Trying To Be All Things To All People

JFKerry is famous for trying to position himself on at least two sides of any issue, as he tries to create a new, electable, persona while knowing that his opponent will try to place his record before the electorate. What with almost twenty years in the Senate, the Lord knows that he has quite a detailed record, with speeches and votes on each and every important federal issue available in the Federal Register. His tactics are already clear. He will first attempt to stop the Republicans from revealing his record in the first place, by calling the Bush campaign "negative" and trying to kill the messenger, and impugning the message on the basis of the agenda of those who reveal it (as well as mentioning the unnamed foreign "leaders" who support him). Second, he will try to describe his positions as "nuanced," which means, in this case, he should be allowed to be on both sides of any issue because he is so darned smart.

For instance, JFK recently claimed to have voted for the Helms-Burton amendment, which placed sanctions on companies that did business with Cuba. The problem is, he voted against it. When he was asked about that, he showed the nuance in his position:

Asked Friday to explain the discrepancy, Kerry aides said the senator cast one of the 22 nays that day in 1996 because he disagreed with some of the final technical aspects. But, said spokesman David Wade, Kerry supported the legislation in its purer form -- and voted for it months earlier.

Now, we all know how bright JFKerry is. The more pertinent question is, are the Cuban/American voters just as bright as he is? Or maybe this nuance is something that only a genius could understand. An idiot like myself might ask, if he indeed voted against the legislation, why not just keep his mouth shut about it? He has mighty problems as he seeks the Cubano voters in Florida, considering his stance on the Elian Gonzalez case as well. As the same article goes on to say:

But there are also constant reminders that Kerry struggles with the complexities of Cuba. Asked in the Herald interview last year about sending Elian back to Cuba, Kerry was blunt: ``I didn't agree with that.''

But when he was asked to elaborate, Kerry acknowledged that he agreed the boy should have been with his father.

So what didn't he agree with?

''I didn't like the way they did it. I thought the process was butchered,'' he said.

And when he was asked last week during a town hall meeting in Broward County about immigration policies that allow Cuban migrants to remain if they reach land but do not give the same rights to Haitians and others who travel to Florida, he appeared to grasp for an answer.

First, he said all migrants have a right to make their case for asylum. Then, as if anticipating his weaknesses, Kerry turned the conversation back to the embargo, pledging that he would not support lifting sanctions.

''I haven't resolved what to do,'' he said, seeming to reflect on the full scope of Cuba concerns. ``I'm going to talk to a lot of people in Florida.''

That's nuance for you. He was for it, but he didn't like the way they did it, so he voted against it. Or take his 1995 vote against 1.5 billion dollars for intelligence spending, which the candidate believes is consistent with support for a strong national defense

Now you know exactly where he stands.