Brooks gets it wrong, again

[rlev1223]

Conciliatory words, but wrong interpretation, at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/20/opinion/20BROO.html?th


My response email:

Far from being oblivious to the consequences of 9/11, Democrats across the political spectrum understand that the main consequence of the event is an unholy attempt by the cynical Right to use it as a scare tactic in pursuit of a whole range of wrong headed, immoral, and often unrelated policies.

The centrist Democrat you descibe may not long for a return to angry long-haired politics, but (along with a majority in our society) has internalized the successes of that movement -- feminism, environmentalism, personal privacy, economic democracy --
and can't stomach their dismantlng.

Perhaps Kerry and Edwards are more attractive candidates, for several reasons, but they earlier had been dismissed as appeasers; it was only when they began to read Dean's playbook and speak confrontationally about George Bush that their campaigns came to life.

Kerry's Vietnam war record is personal, not political -- he wound up opposing it publicly -- and speaks to his bravery and "character," two attributes so obviously missing in the current President. I think Iowa Democrats were finally considering who can best show Bush to be the empty suit he is, and Kerry is beginning to do that.