I'm with The New Republic on this call, Part II. -- John Kerry is a reminder of our 2004 failure to retire a president with a very vulnerable record.
Part I: 11-10-04 post: "Let me make this perfectly clear. I will never vote for John F. Kerry again, not for Pres., not for Head Janitor, not for anything."
The New Republic, which endorsed Kerry, wants him to move onto other things, get out of the headlines, off the public stage, etc. Excerpts:
He's back. Actually, he never even left. John Kerry, according to reports in The Boston Globe and The Washington Post [and the Cracker Squire blog according to a Nov. 10 post -- I wish], plans to have a prominent role in the Democratic Party. Apparently he's contemplating a political action committee and think-tank to help define the party's future. And, according to those around him, he's also considering another presidential run in 2008.
Kerry's inner circle has come away from the election apparently convinced that he represents the aspirations of nearly half the country...
It is certainly true that the election saw an enormous outpouring of activism on Kerry's behalf. That activism, though, was motivated by opposition to Bush rather than by support for Kerry. He was merely a vessel for righteous outrage over a failed and dangerous presidency. And not a very potent vessel, either. . . .
If the Democratic Party is going to get off its back, it needs spokesmen who can clearly explain its positions without leaving even its own partisans bored or confused. It needs someone who can connect with the economic and moral values of the middle class. And it needs to be able to discuss foreign policy without invoking the word 'alliances' like some kind of irrepressible verbal tic. The longer Kerry overstays his welcome, the harder it will be for such spokesmen to emerge.
Kerry certainly does deserve to retain a role within the party. That role ought to be the same as it was before he ran for president: second-most influential senator from Massachusetts.
The New Republic, which endorsed Kerry, wants him to move onto other things, get out of the headlines, off the public stage, etc. Excerpts:
He's back. Actually, he never even left. John Kerry, according to reports in The Boston Globe and The Washington Post [and the Cracker Squire blog according to a Nov. 10 post -- I wish], plans to have a prominent role in the Democratic Party. Apparently he's contemplating a political action committee and think-tank to help define the party's future. And, according to those around him, he's also considering another presidential run in 2008.
Kerry's inner circle has come away from the election apparently convinced that he represents the aspirations of nearly half the country...
It is certainly true that the election saw an enormous outpouring of activism on Kerry's behalf. That activism, though, was motivated by opposition to Bush rather than by support for Kerry. He was merely a vessel for righteous outrage over a failed and dangerous presidency. And not a very potent vessel, either. . . .
If the Democratic Party is going to get off its back, it needs spokesmen who can clearly explain its positions without leaving even its own partisans bored or confused. It needs someone who can connect with the economic and moral values of the middle class. And it needs to be able to discuss foreign policy without invoking the word 'alliances' like some kind of irrepressible verbal tic. The longer Kerry overstays his welcome, the harder it will be for such spokesmen to emerge.
Kerry certainly does deserve to retain a role within the party. That role ought to be the same as it was before he ran for president: second-most influential senator from Massachusetts.
posted by Sid Cottingham | 1:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home