The Post says that Democrats are more motivated to defeat Bush than to elect Kerry -- as if that's a revelation. But "the chief reason" for that is: "The senator from Massachusetts, they say, has not crisply articulated what a Kerry presidency would stand for beyond undoing much of Bush's agenda."
Well, the Post should know that there might be a good reason for Kerry's reluctance to share. The more liberal presidential candidates who were open about their liberalism, like Mondale and Dukakis, were trounced in their elections.
So it's time for the GOP to flush Kerry out on both his policies and ideology, which ultimately are inseparable. And this doesn't mean going negative, unless it is negative to expose a liberal's liberalism. That's an interesting thought.
Kerry has been riding the coattails of the antiBush, antiwar Democratic sentiment since he received the baton from Howard Dean, and he's been hiding his true self ever since. George Bush, for the most part, is just the opposite. We know where he stands.
Republicans should highlight this contrast. Ronald Reagan was a man of big ideas, and so is George Bush. Big ideas are not vague ideas, but quite the opposite. Kerry, at this point, has offered no big ideas, and certainly no clear ones. He has been nebulous at best.
We're not just talking about Kerry's flip-flopping here, though Kerry's certainly distinguished himself as a virtuoso of that art. We're saying that Kerry has been closed, uncertain, reluctant, tentative and irresolute. Flip-flopping is just a part of that.
Kerry is either hiding the ball about his true beliefs and policies for fear the public will reject them (and him), or he is truly wishy-washy. Based on his behavior the past few months, it's probably a bit of both.
Either way, this country can ill-afford a vacillating, unsure leader, particularly during time of war, and even less so one who is not comfortable enough in his own skin to be honest about where he stands.