John Kerry's Regime Change

John Kerry is getting slammed by Republicans for the comments he made in New Hampshire about us needing a regime change in Washington. Tom DeLay and Denis Hastert are jumping on Kerry like Saddam has been jumping onto the floor of his bunker. They are accusing him of everything from partisan politics to undermining the coalition military effort.

You know what? They're right about this being partisan politics. Kerry is a Democrat; Bush is a Republican. Kerry needs to raise money and awareness in NH. The way for him to do that is to offer an alternative to President Bush. To be an alternative, he has to be different.

So, yeah- he's being partisan. So what? That's what he's supposed to do.

But is he undermining the war effort? I don't think so. He's hasn't renounced support for our men in the field; he's stated that he thinks differently than the President. He hasn't attempted to hamstring our ability to fight (in the short term war planning- long term you've got an argument that he has hamstrung them, but that's another post for another time); he's only stated his disappointment that we didn't make more of a diplomatic effort.

I know many people who are thinking along the same lines as Kerry. There is some disappointment that diplomacy didn't work. There are people that don't think that the Administration made a good case for invading Iraq. Those are reasonable and normal thoughts that are shared by many Americans.

The difference is in the way the feelings are expressed. Had he said, "I don't agree with the way the pre-war diplomacy was handled. But now that we're in the fight, we need to give our troops everything they need to win,” I think that most people would have been OK. He stated an opposing position without demagoguing the issue or damaging moral with the troops. But instead he said we need a "regime change in Washington." He's still stating that he has an opposing position, but he demagogued the issue.

And people don't appreciate that in a time of national stress. We want leaders who will debate the issues. We want leaders who will propose alternative solutions when appropriate and who have the insight to understand when it is not appropriate. With his comments, Kerry showed that the insight into appropriateness is still lacking. In demagoguing the issue, he showed a disappointing level of naivety in diplomacy - the very topic he has chosen to use against the President.

With his comments Kerry reduced his stature as a Presidential candidate. He has exposed the need for him to work on his decision-making skills. Would we really want someone this undiplomatic running our national diplomacy? I wouldn't.