Centerfield

Ironically, Kerry is one of the few DLC members who ran for President this go-round. Edwards, ironically, opted to never join. Go figure. Oh, also worth noting that Bruce Reed has a pretty good vine with the campaign, most notably having ghost written the bio released least year.

Kerry has historically been a liberal rather than a centrist. But he is to all accounts running to the center in this campaign. The question is, how sincere is it?

I think that on the question of national security, it may be sincere given that the outlook of many, if not most, of us changed to at least some degree after 9/11. On the question of domestic issues, I think that it is undeniably a move based on political calculation. So for me the question becomes, if elected, could he be forced to stay in the middle even if his heart is not there? I think that the answer is probably "yes." It would seem to be far easier to promise major new programs while trying to win Democratic primaries, only "discover" after locking up the nomination that they are too expensive, than it would be to run as a centrist and then abandon the middle. On the other hand, many would say that Bush did just that.

Since part of being a centrist -- in my opinion -- is a willingness to compromise to achieve wider support to solve problems, sincerity may not be as meaningful as it would to ideologues.

It may seem a little lowbrow to mention it, but I think there's also a question of style when it comes to centrism.

Centrists tend to avoid some of the attitude that goes along with some liberalism -- the constant cataloging of all things wrong with this nation that comes off as kind of depressing. The anger at one's political opponents. In it's place, they project strength and optimism.

There's a policy side to that distinction -- people who are more at-ease with a market economy are more likely to be positive about everyday American life. They don't see us as radically off-track from where we should be.

This turns out to be a surprisingly important in the presidential arena. Our only two popular, two-term presidents of the last quarter century -- Reagan and Clinton -- both had that sunny kind of optimism. I'm not sure it's a coincidence that we had our two longest periods of economic growth during their presidencies.

I wonder how much the president's attitude -- the tone that he sets for our nation -- is worth in GDP terms?

I wonder what things would be like if our current president were capable of projecting that kind of confidence and positive feeling about the future?

All of this leads us to perhaps my main concern with Kerry. He seems to be someone who puts off making decisions, and sometimes avoids it altogether by trying to have it both ways. I sense that we may have a situation where he would tend to talk his way around issues and avoid making clear choices. And that's a recipie for a kind of stagnation ... a feeling that we're not going anywhere, or that our government is reduced to relatively empty rhetoric.

Kerry doesn't exactly have those natural gifts at projecting optimism or positive sense of where things are going.

I worry, in essence, that Kerry will be more Carter than Clinton. The fear of making a mistake, or of being seen to make a mistake, may keep him from making the clear choices required for dynamic leadership.

Such a great point William, I have the same doubts re: Kerry. Of course, this is something of a conundrum, along the lines of "fools rush in where wise men fear to tread" versus "he who hesitates is lost." Sometimes a leader is someone who has a vision the people do not, and lights the way. Other times a leader is someone who sees many people heading the same way and gets in front of them and forms a parade.

Especially since Bush IMO acted somewhat precipitously on Iraq, I'm open to someone who is willing to take time to weigh many angles, but I am not a fan of analysis paralysis. There's reason to hope that Kerry will be affected positively by the office to act in a way much different from the way he has acted as one member of a very large deliberative body, since the office in many cases has made the man. But it's far from a certainty or even a probability, as it would be a substantial departure from what I have seen of him in my years watching my hometown senator.

kerry will not get my vote
kerry is a flip flopper.
kerry sucks
kerry is a dem.
the dems are the reason for 911

Kerry is flexible, not a rigid idealogue. Good point. Bush is a rigid idealogue. Strike one.

Kerry has show that he has what it takes to fight the good fight and the courage to acknowledge when the fight was wrong. Bush, well, strike two.

The dems are the reason for 9/11? Nonsense at best. The dems may have been culpable, but no more so than the Republicans (who were given at least some specific info on likely attacks which they chose to ignore when Bush took office). I think if any blame is to be spread, it must be equally shared - and let's not forget who was in power in congress for the final Clinton years. Advantage, Democrats. Maybe not a full strike for bush, but at least a foul ball.

I'm a guy who likes to look at the odds. Odds are, Kerry is a better bet than Bush.

Kerry is not only flexible, he's a limp rag that blows with the breeze. There is no position he is not willing to take, or suggest that he supports, if he thinks it will get him votes.

Which fight here is the wrong fight, and which is the good fight?

The terrorists are the reason for 9/11, not American politicians.

No matter who is president, the war continues. And it is a war, one that was not started by George Bush, nor Bill Clinton. It has been raging against us for 20-30 years, and we've ignored it, and let the problem grow.

That is no longer an acceptable route, Bush is changing it now, will Kerry do better than Bush in defeating the enemies who choose to fight us? That is what I'm going to make my choice based on.

I agree with John's July 31st post> But GW is a dolt. He was a dolt in 2000. But he was a lesser evil than Algore and this is the case with Kerry. Sad, I wish the dem ticket could have gave us a better choice for a candidate to run against GW. GW and crew are poo pooing the rest of the world and we will pay for that. If only Colon Powell were president... Or John McCain.