A "swift" pass through Roanoke

Sometimes the devil is, indeed, in the details. North Carolina's senator and Democrat vice presidential candidate John Edwards stopped briefly in Roanoke over the weekend -- perhaps because Roanoke is the only place where he can meet someone else named Sen. John Edwards, who is even less impressive than he is. The Democrats’ handling of this event belies the contention that Edwards’ stop in Roanoke shows that Virginia is “in play” in the 2004 election.

According to press accounts, Edwards got a warm welcome from a large crowd at his one public event, a town-hall style speech. What is surprising is that Edwards’ event planners evidently believed that so much planning was necessary for the event to be a success. The rally was indoors, which is always suspect (especially in the summertime). One of the oldest axioms of political stagecraft is that you can always make the room look full, so long as you pick the right room. Outdoor rallies are less predictable.

Not only was the room stage-managed, but also the people in the room. To get tickets to the event, Roanokers had to go to the Democrat Party headquarters. A number of the attendees were bussed in, and The Roanoke Times described the crowd as “predominantly partisan” and the crowd’s questions as “friendly.” The general public, and undecided voters, were clearly not the primary intended audience for Edwards’ remarks.

Contrast this appearance with the visit to Roanoke by then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush in the summer of 1999. At the time, Bush was one of several contenders for the GOP nomination for president, and Virginia was an early primary state. When Bush came, he went to the downtown City Market, mid-morning, on a weekday, and drew about 750 people, considerably more than the attendance at Edwards’ event on Saturday. Bush did not greet a hand-picked, partisan crowd; he took his chances with the general public. What makes Bush’s appearance even more impressive is that he was, after all, running in a primary, and might have been expected to focus on committed Republicans. Instead, Gov. Bush, in August 1999, was already thinking of the general election.

Far from indicating that Virginia is in play, Edwards’ appearance to the party faithful in Roanoke is evidence that the Democrats are still shoring up their base. Sending the vice presidential candidate, who has been all but invisible since his nomination last month, to a safe location (one where he can’t do any harm), in front of a safe audience (where he didn’t have to deal with any surprises) is evidence that the Democratic Party is feeling some buyer’s remorse over their choice for VP.

Even more curious was that that Edwards came to Roanoke, his party said, to talk about “rural issues.” The latest census figures show Roanoke to be a city of almost 100,000 people. Only the liberal elitists from New York and Boston who are running the Democratic Party could possibly think of Roanoke as “rural.”

And perhaps most curious of all is that Edwards did not get his biggest applause when he spoke about “rural” issues, but when he waded into the “Swift Boat” controversy. His comments on this issue were in his prepared remarks, meaning that Edwards believes that substantial damage control is needed on this issue. (Recall that the speech was directed to committed Democrats.)

Edwards is right. Questions about Sen. John Kerry’s Vietnam record might have a significant negative impact on the Democrat ticket’s chances. Since he started running for president (30 years ago), Kerry’s primary claim to the Oval Office has been his Vietnam combat experience. He mentions this experience often, sometime four or five times in a single speech. But Kerry evidently believes that he, and only he, can bring up Vietnam. When his former colleagues bring it up, and raise questions about the legitimacy of his military awards, he demonstrates considerably less courage under fire than he did in Southeast Asia.

While Edwards was right about the seriousness of the Swift Boat issue, he was wrong in saying that “There’s one man who can put an end to this, and his name is George W. Bush.” The name in that sentence should have been John Kerry. Weeks into the controversy, Kerry still has not released all of his records from the U.S. Navy, nor the diary that he kept in Vietnam and that he later gave to a sympathetic biographer. Keeping the primary evidence hidden fuels speculation, and speculation keeps the controversy alive. If the truth is on Kerry’s side, why keep it under wraps? Unless, of course, because even with the controversy, Kerry would still rather talk about a war that ended 30 years ago than the one we’re in right now.

Nostalgia is not leadership, and it is not a qualification for president of the United States.