Kerry Voters--An Endangered Species?

Who is John F. Kerry? Got me. War opponent? Macho soldier? Kerry's been both--and neither. I've previously said Kerry's inconsistencies will cost votes.

I have a more nuanced position today: Kerry's flip-flops are so frequent and familiar that they will repel voters on both sides of the issues. The most obvious example is Vietnam. In accepting his party's nomination, Kerry relied on and praised America's military and its veterans:

And in this journey, I am accompanied by an extraordinary band of brothers led by that American hero, a patriot named Max Cleland. Our band of brothers doesn't march together because of who we are as veterans, but because of what we learned as soldiers. We fought for this nation because we loved it and we came back with the deep belief that every day is extra. We may be a little older now, we may be a little grayer, but we still know how to fight for our country.

But Kerry was a well-known war protester, who tossed his medals (or someone's medals) and pointed to supposed war crimes. Clearly, Kerry's Vietnam war dissent quickly morphed into distrust of the military and those who served. Lucianne quotes Kerry from his out-of print but available on the net book "New Soldier" (MacMillan Publishing, Co, Fall, 1971):

We will not quickly join those who march on Veteran's Day waving small flags, calling to memory those thousands of lives who died for the 'greater glory of the United States. We will not accept the rhetoric. We will not readily join the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. We will demand relevancy such as other organizations have recently been able to provide. We will not uphold the traditions which decorously memorialize that which is base and grim.

True-blue lefty/pacifists won't be comfortable with Kerry's pro-military posture; Kerry's over-the-top loathing will repulse vets and pro-defense voters.

Vietnam's the hot button now, but expect future fireworks about Iraq. Kerry, of course, famously swerved to-and-fro, voting against the first gulf war, for invading Iraq, then opposing post-war funding. But the Senator raised the bar on indecision earlier this month in acknowledging he still would vote to invade Iraq even had he known we wouldn't find WMDs! Quite a concession--and fatal for Kerry, according to Adam Sparks in today's SF Gate:

That comment probably sealed the coffin for his presidential hopes, and the Lefties are squealing in contortions with this latest declaration. [S]o much of the leftist wing of the Democrat Party is made up of Deanie-weenies, who are both Saddam appeasers and unabashed peaceniks. This latest and startling revelation, that Kerry would also have pushed for a war of liberation in Iraq whether or not any WMDs were there, now means he should lose a good 10 percent of the vote -- those of the peace-at-any-price voters who have been turned off now that they realize there isn't a great deal of difference between the two major candidates. These people won't cross over and vote for Bush; they just won't go to the polls at all. Why bother? Kerry is now more gung-ho than Bush. He must have taken that Vietnam thing at the convention just a bit too seriously.

Something like 42 percent of likely voters believe "Bush=Hitler". They're never going to support the President. Instead, I've argued that re-election depends on persuading some to stay home November 2nd. Each no-show (or Nader fan) is half a vote for Bush.

Already Kerry's Iraq waffle prompted a blistering attack from ultra-lefty (and occasional NoKo apologist) Robert Scheer writing in The Nation. And at least one anonymous post on a San Diego "peace and social justice" board concurred: "Nader is the ONLY choice for progressives! Kerry is just Bush lite!"

It's a start.