IF FOREIGN LEADERS BACK KERRY DOES THAT HELP HIM OR HURT HIM?

Well, here's an odd outgrowth of an eight month general election. Or, an odd outgrowth of John Kerry's campaign. John Kerry says he is in touch with foreign leaders who cannot say it publicly but who want him to defeat President Bush in November. Nice strategy: they can't say it out loud, so Kerry can't identify them, so we have no way of knowing who, exactly, felt it appropriate to weigh in on our national election.

But I am stunned by how utterly inappropriate this is. How is the Bush administration supposed to answer this -- how are we to evaluate this? Perhaps these are leaders with legitimate grips who wish to work more closely, in a more mulitlateral way with us. That's certainly the planned implication. And maybe they are leaders who have taken positions that flat contradict our own, suddenly found themselves dealing with a President who couldn't be rolled, and are now trying to flatter this guy. If Kerry loses, they're no worse off. If Kerry wins, they're in a much better negotiating position. They've flattered him, and left him with the impression that his ability to paint himself as the preferred candidate of our negotiating partners may even have helped get him elected.

Except how the hell do we even know we're talking about leaders we want a president getting along with, or getting along better with . . . or feeling even slightly beholden to? When did it become even slightly appropriate for foreign leaders to express an opinion on an American election? Why should we believe they aren't evaluating the outcome from within the perspective of their interests -- and without knowing who they are we of course have no way of determining how well their and our interests intersect.

And at what point did it become appropriate for a candidate for office to have contact with foreign leaders? Doesn't Kerry realize the damage that can do? If he leads any foreign leader to believe that he'd be more sympathetic to their arguments and interests -- which clearly he's done -- how isn't that a signal to those countries to hold off any dealings with this administration in the hopes it will soon be sent packing and they'll be able to do better? And if that's the case, then why isn't Kerry now interfering with American foreign policy in a way that could potentially benefit him (by reducing the level of success this administration can chalk up between now and the elections since at least some leaders will be stonewalling hoping for a better deal)? No doubt some of that kind of stonewalling is likely with other governments during any election season -- should Kerry be explicitly encouraging it?

Shouldn't he be roundly denounced for this by everyone, no matter who they're supporting in the election? Wouldn't Democrats want to pull him up short on the grounds that this could be made to make him look so bad that it could backfire?

How is this approriate behavior?

Comments

[Chris]

This is of a piece with the interview of a Kerry supporter that NPR played on "All things Considered" (or perhaps it was "The World") last Friday... In that piece, a cheerful female Kerry supporter explained that she was voting for Kerry because he wouldn't "be afraid" to "go back to the U.N. on his knees" to apologize and to say "we've made some mistakes."

Yes... the words "on his knees" were spoken in this interview.

I couldn't help but think... "Yep, you've got the right candidate, hon."

[Adam Maas]

Probably because one of these 'unnamed foreign leaders' is Kim il Jong.

The North Korean State Run Media has been massively playing up Kerry, which could only happen if Kim il Whacko was in favour of a Kerry Win.

[DD]

I took it as the reason he wouldn't name them because its Kim Jung Il, Castro, Arafat, the Iranians and Mugabe types that endorse him.
I hope he keeps digging this hole, because if pressed on it it will be one he can't dig himself out of.

[some random person]

How is the Bush administration supposed to answer this?

"My opponent says that foreign leaders have told him in secret that he must win the election, defeat me. But the secret is out. Both Iran and North Korea want Kerry to win the election."

[anon]

This could rightly be called a specific violation of US law. Much like a former Secretary of State traveling abroad and making statements in direct opposition to current US policy towards that country in a time of war. This is not merely the abrogation of state authority in such matters, as the legislation was crafted to restrain. It is a deliberate effort by an opposition party, currently out of power by any executive or parliamentary definition, to create and maintain an alternative foreign policy more palatable to their specific interests than those of the democratically elected government which they purport to still be a part of. And in so consorting with foreign interests, a mixed message is not only sent in the circles of international diplomacy, but among those searching for ways to blunt the instruments of US national power.

What interests me as much as the statements themselves is that given the level of campaign contributions via newly development internet mechanisms, these "foreign leaders" or others may find ways to bring illegal cash to bear in support of these expressed desires.

If this is not a matter that could be investigated from a criminal enforcement purpose, due to political considerations, it ought to be investigated for a *non-partisan* media purpose. I will not wager odds on the likelihood of such reporting, however.

[JK]

Kerry is explaining very clearly that he does not understand what the most important responsibility of a president is.

This should need no explanation, but the first responsibility of our president is to represent and protect our national interest, not the interest other countries believe they have in making us weaker and more compliant.

If Americans can't see through this then the country deserves to be thoroughly suckered as Kerry would have us be, but I'm hoping for something better.

[steve]

It's not hard to tell who's rooting for Kerry.

And, let's think about what it means that Kerry thinks it important that some number of foreign leaders want him to be elected. Is that supposed to impress us?

[Tim]

Yep. "Vote Kerry - A President for Those Who Hate America."

[Pat Curley]

We keep hearing what a smart guy he is, but this is one of the more fatheaded things he's said. Think about it; Republicans are free to respond, yeah, Kim Jong-Il, Gaddafi, Arafat and Assad are all rooting for Kerry, and what can he say? "Uh, I can't mention who I meant likes me, but his name rhymes with Iraq?"

[Richard Meixner]

It is also interesting to see the pattern that is developing, e.g. via Instapundit (2/9/04):

JOHN KERRY (well, John Kerry's office, anyway) is in the Tehran Times promising reconciliation.

http://www.tehrantimes.com/archives/Description.asp?Da=2/8/2004&Cat=2&Num=026

Hey, it's only a 'transnational' campaign...

[erp]

Well Haiti is in the market for a new president. Kerry would win in a landslide. The little misses would get her wish to be first lady and they could all speak French 24/7.

[Terrye]

Kerry is playing on the feelings of Americans who were shocked and hurt to see our flag in flames in the streets of Europe. I think it is a stupid move and can backfire on him, but a lot of Americans are still under the impression that the right president will make the world love us again. As if it ever did.

[HA]

This is a MAJOR gaffe. I think this will end up costing Kerry the election.

[jaed]

Not if no one here hears about it, it won't. It ain't exactly burning up the headlines, if Google News can be trusted. And if the mainstream media in this country think it will hurt Kerry, it will still be reported but it won't be highlighted - no headlines, no concerned editorials, no reporters at press conferences demanding Kerry explain this, no sound bites.

[Jeremy]

Fox News just interviewed a Kerry associate about this (on the Neil Cavuto show), and he was bragging about it.

[Jim C.]

I remember an interview with Joseph Califano, HEW secretary under Carter, who was also an advisor to LBJ. He claimed Nixon's people contacted the North Vietnamese and said, don't negotiate yet, wait till Nixon's elected and you'll get a better deal.

So Kerry goes one better and confers with the leaders himself. He has out-Nixoned Nixon!

[Zach]

Or this could backfire on Kerry in another way. Who is the most popular foriegn leader here in America today? And whodo you think he supports? One "George Bush and I Have Accomplished Great Things" speech by Blair and Kerry's snotty false superiority would be shot through. And all of the far-Left lovers of Arafat, Kim, the "democratically elected" Aristide and the other tyrants would still vote for Kerry and all of the moderates who admire Blair would see what he sees. Or as Roger Simon gives us a great example of, they don't need ot see it, they already know. Kerry's snnering grandstanding in the past few weeks has been pitiful. I'm ashamed he represents my state.

[Billy Hank]

Kerry appears to have done this before. As part of his VVAW activities, he went to the Paris peace talks in the 1970s and returned demanding that the U.S. immediately accept all the NV demands. Can't wait to see what he's cooked up with Kim Jong Il.

[ralph]

I think it should include "I don't know the truth of it, but it's out there." Something like "Yes, the supreme leader of North Korea supports Kerry. But, I don't know if it's true." "Kerry wrote his own commendations, but I don't know if it's true." yada yada.

[Dorian]

When leaders of other countries, particularly the ones complaining loudest, say they want to see another U.S. leader it’s a strong indicator were currently on the right path. Senator Kennedy doesn’t want to see Bush re-elected but I don’t see Kerry using this information to his advantage.

These “endorsements” are from those merely interested in seeing the creation of an impotent U.S. and Kerry will deliver.

[Pat Curley]

Hugh Hewitt was all over this story on my drive home. Turns out the comment is even dumber than it sounds at first blush. There is NO record that Kerry has met with ANY foreign leaders since the campaign began.

[arlo]

It's time to withdraw all troops from Europe. And they need to burn everything to the ground before they leave.

[Otto]

Three or four more statements like this and Kerry may be a wadded-up blob of toilet paper by the Dem Convention. Could the delegates recommit to another candidate if the new JFK was declared non compos mentis?

Hillary Rodman Clintoinette is gonna be the candidate -- one way or another.

The lefties have had the conspiracy theory market cornered for too long now. It's time to retake that Hill, boys...

[JosephMendiola]

Its SAVING FAILED LEFTISM-SOCIALISM, to include entrenched SOCIALISM in AMERICA and SOCIALIST AMERICA UNDER GLOBAL GOVERNMENT, by 2015-2020 [LeftNet]! I believe the reportedly coffer-controlling Clintons are NOT out to win a per se Democratic victory in 2004, but are out to achieve anti-GOP, anti-Rightist, anti-Capitalist, and anti-American MANDATE. I believe the Clintons are dedicated COMMUNISTS - they LOSE NOTHING in the 2004 elex either by working for a "NARROW" BUSH-GOP VICTORY, thereby seeminly "proving" that the GOP-Right and AMERICANISM does NOT possess any overwhelming or majority "MANDATE" OF NATIONAL GOVERNANCE; NOR by working to ensure a FAILED and NATIONALY CONTROVERSIAL/DESTRUCTIVE DEMOCRAT PRESIDENCY! While anti-American Radical Islamists and IslamoFascists, ie THEO-SOCIALISTS, may be TEMPORARILY USEFUL to secular Socialists, ala 9-11 and any future 9-11's, in the end will likely be purged or eliminated, ERGO THE CLINTONS AND FAILED LEFT STILL NEED BUSH AND THE GOP TO INDIRECTLY AND ALTERIORILY "FINISH" AMERICA'S WOT FOR THEM AGAINST "USEFUL IDIOT" RADICAL ISLAM! If Keery is in support of the Clintons's strategic aim of forcing [Communist-controlled/managed]SOCIALISM, ie GLOBALISM, and OWG upon free-capitalist America as we know it, then it is very likely Kerry will select HOWARD DEAN as his VPOTUS running mate! IFF Bush and the GOP-Right are negatively belabeled FASCISTS and RADICAL EXTREMISTS, then for anti-AMerican Socialism and OWG any POTUS KERRY is just another controversial, deficit-and regression-prone, FAILED DEMOCRAT LIBERAL, whereas Centrist and POTUS-wannabe DEAN [2006/2008, aka "Crazy" or "Madman" DEAN, will be LeftMedia-portrayed as TOO HYPERACTIVE or TOO PSYCHOTIC TO BE TRUSTED WITH ANYTHING! THe GOP-Right as represented by the Left in current POTUS Bush failed because of alleged ideological ARROGANCE AND DESPOT-LIKE IMPERIALISM, whereas the Democrats and Liberals will fail for being WELL-MEANING BUT TOO WEAK OR UNRELIABLE. Americans have to see the "big picture" here - on 9-11, our country, hyperpower and mega-power ascending free America, was given TWO CHOICES, SUBMIT TO FAILED SOCIALISM AND INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONTROL-GOVERNANCE, OR BE DESTROYED! IT does NOT MATTER to the Failed Left if [Bush-led] America is ISOLATIONIST, NEUTRAL, or EXPANSIONIST-IMPERIALIST - America will be violently or militarily attacked, AS NECESSARY, TO CAUSE OR OTHERWISE INDUCE IT TO ACCEPT REGULATORY/COMMAND SOCIALISM AND EXPAND THE US ONLY-FUNDED GLOBAL WELFARE-POLICE STATE! ONLY the FAILED LEFT has, as a matter of ideology and governance, EVERYTHING TO GAIN, andOR EVERYTHING TO LOSE, BY SUCCESS OR FAILURE TO CONTROL AMERICA BOTH INTERNALLY AND EXTERNALLY! "GREAT POWER/STATE" AMBITION IS NO LONGER TO BE ACHIEVED BY INDIVIDUAL, INTER-STATE COMPETITION, BUT BY GLOBAL GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION AND APPROPRIATION! Take away FASCISM's ethnic-specific hatreds, militarized statehood-governance, or hyper-nationalisms/hyper-patriotisms - what one gets is merely DE-REGULATED COMMUNISM/CENTRALISM, COMPETITIVE COMMUNISM/CENTRALISM, aka STRONG FEDERALISM, aka COMMAND FEDERALISM-CAPITALISM! As the Failed Left is now prepared to use force and violence to force Socialism and OWG upon free America, Americans should NOT be surprised that conspiracy, collusion, malice, assassination, limited or "restrained" regional warfare, election fraud,...... etc. DARK METHODS are now their method of choice and power-mad desperation!
DO NOT DOUBT -THE COMMUNIST CLINTONS ARE HERE TO KILL OR DESTROY AMERICA, BY SAVING IT!

[Tom]

"Foreign leaders"? Ah, yes, let's look at the various "foreign leaders" who want Kerry in office.

Kim Jung Il

Yassar Arafraud

Hezbullah

The Iranian Mullahs (who Kerry actually wrote to promise he'd kiss their asses).

That he is proud to garner their support says very clearly that Mr. Kerry is now and has always been a traitor.