Hi Bob,
I'd agree with the last commentator that it would be a good idea to get ahold of a TV and watch one of the debates. If that's not possible, you could try to download some of his videos from the johnkerry.com website.
As far as John Kerry's style, I've heard some comments that he is "too serious" in person, but I've also heard the rebuttal "we need someone who is serious to be President." I agree with that rebuttal. I think that both Bush and Dean are guilty of a causual aire that is, at times, unbeffitting of a President. But enough of stylistic ccomments. What I really want to talk about is the issues. (Besides, I'm hopefully going to see Kerry in person tomorrow, so I'll be able to give a much better commentary on this subject later on.)
Before I discuss some of the positions of John Kerry that most resonate with me, I want to respond to your comment about him taking "whatever position appears to be the most politically appealing at the moment." I must admit that I too was a little concerned about this, especially after reading the New York Times's Sunday front-page article about Kerry and an op-ed column from Saturday. This is a quality that quickly turns be off to a politician, and was one of the characteristics about Clinton that I despised most. On further investigation into the issue, however, I found that Kerry is not so. In fact, many of the criticisms made held no weight. For instance, a criticism was made that first Kerry was pushing for decreasing the size of the intelligence apparatus, but then after September 11 we was critical that the intelligence agencies lacked sufficient resources. Later I heard Kerry address this issue directly. According to him, after the Cold War ended we made a strong push to decrease the technical intelligence (spy satellites, electronic surveillance, etc.) apparatus and place more emphasis on human-based intelligence. For me, this position is right on.
A larger point, however, must be made. The national security needs immediately following the Cold War have changed significantly from the national security needs of today. So extracting a stance on an issue such as intelligence from that era and pasting it hapharzardly in the 2004 campaign climate is sloppy at best. This practice, however, is done over and over again, and results in an unfair depiction of candidates. It is particularly harsh on long-time Senators and U.S. Representatives. The point that a sensible voter and critical thinker should take out of such shenanigans is that such candidates, John Kerry especially, have been there over the years, taking stances on national issues, serving on important committees such as the Senate Intelligence Committee and Foreign Relations committee--that is to say, gaining experience. Whereas other candidates, such as Gov. Dean, who can easily spout off that they were "against the war", were never in a position to take tough stances of national issues. They can easily fabricate a consistent stance because there lacking record of national public service is not in the public record. Worse over, Gov. Dean in particular has refused to make many of his records from Vermont transparent for the voters to decide themselves.
Lastly, I want to make the point that taking a vote here, a vote there, which campaign opposition is often guilty of, is a very dangerous and misleading way to judge a public servant's record. Senators and Representatives make literally thousands of votes each year, and often time two sequential votes on a particular bill may seem contrasting. Yet, when one looks more closely, they often find that these were simply two versions of a bill and the Congressperson was simply supporting one version over another. My point is, when you hear criticisms OR supporting arguments for candidates in the media, it is very important to use those critical thinking skills that I know you have and look deeper into the issues.
I want to quickly answer your other direct questions about Kerry. Regarding honor: Of course, without ever meeting someone in person, or knowing people who know him personally, it is often difficult to judge their honor. But working off the information I have, such as his service in Vietnam, his leadership after the war to STOP the war, and finally his long, dedicated effort to search for and close the chapter on POWs in Vietnam...I'd say he's pretty honorable. Also, his commitment to the environment, I find very honorable. He has talked very personally about the inspiration his mother gave him from an early age to protect the environment, and this is something he has certainly lived up to in his record across the board.
Regarding beating Bush: I've seen several polls that show Kerry is the candidate that best competes directly against Bush (in these polls they give different people a) or
choices between different democratic candidates and Bush). In one poll, Kerry got 49% and Bush 47% (probably within the margin of error). For the next best candidate (which I believe was Clark), the Bush was a few percentage points ahead. What is clear, is that even the best Democratic candidate will have a tough battle against. This is something I honestly do not understand. Bush's record, especially fiscally, is just SO bad, I don't understand how he gets more than a 30% or 40% approval rating. ...so I'm not going to make any predictions as far as whether anyone can actually beat Bush (after all, I was flabbergasted in the first place when Bush won in 2000), but I think it's becoming increasingly clear that Kerry has the best shot of any to do so.
Lastly, an issue that I think will be close to your heart, Bob: Check out Kerry's detailed plan for national service http://johnkerry.com/issues/natservice/. This may not be a hot-ticket issue, but for me, and I think for many young U.S. citizens, this is an important issue and Sen. Kerry, in my opinion, has a stellar plan.
