I wondered before the convention that, if Kerry is such a Leader, why was he never a Leader in the Senate. I know you can't find a lot of Kerry Bills or Kerry Amendments after 20 years in the upper chamber, although you can probably find a number of bills he scribbled his name on as a co-sponsor to someone else's initiative. But as a Leader, you'd think he might have worked with George Mitchell or Tom Daschle of Harry Reid in the Leadership.
But there are other ways to Lead in the Senate. Perhaps he was working behind the scenes to get things done, or to stop things from getting done. Think Patrick Leahy on judicial appointments or Jesse Helms on the Foreign Affairs committee. But then there's this disturbing recollection of Dick Morris (obviously not a Kerry guy, but he was there):
Oddly, his absence of biography confirms the impression I formed of him during my White House years: He's a back-bencher. I never can recall a single time that his name came up in any discussion of White House strategy on anything. He was the man who wasn't there. We were always figuring out how to deal with Ted Kennedy or Pat Moynihan or Tom Daschle or Phil Gramm, or Al D'Amato or Bob Dole or Jesse Helms or Orin Hatch or Joe Biden. But nobody every asked about John Kerry.A non-entity in the Senate, apparently, which explains why so little was said about his time in the Gang of 100 during the DNC.
If you are looking for real Leader who can get others to rally by his side -- a skill that would have been severely tested in the Senate, you have to wonder what it is about John Kerry that shows he's the Real Deal™, a Leader. If it's the 4 months on a Swift Boat, then the bar is mighty low. And then you'd better pay closer attention to all of those who served with him, and led him.
Then Mark Steyn explains how Kerry is good at something that has to do with Leadership. Following.
He talks about an America "strong" and "respected" and all the other poll-tested words, while the Democratic platform asserts that Republicans "do not understand that real leadership means standing by your principles and rallying others to join you".What Democrats truly want is not a Leader. A Leader challenges you to do something. To follow him where you might not, on your own, go. To reform the middle east and address the root causes of terrorism. No, they want someone who will sit back and do less. Someone who won't take controversial stands and force the public to make tough decisions about a dangerous world. Someone who leads by following.
Say what you like about Bush, but on Iraq he stood by his principles and rallied the British, Australians, Poles, Italians, etc, to join him. He also rallied Kerry and Edwards to join him. They voted for his war, as the columnist Debra Saunders of The San Francisco Chronical drolly pointed out: "Kerry and Edwards followed. Bush led."
Kerry now says that Bush "misled" him on Iraq. But, if he was that easily suckered by a renowned moron, how much more susceptible would he be to such wily operators as Chirac.
They have their man.
