Rich Eisenberg: GOP charges of 'flip-flopper' don't fit Kerry

Next Thursday, John Kerry will stand at his podium at the Democratic National Convention and declare his candidacy for the Presidency of the United States. As we all know, however, the race between Kerry and President Bush has been going on for months, with more than $100 million already spent on television advertising alone. Throughout the campaign and the Democratic primary season that preceded it, Kerry has put forth many important criticisms of the Bush White House. It is not necessary to repeat each of those criticisms here, but Kerry has railed against Bush's overbearing and counter-productive foreign policy, his backward domestic policy, and his total lack of interest in the environment. These critiques are strong, but they are often complex in nature; they do not boil down easily into 30 second advertisements.

Republicans have taken quite a different tact. In recent decades, Republicans have learned to synthesize criticisms of Democrats into short catchphrases and mantras. The most commonly seen example of this is Republicans' transformation of the term "liberal" into a dirty word, which they now hurl at every Democrat they face, regardless of their ideology. Unfortunately for the Republicans, this tact has not worked on a national level since 1988, the last time that Americans intentionally elected a Republican President.

So if calling Kerry a "liberal" was not going to be enough, Republicans needed something else to throw at Kerry. Their answer? Kerry "flip-flops."

It is all over the place. It is in The Washington Times, in the Bush campaign's advertisements, in Republican appearances on Hardball and Crossfire, and even in Bush's and Cheney's stump speeches. One can hardly hear a Republican speak these days without getting a taste of the "flip-flop" spin. The implication here is that Kerry chooses his positions out of political expediency rather than out of a desire to act in the best interests of his constituents, that he cannot make up his mind and act to do what he believes is right.

Of course, there is a certain truth to the notion Bush has in many ways proven himself to be quite decisive as President. Bush was decisive enough to commit his nation to a conflict in Iraq without worrying about things like the truth and the reconstruction, and he was strong-willed enough to bully our allies in the process. He was stubborn enough to see circumstances in Iraq his way and only his way, and he has acted in the same manner throughout virtually every area of policy. Decisiveness is not a positive trait when the decisions are wrong.

Bush's claim that Kerry chooses his policies based on political expedience is extremely hypocritical, as a look at the issue of gay rights makes clear. Bush has pushed for an amendment banning gay marriage, hoping to score political points with a wedge issue. Kerry, on the other hand, was the only senator up for re-election to vote against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act for its anti-gay position. Even though the bill was overwhelmingly popular and was clearly headed for passage, Kerry voted against it because he believed it was wrong.

John Kerry might not have the simplistic vision of Bush, but there is little to suggest he is the indecisive flip-flop artist Republicans suggest. Sure, Kerry has made some confusing statements, but does Bush really want to make this race a competition over who has made the most incomprehensible remarks?

Let us look at a key issue that Bush and Cheney have presented as an example of Kerry's "flip-flops." Kerry voted to give Bush the authority to go to war with Iraq, yet he voted against the $87 billion that Bush requested for Iraq's recovery. The Bush campaign has portrayed this vote as a "flip-flop" -- how can Kerry be for the war and against funding the recovery?

In reality, Kerry voted to give the President the authority that he would want as President; surely, Kerry would not have invaded Iraq, but he gave the President the authority without imagining that he would abuse it as he has. Kerry later voted against the $87 billion because he refused to vote for a bill that provided no accounting mechanism to ensure those funds would not simply go to Halliburton, no method of generating the funds without deepening the deficit, and no plan for resolving the conflict. Considering Bush's failures in handling Iraq, along with recent revelations about Halliburton's profiteering, these hardly seem like small things to have been concerned about.

Contrary to Republican attacks, John Kerry has an established record of decisive leadership. While serving in Vietnam as a swift boat officer, Kerry earned three Purple Heart awards, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star. One incident that Kerry refuses to speak about has recently been detailed by his crewmates. When his boat faced an ambush, Kerry defied protocol and ordered Del Sandusky, his second-in-command, to drive the boat directly toward the attackers on shore. In the words of his captain, "John sized up the situation and realized . . . that this was the only course of action -- you know, John was going to chase this guy down and kill him. 'Cause if he didn't, we were all dead." Kerry will not talk about how he killed a Vietcong soldier, but it was a decisive act that likely saved his men.

Kerry might not look like G.I. Joe or speak like John Wayne, but he is a proven leader who understands the value of life and acts to do what is right. Kerry has decades more foreign policy experience and understanding than the current president. Kerry is intelligent enough to take a complex situation for what it is, yet he knows how to act decisively. Bush and Cheney can cry "flip-flop" all they like. New leadership is on the horizon.

Rich Eisenberg is a senior PPE major from Cherry Hill, N.J., and president of the Penn Democrats.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.