Senator Splunge and his sidekick, Kruggy

I would love to let the John Kerry “regime change” comment pass, believe me. I don’t want to talk about Kerry all day. But the maddening thing is that, far from showing any kind of real remorse for his statement, Kerry’s wearing the backlash as a badge of honor. Today the Boston Globe noted that Kerry’s campaign has sent out fundraising letters noting that the Senator “took on Tom DeLay and Rush Limbaugh”. Of course, Kerry was criticized by many Republicans for his intemperate remarks, but he highlights DeLay and Limbaugh solely because they did not serve in the military. Thus, it gives Kerry the perfect opening to remind everybody (once again) that he served in Vietnam. Furthermore, in Kerry’s playground logic, this means that he’s rubber and his critics are glue.

This theory of patriotic immunity from criticism was churlishly driven home today by the New York Times’ one-man bias-machine Paul Krugman. In his column, Kruggy somehow ties together Kerry’s military service with the need to raise taxes. But first he gushes, in a statement that could have been prepared in Boston, “Mr. Kerry, a decorated veteran, has met that test [of sacrifice]. Most of his critics haven’t.”

Let’s review for a second. In a speech to a partisan crowd, John Kerry said “What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States.” The point of criticism here – gentlemen pay attention – is the statement of moral equivalency between Saddam Hussein and our country’s President. It is inappropriate at best, and acidly malicious at worst. For someone aspiring to the Presidential office, it’s a striking insult to compare our constitutional republic to a brutal Mideast dictatorship.

Imagine for a moment that John Kerry said something like: “I’d like to replace the current resident of the White House the same as our brave troops are trying to replace Saddam Hussein.” This statement is nearly synonymous with his original statement – is this too far? How about if the Senator said: “We should drop a bomb on George Bush just like we did to Saddam Hussein” - how about now? Has this stepped over the line from loyal opposition to treasonous malignancy? Would Paul Krugman rush to the parapets to defend the Senator from those who would criticize his remarks?

The point here is that, yes, you can say whatever you want in America. But you also have to bear the consequences when taken to task (see: Dixie Chicks). If Kerry had retracted or modified his remark, it would have been long forgotten by now (especially in light of more newsworthy events). But instead he tried a rhetorical ju-jitsu move by wrapping himself in his Vietnam war flag and turning the patriotism question back on his attackers. If John Kerry had the courage of his convictions, he would explain what he meant by the “regime change” remark. If he was a true leader, he wouldn’t retreat into his own self-styled cocoon every time a civilian dared to question his positions. Kerry’s statement may not have been unpatriotic, but it certainly was un-Presidential.