Kerry’s Gaffes Doom Election Chances

George C. Landrith

For John Kerry, the good news is that he looked good and sounded good during the first debate. The bad news is that he did not say anything that will attract undecided voters or peel off Bush’s voters. The really bad news is that Kerry made three serious gaffes that virtually ensure his defeat.

Let’s start with the good news. Kerry’s “tan-in-a-can” orange glow had calmed down enough that he looked reasonably good. His $250 haircut was nice. He spent the afternoon before the debate getting a manicure, which evidently helped him appear rested and relaxed at the debate. As an added bonus, his hands looked great.

Seriously, Kerry was helped – as all challengers are – by standing on the same stage with the President and sharing the venue. Kerry looked relaxed and surprisingly kept his answers short. He successfully avoided sounding like the shrieking Howard Dean.

On style and presentation, Kerry won. Bush was fine, but Kerry was smooth. Bush will never be a smooth talker. So Kerry gets the nod for presentation. The bad news for Kerry is that he was poor on substance, which was Bush’s strength.

Kerry misrepresented the facts numerous times. For example, he charged that Bush diverted forces from Afghanistan to Iraq. Yet, the commander of both the Afghanistan and Iraq operations, now retired Gen. Tommy Franks, has unequivocally stated that is false. Kerry asserted that Iraq has cost more than $200 billion. But that is almost double the actual cost as determined by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Kerry disingenuously denied that he had ever accused Bush of lying about Iraq, but on at least two occasions Kerry has said Bush “lied.” One such incident was reported in Kerry’s hometown newspaper. Kerry also asserted the President hasn’t made bridges and subways safer and provided as evidence that “they had to close down the subway in New York when the Republican Convention was there.” But the subway was not closed. I rode the subway during the convention.

Aside from the false “facts” Kerry used, he had a bigger problem. In 90 minutes of debate, Kerry never said anything that would expand his support beyond his current base. Kerry continues to try to have it both ways – calling it “the wrong war” and “a catastrophic mistake” and also telling us that he can do it better. Do what better? The wrong war? The catastrophic mistake? His loyal supporters will give him a pass, as will the “mainstream” media, but most Americans will be unwilling to trust the safety of their children to a man who can’t make up his mind about whether deposing Saddam was a good or bad.

Kerry continually referred to having a better “plan” than President Bush, but never described it in clear, unambiguous terms. Beyond knowing that Kerry believes Bush has made big mistakes, it is not clear what Kerry thinks should be done. As nearly as I can tell, he plans to do what President Bush is doing – train Iraqi defense forces and quell the terrorists who are trying to disrupt the upcoming elections. Only Kerry promises to do it better. That is a rhetorical line, but it is not a plan.

Kerry was very clear, however, in stating his belief that summits were a big part of his plan. Kerry said, “I know I can do a better job in Iraq. I have a plan to have a summit with all of the allies.” When asked how he would resolve problems in Iraq, North Korea and elsewhere in the world, Kerry promises more meetings. President Bush has held such summits, but more importantly, Bush has taken action. Bush understands that terrorists don’t respond to meetings. Kerry hasn’t figured this out yet.

Each time Kerry said, “I've had one position, one consistent position” on Iraq, he reminded Americans of three things – (1) that Kerry vacillates almost weekly on Iraq; (2) that even last night, Kerry never outlined a clear, unambiguous plan for Iraq or for America’s security; and (3) that Kerry has vacillated so much and for so long he has grown blind to his habit.

Kerry excused his vote against the $87 billion to supply body armor and other supplies to our troops in Iraq by saying, “when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talked about the war.” Kerry thought his rehearsed sound bite was clever. But he missed the point. His mistake was not how he talked, but how he voted. His words were not the problem. His vote – to deny troops in the field body armor and vehicle armor and other needed supplies – was the problem.

Even Kerry once understood this. One month before he voted against the $87 billon, CBS asked how he would vote on the troop-funding bill. He responded, “I don’t think any Senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows... That’s irresponsible… I don’t think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability … to defend themselves. We’re not going to cut and run…” Obviously, John Kerry’s word doesn’t mean much.

Kerry said throughout the debate “the president made a mistake in invading Iraq.” But when asked if “Americans are now dying in Iraq for a mistake?” Kerry said, “No.” Which is it? If Kerry is correct that the war is a mistake, then anyone who has died fighting that war died for a mistake. But, John Kerry wants to have it both ways – be for and against the war. This is not leadership and America knows it. If Kerry meant to convince us that he is ready to lead America, he missed the mark.

Kerry asserted Bush is wasting billions in Iraq that could be better spent in America on health care and prescription drugs. But then he tried to reassure us, “I'm not talking about leaving. I'm talking about winning.” Which is it? Spend the money on health care or win the war? Take your pick, Senator, but you can’t have it both ways.

Kerry continued to argue that he would be a more effective diplomat than Bush, but Bush shot that claim down rather easily. Bush asked how Kerry could rally foreign leaders to help in Iraq when Kerry has called it a “catastrophic mistake,” and the “wrong war at the wrong time.” Why will foreign leaders who haven’t helped us yet, suddenly commit their nation’s blood and treasure to help in an action Kerry has clearly condemned as a mistake and a waste?

Kerry has shamefully belittled our most loyal allies, calling them the “coalition of the coerced and bribed.” Additionally, when Iraq’s Interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi spoke to a joint session of Congress to report on progress in Iraq, Kerry didn’t attend, but pushed his way onto camera to blast Allawi for not grasping how bad things are in Iraq. Kerry’s campaign even mocked Allawi as a “puppet.” Most Americans understand you can’t belittle and mock your allies and then claim to be a better diplomat.

But Kerry’s biggest problem is that he made a number of serious gaffes that will haunt him in the campaign and significantly contribute to his defeat.

First, Kerry criticized President Bush for not having a plan in Iraq, saying, “You don't take America to war unless have the plan to win the peace. You don't send troops to war without the body armor that they need." Later, he said, “Help is on the way.” This was a huge blunder. Kerry voted against the $87 billion to fund body armor and supplies for the troops. By his own admission, he was registering a “protest vote” over a tax cut he disliked. We are to conclude that the man asking us to trust him with the safety of our families thinks it is okay to deny body armor and other needed supplies to our troops because he didn’t get his way on a tax bill? Little wonder folks don’t trust Kerry to defend them.

Second, Kerry’s discussion of nuclear proliferation revealed a shocking “blame-America-first” bias. He started his answer by correctly identifying the danger of nuclear proliferation among rogue nations. But then Kerry went on to lament that America is conducting research on “bunker-busting nuclear weapons” as if America cannot be trusted with such things. It is self-evident why Iran and North Korea should not have nuclear weapons. But why would Kerry object to America’s continued research on such things? America is a fundamentally good and responsible nation. Currently, Iran and North Korea are not. We protect and liberate. Others enslave and dominate. It is alarming that John Kerry does not understand this distinction. It is reason enough for Americans to reject him out of hand.

Third, when asked what he thought of a preemptive war, Kerry said he would “do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test…” Kerry came right out and said what most Americans already feared – John Kerry will protect America only if the rest of the world approves.

President Bush didn’t think much of Kerry’s “global test.” Bush stated clearly, “My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people." Period. No global tests. That is the election. Kerry says he’ll protect America if France says he can. Bush will protect America, regardless of what foreign leaders say. If voters understand this difference, the election is over and it won’t be close.

America is not going to elect a man who believes he must satisfy “global tests” before protecting our families from another 9/11. America is not going to elect a man who believes America cannot be trusted with new “bunker-buster” bombs. America is not going to elect a man who believes it is acceptable to register a protest by voting to deny the troops the supplies they need to defend themselves and protect America.

The bottom line is that Kerry did an excellent job securing the left wing of his party. He also probably secured roughly 42% of the vote in the general election. And he did it all with style. But that’s not enough to get him elected.

###

Mr. Landrith is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was Business Editor of the Virginia Journal of Law and Politics. He had a successful law practice in business and litigation. In 1994 and 1996, Mr. Landrith was a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia's Fifth Congressional District. He served on the Albemarle County School Board. Mr. Landrith is an adjunct professor at the George Mason School of Law. He is recognized as an authority on constitutional law and jurisprudence, federalism, global warming, and property rights.

george@ff.org