Is Kerry becoming Clintonesque?

Although in the interest of divided government, I'd prefer to see John Kerry win the White House, I remain of the view that John Edwards would have been the stronger challenger to President Bush. One problem -- which could have been foreseen months ago -- is that Kerry has a certain Clintonesque approach to public statements, which is to say, technically true but often misleading.

Consider these gems:

(1) Asked whether, in light of his support for higher automobile gas mileage standards, he owns a gas-guzzling SUV, Kerry responded that he did not:

Kerry thought for a second when asked whether his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, had a Suburban at their Ketchum, Idaho, home. Kerry said he owns and drives a Dodge 600 and recently bought a Chrysler 300M. He said his wife owns the Chevrolet SUV.

"The family has it. I don't have it," he said.

(2) And of course there is Medalgate, where Kerry claimed in 1971 to have thrown away his medals and ribbons:

Kerry was asked if he gave back the Bronze Star, Silver Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for combat duty as a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam. "Well, and above that, [I] gave back the others," he said.

(3) And who could forget his claim during the Democratic primaries that he took no money from PACs, omitting the fact that he was taking money from lobbyists?

The sad thing is that I don't think Kerry needed to resort to any of these Clintonesque responses. On the SUV question, he could've just answered, "Yes, we own a SUV, and I wish we had better options available. That's why I support legislation pushing the auto industry to improve gas mileage standards. However, I'm not about to engage in unilateral disarmament, so to speak, by refusing to drive an SUV when we have need for one." On the medals question, he could've answered, "Look, what happened 33 years ago isn't the issue. The issue is how do fight terrorism from this point forward, by resort to military force and occupation or by diplomacy?" (Mind you, I don't mean to imply that I necessarily agree with this approach; I'm just suggesting something that seems consistent with Kerry's position -- as best as I can tell what his position actually is.) And on the PACs, well, I guess I wouldn't have made a big deal out of it the way he did.

The point is that these sorts of weaselly respones work reasonably well in litigation, especially in response to discovery requests. They may keep you from being sanctioned by the court. But in the court of public opinion, they just sound really bad. And they give lawyers a bad name. Perhaps it's no coincidence that both Kerry and Clinton are lawyers. . . .

UPDATE: Via Prof. Althouse is this Village Voice article calling on the Democrats to "resurrect" John Edwards because, in the view of the author, Kerry doesn't have what it takes to beat President Bush.

Comments

[Brendan McLaughlin]

I know blogs don't give 'equal time,' but come on. To paint Kerry as a flip-flopper, and Clinton-esqe with these statements misses the larger issue. Bush flat out lies (at least flip-flops on major issues then acts as if it never happened) and has constantly done so - he gets a free pass for saying things like "the world is a dangerous" place and "we will get the evil doers"... Agreed though politics would be a better place if primary voters would have created a McCain v. Edwards matchup.

[Tung Yin]

The "Bush lied" theme isn't quite as interesting to me, because outright lies -- if they indeed are such -- are plain falsehoods. The Kerry/Clinton kind of misleading but technically true statements are more interesting, especially since in the litigation arena, they appear to be fair game.

And I don't mean to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper so much as someone who relies on these hypertechnical distinctions that are inappropriate in the public arena.

[Brendan McLaughlin]

Fair enough I agree with that. I guess my worry is by constantly making and issue out of some of these techicallities we dumb down the debate. In trivial instances hyper-technical speaking looks rediculous... but if we get to the point of presuming hyper-technical speaking is rediculous or dishonest we lose the ability to seriously debate issues that are grey and where fine distintions do matter. Further, I'm not defending all of Clinton's actions, but in Kerry's defense it seems unfair to put all the blame on him - the press is playing 'gotcha' asking some of these questions, and he is to some effect refusing to play those games... It is nice to ask Kerry to rise above it all and reject issues of the past, but today's press would probably eat him alive for it, the attacks would not stop AND most importantly Kerry would lose the ability to fight back by pointing out Bush's actions in that same time period were much more questionable. Kerry might actually, and rightly believe it is important if Bush did 'dodge' his responsibilites. He looks hypercritacal if he states his actions 33 years ago are unimportant and then states Bush's actions are important.
Further it is unfair to plan the cancelation game - either candidate shouldn't get a free pass on relevant issues just because they create an irrelevant issue against the opposing candidate.
I realize your interest less political; I'm curious about your last statement "these hypertechnical distinctions that are inappropriate in the public arena." Are you saying they are dishonest on their face, or are dishonest because the general public can't understand and are therefore mislead? Is it fair to be force to answer a misleading question with a straight answer? I just worry in the world of sound-bite any candiate can not afford to give your long answer to the SUV question... eventually all that will be shown is "I own an SUV." Instead of an intellegent answer two weeks later the statement is remembered as another Kerry flip-flop.

[Tung Yin]

Re "inappropriate" -- I mean that the answers appear (to me, at least) intended to deceive, but in a way that the speaker can plausibly say is technically true. If you are really interested in this as a legal defense, take a look at U.S. v. Bronston, 409 U.S. 352 (1973), to see the "literal truth" defense in action against a perjury charge.

Having thought some more about your original opening remark (about "equal time"), I've come up with the following: it's kind of like how Simon on "American Idol" rags on the singers who are about 20 pounds overweight but didn't say a thing about last year's winner Reuben, who was probably about 150 pounds overweight. Those who are 20 pounds overweight can do something about their weight; Reuben can't, at least not within the time frame of the show. So why make a big deal out of his weight?

[Brett Bellmore]

Not quite on point, I suppose, but if Kerry really DOES have a need for an SUV, (Which I find plausible, BTW. Plenty of people do, though not as many as own 'em.) how would forcing the automotive industry to raise milage do anything but make it impossible for people who share that need, but aren't wealthy, to fill that need? Doesn't seem like a winning repsonse.

The more plausible answer, which, though it might get him in trouble with his largest campaign donor, would be acceptable to half the population, would be, "My wife bought it."

[Tom]

Whether or not his answers to questions are true, they often are troubling.

On the SUV issue, he has basically said, "Do as I say, not as I do." If he wants to campaign for more fuel-efficient vehicles, he could set the tone, and ride in one.

On the military-service issue, he gave Clinton a free pass, claiming that whatever one's decisions about Vietnam were (Clinton served NOWHERE), they shouldn't be a campaign issue. Now, he badgers the president about National Guard service, and answers every defense-related question with, "I was in Vietnam."

He voted to authorize invasion of Iraq, then acted surprised, even offended, when it happened. His Iraq policy? "Get the UN more involved." No answers about how to turn unwilling UN members into members of a coalition, but he claims HE could do it.

On the UN, by the way, why would the US want to involve nations complicit in the whole Oil-for-Food scandal? Why were UN nations opposed to the war in Iraq? Only because their hands were in the till.

How about the offshoring of US jobs? If this is really a problem, perhaps this is why his wife's tax returns are off-limits. Like the "family-owned" SUV, his family's finances could become an issue when it becomes public knowledge that Heinz produces many of its products elsewhere in the world.

In short, Kerry may be giving honest (if incomplete) answers. Maybe that should scare us more.

[Czar Nick]

People are pretty pathetic if they don't realize that if Kerry is willing to lie about petty little bullshit, where will his credibily be if he actaully has to talk about the issues, instead of just saying "I would bring the UN in."?