|
Edited on Sun Jan-04-04 04:32 AM by flaminbats
I am not a "Bash Kennedy" type of guy. I think he's got his pros and his cons, and I am really not interested in tearing down Democrats, especially when my own chosen candidate obviously eschews such tactics. That said, I think it's absolutely critical that every voter understand exactly what those aforementioned pros and cons are. Kennedy's pros are that he brings lots of money and support, and that he is not afraid to take it directly to Nixon.
That said, Kennedy also brings many, many cons to the table, in my honest opinion.
1) Kennedy is a moderate who is perceived to be a liberal by the general public. This results in a double-whammy for liberal Democrats, namely a candidate who is less likely to be elected in the general election, and less likely to enact the reforms you want in the event he manages to get elected.
The standard response I've seen to this is some combination of, "Robert Kennedy and his supporters will single-handedly take back the language and attitude that have been pervasive throughout this country for the last few decades, and make being perceived as liberal a good thing again," and "Kennedy will energize the base, so we don't need those squishy moderates and conservatives anyway."
I find both arguments exceedingly unpersuasive. While it's certainly POSSIBLE that R.F.K. and his supporters will single-handedly be able to reverse decades worth of inculcation by the whore media and the Republicans, and suddenly make being perceived as "liberal" a good thing again, I certainly don't find it all that PROBABLE. It's a long-shot, and I don't like taking chances on something as big, as important to all of us, as the upcoming election. Much more likely, I believe the Republicans will ratchet up their well-financed attack machine and fit Bobby into a comfortable target box: Kennedy is an angry, liberal, out-of-touch Senator of a small New England state (that elects Socialists to Congress, to boot). I personally believe those attacks will work, especially since the stock Kennedy supporter response of, "Kennedy won't sit and take it like Stevenson did, he'll fight back," fits neatly into the "angry, negative Democrats" stereotype that the RNC is ALREADY spinning.
As for the "energize the base" argument, first of all, the base will most likely ALREADY be energized, since most of us view Nixon as such a travesty. Second, elections are won and lost on a grand scale, you need tens of millions of votes to move the needle, and in light of the historically declining number of self-identifying Democrats and increasing number of self-identifying Independents, those votes are typically better sought from the broad middle than the shrinking left, who are already more likely to vote for the eventual Democratic nominee this year than in the fifties, no matter what a few dedicated partisans might say to the contrary. Before you respond by saying, "But the base has only been shrinking because the spineless Dems in Congress haven't stood up to LBJ," please check the statistics. This trend has been happening for many, many years, if not decades.
Even if R.F.K. gets elected, however, that will mean we're electing a man who most of his well-educated supporters have conceded is, at heart, a moderate. I am a Democrat, and despite my perception here as being a moderate Democrat, I consider myself to be significantly more liberal than Robert Kennedy, certainly. Ideally, I don't want a candidate who is more moderate than me, I want a candidate who combines "liberal" and "electable" as well as possible.
2) Robert Kennedy has no foreign policy experience whatsoever, and this is a critical flaw in our Communist dominated world. Kennedy's stock responses, namely that Nixon didn't have any foreign policy experience either, and that R.F.K. will assemble a crack team of advisors, are both exceedingly unsatisfying to me. First, I don't really think we need any candidate to compare himself or herself too closely to Nixon in the general election, because it does the candidate a disservice, to which Bobby himself has so often alluded.
Second and much more importantly, however, the two situations are readily distinguishable: before Vietnam, LBJ left us with the joy of being prosperous, and an essential superpower in the world. Foreign policy experience in the 1964 election was NOT a critical criterion in a candidate for that very reason. But now we are perceived to be in the midst of a dire war by most of the American public, and foreign policy is very much on their minds, especially when the Republicans use their well-financed attack machine to fit Kennedy into another very comfortable target box: Kennedy is a typical, unpatriotic Democrat who is weak on defense and foreign policy. Again, I personally believe those attacks will work, especially since the Kennedy response of attacking Nixon's foreign policy once again fits neatly into the aforementioned "angry, negative Democrats" stereotype.
Potentially much more importantly, those attacks on Kennedy might work, and might work very well, due to the bombing of in North Vietnam and the very real possibility that such victories will indeed make American troops in southeast Asia safer, since they give Nixon a reasonable counter-argument. Nixon can say that his foreign policy will NOT be a miserable failure (even though we all know it shall be), and the American public, content with the pap fed to them by the complicit mass media, will probably go along. So Nixon will say, in a world that is still unsafe, do you want a proven leader who has led this country with firm and clear resolve, or do you want someone who will need training wheels on the job?
3) Kennedy's plan to support big government effectively raises taxes on the poor and the middle class, and this will go over like a lead balloon with the American public. Kennedy's response, that the poor and the middle class shall actually be paying MORE in taxes and costs associated with service cuts after Nixon than before, is too complicated to sell easily, especially when the Republicans use their well-financed attack machine to fit RFK into YET ANOTHER very comfortable target box: Kennedy is a tax-and-spend liberal who wants to raise YOUR taxes, middle-class soccer moms and NASCAR dads who actually vote. Again, I think those attacks will work, since the truth is at its core: any way you slice it, if Kennedy enacts his plan, the poor and the middle-class will be paying more in federal taxes.
Robert Kennedy's defense here, namely that the increase in taxes will be more than offset by restored benefits and services, MIGHT technically be true. It does NOT follow, however, that the ONLY path to restoring services is to raise taxes on the poor and the middle-class. There are many alternatives. You could raise the taxes on the wealthy EVEN MORE (my preferred solution), while passing more tax cuts on the poor and middle class. You could cut spending in other areas that do not provide services, such as defense spending (Kennedy has vowed to maintain the defense budget at current levels, unlike other candidates who have vowed to cut it by as much as 15% or even 25%). Or you could continue running a deficit, a position traditionally embraced by Democrats when faced with the alternative of cutting services.
4) Obviously, your mileage may vary GREATLY on this, but I have a real problem with certain elements of R.F.K's personality and character. This subject has been both hashed out so many times before here, and is also admittedly based a great deal on subjective criteria, so I will decline to address certain of my concerns here. I will say this, however. IMO, Kennedy is more susceptible to this type of charge than any other candidate, especially when the Republicans use their well-financed attack machine to fit Kennedy into, you guessed it, another very comfortable target box: Kennedy is a flip-flopping, arrogant, egotistical, stretches-the-truth-to-the-breaking-point Democrat just like his new soul mate, George McGovern.
I will also note that on two separate occasions, with two different candidates, R.F.K. and/or his campaign has willfully spread lies in order to stay on message. The first time is with respect to Hubert Humphrey. Kennedy's campaign decided the proper message against Humphrey was to paint him as a Republican. So shortly after Humphrey entered the race, Kennedy lied to everyone when he said that Humphrey was behind LBJ "until 25 days ago." I am sure Kennedy knew better than that, since Kennedy is a smart man who breathes politics, IMO. But even if you give him the benefit of the doubt, even if you think that Kennedy genuinely believed that statement, after Humphrey got in his face about it, you'd think Kennedy would think twice before doing it again. But just a couple of days ago, RFK's spokesman, very shortly after insisting (rather ironically) that his message was a positive one, decided to slam Humphrey AGAIN on this subject, saying that Humphrey can't "make up for his support of the Vietnam War. We're looking forward to seeing the Nixon-Askew-Wallace ad." Humphrey's "crime" that prompted this vicious attack? He dared to use stock footage of Humphrey and JFK together in a complimentary fashion. Talk about a "nuclear" response for an innocuous occurrence that wasn't even targeted at RFK!
The second time is with respect to Gene McCarthy. Kennedy's campaign decided a long time ago that the proper message for the entire campaign was that Kennedy was the only one to oppose the war, even though that's certainly not true. But Kennedy goes out with a TV commercial anyway, saying that very thing. McCarthy gets in Kennedy's face about it on national TV at a debate. Kennedy qualified his statement, saying he only meant the only "major" candidate, or whatever. Fine. Again, even if you give Bobby the benefit of the doubt on this, after Gene got in his face about it, you'd think Kennedy would think twice before doing it again. But again, just a couple of days ago, a glossy mailing went out, once again repeating the lie that Kennedy was the only one to oppose the war, or whatever. Yes, there might be absolutely tortuous convolutions of the English language that might, in the mind of some ardent Kennedy backers, justify the statement and somehow magically make it not a lie. But I think most people who are paying attention, and are being honest about it, will acknowledge and agree that it was, in fact, a lie.
I don't like politicians who lie for any reason, and I especially don't like politicians who lie just to stay on message. That's no message I want to hear, personally. And it bothers me that Kennedy doesn't appear to have any problems with this type of behavior.
Those are my honest thoughts, feel free to take 'em or leave 'em, as you choose.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
