Reply #20: Sheesh back at you [View All]

Gore is intelligent, articulate, has a long history of advocating and working for environmental causes, and yet, he was in a weak position when confronted with the discrepancy between his strong personal views on the real danger of global warming and his rather more tepid policy positions.

Once again, the issue becomes transformed into one of political honesty, of having the courage of one's convictions. Because, debating opponents argue, it's all well and good to say you support a cause so long as it doesn't cost you anyting. The real question is, How will you decide when your views are put to the test? And you do know that was an issue among both Greens on Gore's left and swing voters toward his right.

I also believe you implied the same sort of argument with your swipe at Dean. A few windmills, a few barrels of nuclear waste. Hmmm. You don't think there might be a connection there, do you? I do. I most definitely do. And one consequence of that kind of argument is that both candidates come out looking besmirched. Both make compromises, understable given their constituencies, perhaps, but certainly neither of them is ideal. And I am less convinced that a President Kerry would be better than a President Dean on the environment and energy policy. How much less convinced? Enough to give him a thorough listening, enough to want to know how *he* answers such criticisms.

The evidence of this issue working towards that style of negative portrayal is already out there, in the wild so to speak, where your forensic champ can't do much to stop it, other than take political action. Even here at good old DU. In a debate between Funk and CWebster, Funk rebutted a long list of points on which CWebster contended that Kerry had shown political cowardice. It was an admirable rebuttal, as far those things go, but on this one point Funk was at a loss. Uh oh. Suddenly those counter arguments don't seem so sure.

Therefore I reassert that this an important issue, that it's a key issue for Kerry, that resolving it would strengthen his position to go on the offensive against the Bush record, that resolving it would blunt a certain kind of personal attack, an attack that will surface in the debates not in explicit form, but as a subtext that will frame certain questions and, within the campaign as a whole, color public perceptions, and that such coloring is already occuring.

Now, on to my meta point. It's quite simple. Given the political risks of remaining mum here, wouldn't the wise course of action be to risk saying something? Not much. Just a little something.

And, well, right now Kerry is rather struck dumb, isn't he? I'm not sure what to conclude, but if that's the last word from Kerry color me underwhelmed.