Kerry's Real Deal

John Kerry likes to parade around the country now promising to offer the American people a "Real Deal" to remedy the 'raw deal' the country has gotten from President Bush. Kerry started using this line sometime around December when his poll numbers were plummeting to near Dennis Kucinich levels. You know, around the same time that Sen. Kerry's campaign was suffering so much that he thought it would be wiser to mortgage his palatial townhouse on Beacon Hill rather than do the sensible thing and drop out of the race.

So what's the deal with this supposed real deal? Let's begin by quoting Sen. Kerry himself. First, on foreign policy and Iraq, Kerry uses the following line on a daily basis: "George Bush has run the most inept, reckless and ideologically driven foreign policy in the modern history of our nation." Sounds fair enough and many of my liberal friends would likely agree with this statement. But Sen. Kerry voted for the resolution giving Pres. Bush a blank check to invade Iraq. First he voted for it, now he bashes it. That's called political expediency. Ok, so that's only one issue, let's move on.

Let's try education. Kerry bashes Bush for ushering through the now infamous No Child Left Behind Act. Well, again, Sen. Kerry voted for No Child Left Behind. Let's try civil liberties and the Patriot Act. Kerry absolutely loves to throw about John Ashcroft's name and proclaim that one of his greatest achievements as President would be naming anyone other than Ashcroft as Attorney General. But Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, the blank check that has empowered Ashcroft.

Let's recap: Kerry voted for the War in Iraq, No Child Left Behind, and the Patriot Act. Now he rails against all threes as staples of his campaign stump speech. And that's supposed to be a 'real deal'? These are just three issues on which Kerry has pulled political 180s on in just the last two years. He's been in the Senate for twenty years now and there are plenty more flip-flops to be found (another of my personal favorites is his vote against using force during the First Gulf War in 1990/1991 - this from the same Sen. Kerry who voted for war in 2002/2003 and who is championed by many as being a strong defender of the environment...maybe no one at the time let him know that Saddam Hussein was torching oil fields and spilling millions of gallons of oil into the Persian Gulf).

Yet, issues aside, now many of my friends proclaim that they like Sen. Kerry for no other reason than that they think he can beat George Bush. And according to exit polls in New Hampshire and in the seven states that voted on February 3rd, this was an overwhelming reason why voters chose Kerry. Now why did they think that Kerry was electable?

Many on February 3rd specifically cited a CNN poll that showed Kerry beating Bush in a head-to-head match-up. What CNN failed to mention about that poll was that it also showed Sen. Edwards beating Bush. Gen. Clark was only losing by 1 point to Bush and Dean wasn't much further behind.

Why might Kerry have been at the top of the heap, if only by a few points? Surely it had nothing to do with CNN talking about no one but Kerry in the wake of the Iowa caucuses. Sen. Kerry on January 19th, the day that he won Iowa, received the coveted endorsement of CNN. It's the same endorsement that Gov. Dean carried last fall to the top of the polls.

In Iowa, Kerry's victory was a surprise. That is true. But why did it happen? Most agree that Kerry floated to the top as the two frontrunners, Gephardt and Dean, bloodied each other up with harsh attacks. Iowan voters have an historic love for positive campaigners and turned to Sen. Kerry and Sen. Edwards over the increasingly vicious Gephardt and Dean.

Kerry literally won Iowa because of the choice of some 6,000-10,000 Iowans. And as a result of those few Iowans, CNN crowned Kerry the champion. Giving him positive coverage for the ensuing week leading up to New Hampshire, Kerry walked away with another win. The momentum had begun and CNN carried Kerry into winning five of the seven states on February 3rd. All the while CNN and the rest of the media did nothing to question the legitimacy of Kerry's new found momentum. Kerry was still offering voters the same pathetic 'real deal' that he had been offering (and, if poll numbers and fundraising are any indication, they rejecting) since late last fall. The only thing that had changed was that a few thousand Iowans were turned off by the negativity of Dean and Gephardt. As a result, Kerry has become the odds-on favorite to win the Democratic nomination. Since then, the media coverage he has received has been akin to that which one might expect a Pope to receive. Any politician could build momentum with the kind of coverage Kerry's received over the past three weeks.

So, my fellow Democrats, no offense to Iowans, but do you really want the choice of a few Iowans to matter more than your own? Barely ten percent of delegates for the Democratic nomination have been awarded so far. There are still 90 percent to go. If only Kerry's endorsement from CNN weren't so pervasive, maybe Democrats would realize there is still a choice to be made and that Kerry isn't the real deal after all.

The Real Deal with Kerry is that he's yesterday's news. The Real Deal with Kerry is that he's part of the establishment, and part of the problem, in Washington. The Real Deal with Kerry is that he's known quite justly by many as being Mr. Political Expediency. The Real Deal with Kerry is that a few Iowans looked to him as the last man standing when Dean and Gephardt went down in flames. The Real Deal is that with Sen. Kerry our country will get something that we're used to: politics as usual. If that's what you want, then please vote for Sen. Kerry. If you want a career politician who doesn't know how to pick a fight, who doesn't know how to take a strong stand on issues, who changes his positions with the same frequency that many in Hollywood marry and divorce, then Sen. Kerry is your candidate.

If you want a New Deal for America though, please cast your vote elsewhere. Anywhere else. With any luck, my fellow Democrats will reject CNN and Sen. Kerry and vote for an honest, straight-talking American when it comes time to vote in their state's primary. When that time comes, my recommendation is ABK (Anyone But Kerry): Clark, Dean, Edwards, Kucinich, or Sharpton. Take your pick. Any of the five would be an improvement over our current 'frontrunner'. And if you still support Kerry, do remember to send your 'thank you' notes to CNN and the state of Iowa.

Adam Schultz is a senior majoring in Political Science.