Dotty Lynch: The Real John Kerry Finally Stands Up

[kerrygoddess]

Dotty Lynch: The Real John Kerry Finally Stands Up
April 24th, 2006 @ 9:06 am

CBS’s Dotty Lynch writes about John Kerry’s “Dissent” speech, in her Political Points column today, “Kerry has the opportunity to lead a movement once again… by rallying a very angry public to force a change in policy. Richard Nixon worried about Kerry’s potential as a leader back in the 70s; maybe the new Kerry will finally prove him right.”



John Kerry came to national attention not because he was a war hero but because he was a dissenter. In 1971, he appeared on “The Dick Cavett Show,” testified before Congress, and electrified anti-war rallies with his message that the war was wrong. His phrase, “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” was used for years to define his commitment and eloquence.

On Saturday in Boston’s historic Faneuil Hall, Kerry stood tall and proud and came to terms with what seemed so right in the 1970s and so wrong in 2004. He gave a speech about the American tradition of dissent and his own and others’ disagreement with Bush administration policies on both Vietnam and Iraq.

Thirty-five years to the day that he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he was introduced by the widow of a Swift Boat buddy, Don Droz, who emotionally recounted how her late husband told her how he and Kerry were planning to come home after Vietnam and “tell the truth about what was going on.” Judith Droz Keyes, who spoke out in her husband’s name in the seventies, described Kerry as a man who “has once again become the voice of moral opposition.”

MORE, LINKS, and Retort to wingblog swiftboating JK - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2750

[blm]

1. I disagree Dotty - He always spoke like this - you just listened without

the media later twisting his words and telling you THEIR opinion of the lesser points in his speeches.

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. Kerry may have had the style down before, but now he has the

experience to take on his critics before they define him.

[Totally Committed]

2. I think he's been sounding very much better lately...

Sounding far more like the Kerry I remember supporting years ago.

I'm not "there" yet; he has a way to go on a few issues for me, but he's certainly moving in the right direction.

Bravo for him. Credit given where it's due.

TC

[LittleClarkie]

4. And kudos to you for an open mind

I sure was proud of him on Saturday. It was like he was embracing his legacy, if that doesn't sound to sappy.

[welshTerrier2]

6. coming soon to a theatre near you ...

"he has a way to go on a few issues for me" - i'm working on a post about Kerry's newfound, yet tenuous, support from some on the anti-war left ...

your post hits the nail on the head ... there are a number of core issues on which i base my support for a candidate ... I've strongly applauded Kerry's latest Iraq plan ...

if he's looking for support from the "anti-war left", he's taken a very nice step in the right direction ... but the measure of a genuine anti-warrior, with the current lunatics in office, is unfortunately not one war but rather two (or more) ... this, of course, points the next front squarely at Iran ... if lessons have been learned, if Kerry now sees that war under bush is more dangerous than virtually any stated purpose for war bush could possibly provide, then the time to strike against bush's going into Iran is NOW ... talk of diplomacy and UN and last resort are just not enough ... all good but not enough ... leadership demands a direct confrontation to make bush debate the issue in the public square ... absent that, here we go again ...

and sadly, there's much, much more ... to truly lead the anti-war left, if Kerry aspires to such things, will require some sort of case to be made about the push for war by big oil ... Kerry has made some very good statements about big oil; the battle is far from over (it's hardly even started) ... more needs to be done ...

and finally is the very awkward business about the next war funding bill that the Senate will start considering tomorrow ... one might argue, "as long as we have troops there, we have to continue funding them" ... that's the argument I get the most when i call for a "NO" vote on more war funding ... no, i don't want the troops to go without the supplies they urgently need ...

a "No" vote should be made on more war funding until the funds are explicitly earmarked for "approved purposes" ... these would include costs directly associated with withdrawal, costs for medical coverage for the troops, etc. ... the idea is that we should fund and take full care of the troops with the understanding that we are leaving ... period ... the only vehicle available to the Congress is to shut-off funding for the war or to sharply constrain how funding will be used ... "Congress holds the purse strings" ... the idea that bush would keep defenseless unfunded troops in Iraq when Congress has stopped funding their presence there seems most unlikely to me ... it would be his actions, not those of a Congress that voted against more war funding, that would be outrageously irresponsible ... so Kerry should vote "No" ... i'm afraid I don't see that as very likely ...

[KOBUK]

3. I saw it on c-span !

It was a great speech ! He said all the right(left) things.I was impressed.