What is Kerry's strong position on the issues?

A lot of thought goes into deciding what candidate to vote for in an election year. Questions that one frequently asks oneself while deliberating over candidates include: "Do I agree with the candidate's views on various issues?" "How has the candidate presented himself in the months prior to the election?" "Has the candidate clearly outlined his plan on why he should be elected?"

Usually when there are only two months left until the presidential election, the candidates have made their views quite clear on all issues that would affect their possible election - why, then, has John Kerry taken no hardcore stance on many pressing issues?

This week's Time Magazine includes an interview with John Kerry by Karen Tumulty. Kerry spoke eloquently, but when pressed on the issues that he seems to continue to dodge, he gave some pretty ponderous responses. What was especially surprising was his answer to the question about which most of us find ourselves wondering: what, exactly, is his stance on Iraq, and how does it differ from President Bush's stance?

The contrast between Bush's stance on the issue and Kerry's, according to Kerry, "could not be clearer." If it is so "clear," why is it that most Democrats can't even point out a true difference between the two men's positions on Iraq? Wouldn't Kerry have a stronger credibility if we could actually pinpoint his stance on this issue?

"They spent a lot of money trying to confuse people, but I have been consistent." Kerry said. Kerry sure has been consistent - in not telling us his position, that is. "I would not have taken the country into war the way he did. I would not have put young Americans in harm's way without a plan to win the peace." Really? Is that why Kerry approved of the invasion of Iraq while in Congress? I realize he now believes that the war was fought on false pretenses, but the point still stands: if Kerry would have been in office at the time that Bush declared war, he would have made the same decision on Iraq.

In one point in the interview, Tumulty, alluding to her previous question about how Kerry would build lost alliances, asks him who would be the first person he would call should he win the presidency.

Kerry answers by saying that while he doesn't know who he would call, he does have "20 years of experience on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee," along with "personal relationships with leaders around the world." He also goes as far to say that he knows "how to reach out to countries and leaders and build bipartisan-support structures necessary to strengthen the country."

What about the troops? Will Kerry try to bring them home faster? "I have said that I have a goal to be able to bring our troops out of there within my first term," Kerry said, "and I hope to be able to bring out some troops within the first year." I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound very promising. He goes on to take some cheap shots at President Bush, who he believes "diverted the focus from Afghanistan." Kerry, of all people, should be able to tell why Iraq was deemed a threat in the "War on Terrorism," but alas, he does not.

Hopefully in the few months before the election, Kerry will solidify his stance on these issues and be a little more specific on what he actually plans to do. If he really wants to gain more votes, especially those of people who may be indecisive until Nov. 2, he really needs to start specifying his positions. It's pretty sad when Democrats themselves admit that their candidate has no distinguishable difference in his stance from the opponent he is trying to oust from office, especially on something as paramount as war and what he plans to do about it.

Gerry Wachovsky is a journalism major at CSULB. He is also the Diversions editor for the Online Forty-Niner.