I disagree with what I want you to say

Fellow members of an e-mail list I belong to have been sending out various and sundry anti-Kerry articles, even though the purpose of the list has nothing to do with the presidential campaign. After objecting to this abuse of the list a few times, I resigned myself to responding to the messages instead.

Now, let me be clear that I have misgivings about Kerry. I am on the fiscally conservative side when it comes to the role of government, and I'm a libertarian when it comes to individual freedom. I don't think Kerry's position on foreign policy is all that coherent, and I am nervous about the way he might handle Israel. I'd vote for a Democrat more often than a Republican, but McCain would get my endorsement over all the Democratic primary candidates, with the exception of Edwards.

But the debate seems to be based on the premise that if you can fault Kerry for anything at all, you better vote for Bush. And the standard doesn't apply the other way.

So this online debate quickly got down to the phrase "global test."

And the most remarkable series of exchanges was this:

Someone posted:

excerpt from February 18, 1970 in the Harvard Crimson ." Kerry said that the United Nations should have control over most of our foreign military operations. "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

to which I wrote:

You’re holding Kerry responsible for something he said in 1970?! That’s 34 years ago! You have to go that far back?

You must be getting desperate!

The UN was a different place, the Vietnam war was going badly, and Kerry was a much younger man! I can only imagine that we could find some pretty crazy things Bush said in 1970 (like, well, I won’t go there). It’s so unreasonable I can’t even believe I’m arguing against it.

and the response was:

I'm showing you that Kerry believed in going to the UN (for permission) then and still believes that today. HE HASN'T CHANGED! That is why I'm going back to 1970. This is crucial in understanding the difference between how Kerry views things, and Bush. It is vital to see how Kerry regarded the UN and his views on global relations (in his own words) because they have not changed. I'm not talking about some silly thing he may have said in 1970. I'm illustrating to you that he hasn't changed regarding a very serious matter, and a major difference between how Kerry views the U N and how Bush would approach issues that arise. Saadam Hussein already understands the differences.

to which I wrote:

What basis do you have for believing that Kerry would go to the UN for permission today? None! He’s emphatically stated the opposite again and again.

This is becoming a farce, in which the Bush campaign is replaying what they would have liked Kerry to say, not what he actually said.

I’m not surprised by that and wouldn’t put it past the Democrats to do the same. What surprises me is that people actually eat it up, hook, line and sinker. It’s as if Republicans simply can’t stand to abandon their stereotype of liberals. It doesn’t matter if you’re Joe Lieberman, Dick Gephardt, John Edwards – to Republicans, you’re all Michael Moore.

It absolutely astonishes me that people who consider themselves smart, thoughtful, honest people will go along with this kind of logic:

- In 1970 John Kerry said [X]
- Ever since then, he’s consistently said [not X]
- Therefore, we will believe that he still means [X]

How can you have it both ways? How can you accuse Kerry of abandoning his opinions when it’s politically convenient, and then stubbornly holding on to opinions for 34 years? Wait, wait, I know. Kerry is lying! His agenda is to put the US under a world government led by Kofi Annan and let France take over our foreign policy once we’ve sold Israel down the river. Because that would secure his re-election in 2008. If this is the best you guys can do, people would be crazy not to vote for Kerry.

To which it got explained to me:

in 1970 Kerry said (x) correct in 2004 Kerry still said (x) "global test" Therefore, we believe that he still means (X)

And my retort was:

No, the logic you’re proposing is this: - In 1970, Kerry said [X] - In 1994, Kerry said [not X] - We will quote him out of context and assert that he said [X]

Read what he actually said.

further, to that, I was told:

I saw what he said, and I've heard what he says he said. The two are always different, which explains why so many people have difficulty understanding exactly where Kerry lies on any given issue. We can agree to disagree on Kerry. Nov. 2, I suppose will tell the story.

As it turns out, my opponent in this debate doesn't have to wonder about the difference between seeing was said and hearing was said (whatever that means). We have the transcript, and this is what Kerry said:

The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.

No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.

It's one thing to disagree with Kerry, or anyone for that matter. But it's something else entirely to disagree not with what the politician says, but with your interpretation of what he says. There's been a lot of this going on, and it's tempting to conclude that the Republicans simply can't come up with anything better. They'd rather engage in an imaginary debate than a real one.

I can't think of a more powerful endorsement for Kerry than that.