by arthur Weinreb, associate Editor,
September 1, 2004
Columnist Linda McQuaig wrote an opinion piece in The Toronto Star last weekend entitled, "Bush, not Kerry, should face scrutiny". In it she finds it "downright strange" that the upcoming american election is focusing on John Kerry’s war record and not more substantive issues. McQuaig goes on to say that if military service in the 30 year old Vietnam war is really what the election should hinge on, "it’s truly astonishing that the candidate in the hot seat is the one who actually went to Vietnam and was injured in the line of duty, rather than the one who used family connections to do his service at home and then didn’t bother to show up for duty." She does have a point.
McQuaig then goes on to blame the media. "With astonishing passivity", writes McQuaig, "the media have allowed the Republican-driven focus on Kerry’s war record to become the central issue in the campaign in the last few weeks".
"Downright strange", "amazing", "astonishing" — it would be if it really happened the way that Linda McQuaig thinks that it did. But it didn’t. The focus of the campaign being on John Kerry’s four and one-half months service in Vietnam was not the result of a Republican-orchestrated plot, made in conjunction with their right wing cohorts in the media. The one who is responsible for John Kerry’s war record being such a big factor in the campaign, is John Kerry.
There is no doubt that the military service, or lack thereof, of the two candidates would have been an issue in the campaign, just as Bill Clinton’s avoiding the draft was an issue in 1992. But like Clinton’s, it would not have become a defining issue on its own. John Kerry was responsible for making it a central part of his campaign. a guy who served in the United States senate for 18 years decided to focus, not on his voting record, but on his war record. He would rather talk about his purple hearts than talk about his 18 years of voting in the United States Senate. Kerry’s the one, not the Republicans, who sailed into Boston standing beside those that had served in the military with him more than 35 years ago. Kerry’s the one that opened his speech at the Democratic National Convention by saluting and saying that he was "reporting for duty".
The reality is that John Kerry doesn’t want to talk about his record in the United States Senate--a record that has far left liberal Ted Kennedy being jokingly referred to as the conservative senator from Massachusetts. Kerry doesn’t want to talk about Iraq where his position is almost identical to that held by President Bush. Kerry doesn’t want to have to explain why he voted for the Iraqi war, but against providing funds for the troops and an entire history of inconsistent and liberal voting.
There may be good reasons why americans should vote for John Kerry. It’s hard to tell because if there are, Kerry never mentions them. Kerry is campaigning on his strengths, those being that his name is not George W. Bush.
The media have been passive, but not for the reasons that McQuaig gave. Their passivity stems not from a desire to help the Republicans defeat Kerry, but from not wanting to bring up those issues that John Kerry is trying hard to avoid.