John Kerry's shifting stands

Check out this editorial from the Boston Globe (thanks to JoeKo for the link):

IN THE 2004 presidential field, there is a candidate for
nearly every point of view.
His name is John Kerry.
Equivocating politicians are sometimes accused of trying to be "all
things to all people," but few have taken the practice of expedience
and shifty opportunism to Kerry's level. Massachusetts residents have
known this about their junior senator for a long time. Now the rest of
the country is going to find out.
Here's how it works: Say you're in favor of capital punishment for
terrorists. Well, so is Kerry. "I am for the death penalty for
terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country," he
said in December 2002. "I support killing people who declare war on our
country."
But if you're opposed to capital punishment even for terrorists, that's
OK -- Kerry is too! Between 1989 and 1993, he voted at least three
times to exempt terrorists from the death penalty. In a debate with
former governor William Weld, his opponent in the 1996 Senate race,
Kerry scorned the idea of executing terrorists. Anti-death penalty
nations would refuse to extradite them to the United States, he said.
"Your policy," he told Weld, "would amount to a terrorist protection
policy. Mine would put them in jail."
What does Kerry really think? Who knows? He seems to have conveniently
switched his stance after Sept. 11, 2001, but he insists that politics
had nothing to do with his reversal. Either way, one thing is clear:
His willingness to swing both ways fits a longstanding pattern of
coming down firmly on both sides of controversial issues.
Take the Patriot Act. Kerry condemns it fiercely as the stuff of a
"knock-in-the-night" police state. He vows "to end the era of John
Ashcroft" by "replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects
our people and our liberties at the same time."
So does that mean he voted against it in 2001? Au contraire! Kerry
voted for the law -- parts of which he originally wrote. He singled out
its money-laundering sections for particular praise but declared that
he was "pleased at the compromise we have reached on the antiterrorism
legislation as a whole."
Bottom line, then: Is Kerry for or against the Patriot Act? Absolutely.

Keep in mind that this is from The Boston Globe, Senator Kerry's hometown paper.
Bush will have a field day with this guy. I mean, I pay pretty close
attention to this stuff (in case you haven't noticed), and I can't
remember Kerry giving a policy speech since mid-December. All he does
is complain about the Bush Administration and their ties to special
interests (which is laughable coming from Kerry), but he hasn't come
forward with any solutions at all.
Edwards, on the other hand, has 64 page document posted on his site delineating exactly
what he wants to do to improve the country. The more I hear about
Edwards, the more I like him. As a matter of fact I'm so impressed by
him that this morning, for the first time in my life, I made a
contribution to a political campaign.
For the record, I do think that Kerry could beat Bush. But the question
is, "What happens after the race is over?" Edwards at least has a
semblance of a plan. What does Kerry have besides a bunch of medals?

Posted by flow Frazao on February 18, 2004 at 02:42 PM | Permalink