platter."

Ah, but we've seen the anger of the Democratic party, and only dribs and drabs of fury are focused on Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong-il, or the mullahs of Iran. The anger of the Democrats converges on targets closer to home: John Ashcroft. Dick Cheney. Donald Rumsfeld. Condi Rice, Paul Wolfowitz. You want to see John Kerry show some anger, forget terrorists. Bring up those using an undiplomatic, insufficiently nuanced approach to fighting terrorists.

And yet each day on the campaign trail, Kerry reveals that he thinks he's in fine shape on national-security issues, that his Vietnam service and the endorsement of Richard Holbrooke have made him Bush's equal on this issue.