The Case for Kerry
Last week I issued an invitation and challenge to supporters of John Kerry for president to make a case for his candidacy that didn't rely merely on anti-Bush rhetoric. In other words, what is the positive case for Kerry?

I received two entries, one from Scott Forbes and the other from Jospeh Marshall, faithful readers and commenters both. Both met the terms of the invitation, but only one can be pronounced "winner."

Overall, I have to give the olive wreath to Scott. As I stated in the invitation, his essay is published unexpurgated, unedited and unabridged below, without additional commentary from me. As an aside, it is purely coincidental that this morning's deadline coincided with the publication on the WSJ's site of, "Bush's defeat would be good for the GOP."

After the RNC has adjourned, I will issue a similar invitation for Bush supporters, then puts permalinks to both essays in the left-hand column of the site until election day.

The Case for Kerry
by Scott Forbes

In the past several months I've spoken or written to hundreds of Americans about the upcoming election, and registered hundreds more to request their absentee ballots. Many have already made up their minds, but some are still on the bubble: They have serious doubts about both Kerry and Bush, and are trying to weigh their options.

There are plenty of sources out there (credible and otherwise) making the case against either candidate… and we all have first-hand knowledge of Bush's performance in office, so a discussion of his merits is more reminder than introduction. That leaves only the case for John Kerry — the case that says Kerry will not only be better than Bush: He'll be a good, strong, capable leader by any measure.

The War on Terror

Of all the doubts I've heard about Kerry, the one I hear most from swing voters is less about the candidate and more about Democrats in general: Some people don't trust any Democrat to lead the nation in war. For these voters, the anti-war activists in Kerry's camp are a cause for deep suspicion — as are Kerry's credentials as a Vietnam War opponent, in spite of his decorated service record. If I can trust Kerry to fight the terrorists, these people say, I can vote for him. But how can I be sure that Kerry will walk the talk?

Well, one reason why John Kerry's combat record is under so much scrutiny (and why so much effort is being made to tarnish it) is because it shows how Kerry behaves under fire: He turns toward the enemy and attacks. What Kerry did on a Swift boat isn't proof of what he'll do in the Oval Office, and some of our finest wartime presidents were men who never saw battle… but Kerry's valor in the face of death speaks volumes about his instincts and his character. In Vietnam, John Kerry believed in taking the fight to the enemy — and he did.

In the Senate John Kerry made his mark as an investigator, rather than as an author of legislation: Instead of giving us Kerry Scholars or Kerry IRAs, John Kerry used the Senate's oversight powers to shine a light in dark places. In a three-year investigation from 1988 to 1991, in spite of attempts to block him by powerful interests on both sides of the aisle, Kerry was responsible for bringing down the global terrorist financing network that was a forerunner to today's Al Qaeda. Ten years before anyone else in Washington paid notice to shadowy networks of international terrorist financiers, Kerry was shutting down the bank where Osama kept his money.

John Kerry's plan for winning the war on terror is a comprehensive long-term strategy that uses all the tools at our disposal: From strengthening our military to reforming our intelligence capabilities, from expanding Nunn-Lugar to effectively preparing for post-combat operations, Kerry's plan for ending the terrorist threat is thorough and compelling.

And, perhaps most importantly of all, John Kerry understands that our key to victory in the fight against terrorists is to defeat the enemy's ideas. Kerry's war on terror will do more than just roll the boulder uphill: His most powerful weapons will be fundamental American principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. And, Kerry's election will deprive the terrorists of the strongest weapons they have: From the tortures at Abu Ghraib to the nepotism and cronyism of our hand-picked Iraqi government, America's case for democracy has been compromised by actions that run counter to our democratic principles. By making a break with these un-American policies, John Kerry restores our ability to fight the terrorists on all fronts — to not only defeat today's terrorists, but to stop would-be sympathizers from turning into new recruits.

The War in Iraq

Thirty years ago the pundits said "only Nixon could go to China" — today only John Kerry can win the peace in Iraq. Kerry changes the political dimensions of the conflict in ways that Bush cannot: As a Democratic president, Kerry can change the world's perception of Iraq, from being viewed as an essentially American struggle to being accepted as a global peacekeeping challenge.

Kerry and the Democrats have a legacy of using America's military might to achieve humanitarian goals. From Somalia to Kosovo, the Democrats sent American troops in harm's way not for short-term strategic reasons, but in altruistic, multinational efforts to stabilize countries and prevent ethnic strife. For what we need right now in Iraq, the Democrats have a stronger hand politically (and a more seasoned foreign policy team) to achieve it.

The Bush administration has stated a goal of maintaining America's military dominance, and supported the view that our military should only be used to pursue our own strategic interests. By choosing and openly declaring these values, the Republicans have lost a degree of freedom: Their appeals to other, more idealistic values are perceived through a cynical filter. Fairly or unfairly, charges that America's interest in Iraq is strategic and selfish stick to the Republicans. The Democrats are largely immune to these attacks, and can make a far stronger appeal to idealism when seeking support for U.S. peacekeeping in Iraq.

In principle, a Democrat should have been able to open relations with Communist China as easily as a Republican. In practice, only Nixon could go to China — and only Kerry can win the peace in Iraq.

Deficits, Taxes, and the Economy

My favorite bird in Washington, the deficit hawk, has been kicked out of the nest by a flock of cuckoos. The cuckoos pretend to be deficit hawks, until they take office — and then they bribe the people with their own money. Or, rather, they bribe us with our children's money, since our kids will inherit the deficits we accrue.


Sources: Congressional Budget Office (1990-2003), Congressional Budget Office (2004 projection), Citizens for Tax Justice, Friends
Committee on National Legislation.

I think even staunch conservatives will concede what kind of bird George Bush has been, so the question is whether John Kerry will be a responsible steward or another cuckoo. And the irony here is that Kerry has already shown his colors on that score… and he's paid a fairly high price for taking the fiscally responsible road.

Back in September 2003, President Bush requested an additional $87 billion in supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan — funding for a post-war reconstruction effort that administration officials had promised would be paid for by the Iraqis. At the time, I blogged:

I would stand up and cheer right now if anyone in Congress demanded fiscal accountability in response to Bush's request for another $87 billion in Iraq reconstruction money. If any member of either party insists that Bush either raise taxes or cut spending by $87 billion, I'll be a fan for life.

…and John Kerry took me at my word. He co-sponsored an amendment to the appropriations bill that suspended $87 billion in tax breaks for the wealthiest one percent of Americans, instead of forcing our children to foot the bill; the amendment was defeated, on a largely party-line vote, and then Kerry voted against the bill that financed Iraq's reconstruction with deficit spending.

In the world of dirty gotcha-game campaigning, Kerry has taken a lot of heat for that vote: First it was used as an allegation that he didn't support the troops — and then, when he pointed out the amendment he co-sponsored, that was used to accuse him of flip-flopping. But the truth of the matter is that Kerry proposed and supported an alternative to deficit spending.

You can argue, if you wish, that Kerry and the other Democrats only oppose deficit spending when Republicans are in favor of it — but ultimately that's an argument in favor of electing Kerry. If you think it's important to tame the deficit, and you believe deficit reduction only happens when one party has the White House and the other has control of Congress, then the only way to achieve your goal this year is to put John Kerry in the White House.

John Kerry's plan to restore fiscal responsibility cuts taxes for 98 percent of Americans, restores the PAYGO rule for revenue and spending bills, and supports an innovative strategy to end corporate welfare as we know it. Kerry's team of economic advisors includes former Treasury secretary Robert Rubin and billionaire investor Warren Buffett; in matters of economics, job creation, and fiscal policy, Kerry's credentials are impeccable.

Conclusion

I've run out of space, and I haven't even touched on Kerry's plans for energy independence, homeland security, health care, the environment, and countless other issues where John Kerry offers a compelling vision for our country. Kerry is more than just the Anybody in "Anybody But Bush" — he's a capable, talented leader, with good ideas about how to face the issues and challenges of our time. I believe John Kerry should be our next President, and that a vote for him is more than just a vote against Bush: It's a vote for a better future, and for a stronger America.