When will Kerry decide if the path to Whitehouse is via equivocation, or "fuzziness", or being the "inartful dodger", or in being the straight shooter that many at DU loved in Dean?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/02/18/kerrys_cautious_side_reemerges/Kerry's cautious side reemerges
By Scot Lehigh, 2/18/2004
<snip>
Rather than answering directly, Kerry embarked on a discussion of the need for enforceable environment and labor standards in all future trade agreements. Gilbert: "But no regrets about those (NAFTA and permanent normal trade relations with China) votes?"
Kerry: "I regret the way that they haven't been enforced, sure." That seems to suggest that Kerry stands by his votes for the trade agreements, but who knows?
Holt later asked how voters should reconcile the "inconsistencies" of Kerry having voted for the No Child Left Behind Act, the Patriot Act, and the resolution authorizing force in Iraq with his current criticisms of the two laws and the war. "Well, they are not inconsistent at all," asserted Kerry, insisting that the problem in the first two instances was with implementation -- before suggesting that, as president, he would change both pieces of legislation.
Asked by Gilbert if he felt any responsibility for the war, given his vote to authorize the president to use force against Iraq, Kerry again avoided a direct reply. Instead, he offered a lengthy critique of what he saw as the errors in Bush's Iraq policy.
When Gilbert specifically repeated his question, Kerry again sidestepped. The president already had the power to go to war, he said. Here's the closest he came to a straightforward response: "My regret is not the vote. . . . My regret is this president chose the wrong way, rushed to war."<snip>
So would Kerry support such an (defense of marriage) amendment if it also put civil union rights in the Constitution? Or would he simply leave the matter up to the states? Again, who could tell?<snip>