John Kerry’s Remarkable Remarks
By Monte Kuligowski (10/14/04)
The elite gatekeepers of old media news have established an unspoken rule for the presidential campaign. Conservatives are not allowed to take Sen. Kerry at his word.
The case in point involves the words of Sen. Kerry published in the New York Times Magazine last Sunday. The story is based upon an interview of John Kerry by Matt Bai. When Kerry was asked what it would take for Americans to feel safe again, he responded: “we have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance.” Kerry went on to elaborate, “As a former law-enforcement person, I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level to where it isn’t on the rise. It isn’t threatening people’s lives every day, and fundamentally, it’s something you continue to fight, but it’s not threatening the fabric of your life.”
At that revelation, even Matt Bai couldn’t hold his tongue (or his pen): “This analogy struck me as remarkable, if only because it seemed to throw down a big orange marker between Kerry’s philosophy and the president’s.” After Bai’s piece was published, the president’s campaign naturally jumped all over Kerry’s remarkable remarks, pointing to that bright orange marker separating the candidates.
But old media are crying foul. Conservatives aren’t allowed to see the marker. Well, they may see it, so long as they don’t talk about it. Tuesday on the “Today” show, Katie Couric shut down a Republican spokesman, appearing as a guest, who attempted to state the implications of Kerry’s remarks. To Katie the substantive meaning of Kerry’s statement isn’t the issue because the Republicans are just “parsing words.” You see, it’s not fair to hold a man of such high intellect to his words. You must allow room for his thought-inspired nuances, conundrums and mysteries.
That explains the attention in many news reports – like CNN’s story of Oct. 11 – to the detail that Bai’s piece is a “largely analytical” article containing 8,000 words. Wow. It’s analytical. And long. So we should give Kerry room to think out loud, while analyzing. Most of the analyzing was done by Bai, however, trying to figure Kerry out. Bai noted that Kerry was very cautious with his words. “He acts as if you’ve been sent to destroy him, and he can’t quite figure out why in the world he should be sitting across from you.” The senator’s guarded stance during the Bai interview was apparent by the fact that Kerry said he would “wage a more ‘effective’ war on terror no less than 18 times in two hours of conversations.”
The CNN piece, referred to above, is titled, “Bush campaign to base ad on Kerry terror quote.” The subtitle reads, “Democrats: GOP again taking senator’s words out of context.” The story subtly editorializes, “The parsing prompted the Kerry camp to retort that the soon-to-be-released Bush ad was another example of the president’s campaign taking words out of context to create a misleading impression.” (Italics added.)
You’ve probably noticed whenever Kerry’s own words are discussed the Democrats go into full attack mode proclaiming that Republicans are up to dirty tricks, smear tactics and misleading distortions. Kerry spokesman, Phil Singer, snapped, “Considering that George Bush doesn’t think we can win the war on terror . . . it’s no surprise that his campaign is distorting every word Kerry has ever said.”
Mr. Singer is referring to the “Today” show sound bite where Bush was asked if we could win the war on terror in four years, followed by “can we win it?” Bush responded by stating, “I don’t think you can win it.” When Democrats bring that quote up, Republicans don’t resort to partisan warfare, they simply clarify. And the clarifying is easy. As Sen. John McCain aptly explained, with the war on terror we’re never going to have a surrender signing ceremony on a U.S. battleship. In other words, we’re not fighting a traditional enemy.
Kerry’s most recent comments, to the contrary, aren’t amenable to such easy clarification. Sen. Kerry begins his remarks by stating “we have to get back to the place we were.” That’s not exactly forward-thinking, as the Kerry campaign likes to say. This place, Kerry instructs, is “where terrorists are not the focus of our lives.” Presently everybody – except the folks at Camp Kerry – knows that after 9/11 terrorism must be our focus. In Kerry’s world we have to get back to the place where terrorists are just “a nuisance.” Do you think Kerry will ever explain when terrorism was just a nuisance? Don’t hold your breath.
At least Sen. Kerry realizes the fight against terrorism needs to continue. But he, perhaps inadvertently, revealed the fundamental distinction between himself and the president. His fight against terrorism would look very different. The senator believes terrorism can become a secondary annoyance. President Bush, on the other hand, will continue to keep the fight as the focus of his life.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Monte Kuligowski
