Third Party & Independents Archives

Slow News Day

In an amazing example of just how much this day is a ‘slow news day’, one of the top stories on Google News is that John Kerry has announced that he would not seek a presidential bid for 2008. Shocking! Not that he isn’t running, I think that was a no-brainer, but that anyone thought he would or cares that he isn’t.

John Kerry is, IMO, one of the largest political failures in American History. At a time when he was running against an unpopular president during an increasingly unpopular war, the Democratic Party in their wisdom offered up such a lame and barely warmed-over collection of political minor league candidates in 2004 that John Kerry, the king of them all, landed on top to represent the Democratic Party as their presidential candidate.

The victory should have been a slam dunk. What resulted was one of the worst run and inept campaigns in recent memory, including the campaign of Dukakis who was not in any way offered a winnable race to begin with. From coming across to the American people as more of a rich white republican than even the most stereotypical republican can claim to achieve, to looking like a deer caught in the headlights when presented with criticism of his time in Vietnam that he has been fighting against for thirty years as if they were new charges, there is little that one can point to in the campaign that could be seen as a positive or successful strategy. At no point did it ever look to me like he had any real ability to wage a national political campaign.

In fact, one prime example of this ineptitude comes from one of the reasons he was thinking about running in 2008. It turns out that he still has MILLIONS of dollars socked away from his 2004 campaign. Excuse me!? Wouldn't that money have been better spent in 2004 than 2008? Why would you walk away from that campaign thinking you had spent enough or done enough to win going into election night when everyone else was calling it a dead heat!?

Then, to add insult to injury, he proved recently when botching a joke that he just doesn't have what it takes to appear as a warm compassionate leader. Even after this remarkably bad event, not just that it occurred but his and his staff's inept handling of the whole thing, did anyone besides Kerry and his staff think he had a snowball's chance in hell of getting any support for a 2008 bid?

It turns out it was his own former supporters that finally convinced him not to run.

But Mr. Kerry faced severe obstacles in trying to capture his party’s nomination for a second time. For one thing, many of his supporters had made clear that they would not join him again should he try to run, with many blaming him for making mistakes in 2004 that cleared the way for Mr. Bush to win even as he was saddled with an unpopular war and a public that had turned largely against him.

The country deserved a better offering from the Democratic Party, a leader who could have gone against President Bush and done so in a way that would have put us on a more productive, less intrusive, path. Someone who had a vision and wanted to lead us to it, not just win the White House and do whatever it took to get there. Americans could smell which way Kerry's wind was blowing at it was one of personal goals not altruistic ones. That he will not be running is not only good news for the Democratic Party but America as a whole.

Thank you, Mr. Kerry; you've finally done something politically positive for this country.

Posted by Rhinehold at January 24, 2007 2:40 PM
Comments
Comment #204809

‘Someone who had a vision and wanted to lead us to it, not just win the White House and do whatever it took to get there.’

Those words are already coming out of the mouths of people involved in ‘08 campaigns.
Most recently, this morning when Hillary’s main man said they will do whatever it takes to WIN the White House.

The best person doesn’t always win - but America loves a winner.
The Parties actually have voters thinking they are part of a ‘team’.
It’s all a political word/mind game being played on us by people who claim to be devoting their lives to serve us.
After all, it takes much personal & financial sacrifice to be a political public servant.
They give up so much for us, and have to do whatever it takes to win for us.

Posted by: dawn at January 24, 2007 3:52 PM
Comment #204818
Dawn wrote: The Parties actually have voters thinking they are part of a “team”. It’s all a political word/mind game being played on us by people who claim to be devoting their lives to serve us.

Yes. They trick us into “thinking they are part of a team”.

Clever isn’t it. So clever, it should never be under-estimated.

It is a powerfully effective control mechanism.

Voters need to learn to recognize it.
But, it will be very difficult, because too many are all too fond of wallowing in it, and most likely, won’t stop until it becomes too painful.

Irresponsible politicians trick voters:

  • into wallowing in the circular, distracting, divisive, partisan warfare,

  • by pitting voters against each OTHER,

  • by distracting voters from the politicians’ own massive malfeasance and irresponsibility,

  • by tricking voters into rewarding politicians by repeatedly re-electing them,

  • by tricking voters into believing the nation’s problems are the fault of the OTHER party,

  • by always luring voters back to the same thing … the enemy is the OTHER party.

  • by tapping into the voters’ own laziness, by letting someone do their thinking for them, by tricking them into pulling the party-lever, rather than do their own research to find the real truth.

It is circular.
It is extremely effective.

It shields irresponsible incubment politicians from scrutiny.

And even when polls show most Americans think Congress is corrupt and irresponsible, they STILL re-elect them, because they are MORE afraid of the OTHER party winning seats, and STILL remain refuse to see that most (if not all) incumbent politicians in BOTH parties are irresponsible. There’s essentially really no difference.

It does not matter that most Americans of BOTH parties agree on many of the same solutions.
They still can not see that it isn’t the OTHER party that is the problem.
It is the irresponsible politicians and the voters of BOTH parties that they keep rewarding irresponsible politicians by repeatedly re-electing them.

Politicians know this, and love to fuel the partisan warfare.

It has a powerful grip on us, and we can’t seem to shake it. Not without education. In a voting nation, an educated electorate is paramount.

The only thing that will bring it to an end is when it finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 24, 2007 4:36 PM
Comment #204820

He is the biggest loser, in one sense: he got more votes for the presidency than any other candidate in U.S. History, besides the victor. I’ll tell you this, though: fewer of those people regret their vote for Kerry. They don’t have to look at what Bush has done in his second term, and know they let themselves get convinced to support him once more.

As for the criticisms of him from Vietnam, I’d tell you the reason why he was ill-prepared to deal with these charges was that you can’t prepare for outright slander blasted over the airwaves.

In the end, Bush is the biggest loser of the 2004 election. He squeaked by, after having approval ratings in the 90’s and 80’s after 9/11, with just a 2% victory in the popular vote, and once more winning by only one state’s electoral votes.

Everything that brought Bush popularity has become part of his downfall. His big tax cuts brought with them record deficits. The war that was supposed to define him as a war president, defined him instead as the second coming of LBJ. His spending did little to separate him from that Texas Democrat of another generation. He didn’t have the redeeming virtue of having passed historic civil rights legislation, though.

Bush said once that Bin Laden would be caught, dead or alive. Five years later, the promise hangs over him like a dark cloud. Bush said he would bring back decency and honesty to government, and instead has become a modern example of dishonesty, so bad that Watergate figure John Dean said he was worse than Nixon. Like Nixon, he bought his re-election at a dear cost.

Unfortunately, because Bush got re-elected, America got to lose with him, on many fronts. The time for new leadership is way overdue. I think it’s hardly appropriate at this point to dwell on what was the best second-place finish for a presidential challenger of all time. If you want a truly pathetic loss, try Mondale.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 24, 2007 4:39 PM
Comment #204823
As for the criticisms of him from Vietnam, I’d tell you the reason why he was ill-prepared to deal with these charges was that you can’t prepare for outright slander blasted over the airwaves.

If it were the first time these issues had been brought up to him before I would agree with you. But they weren’t. He’s had to answer these charges every 6 years since the 70s, there is no reason that an intelligent man would think they wouldn’t surface if he ran for president. This was NOT the first time Kerry had heard of John O’Neill.

Why was no effective strategy created to deal with the charges instead of trying repoint the finger to his opponent? Had he made a clear and effect public statement the day that the news of the first ad surfaced they would have had little to no effect. Instead he tried to turn it into a tool against Bush and it backfired on him.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 24, 2007 4:56 PM
Comment #204828

‘I’ll tell you this, though: fewer of those people regret their vote for Kerry.’

They might have if he had actually become President … something else we will never know.

The politicians, from either party, cannot solve the problems we have —- they would work themselves right out of a job!

‘As for the criticisms of him from Vietnam, I’d tell you the reason why he was ill-prepared to deal with these charges was that you can’t prepare for outright slander blasted over the airwaves.’

I seem to recall Kerry saying he would release all of his military records. He never did - as far as I understand.
Maybe, just maybe, the fact that he was so ill-prepared to deal with the charges could have something to do with the ‘charges’ having a bit of truth to them.
We will never know….

Posted by: dawn at January 24, 2007 5:07 PM
Comment #204830

The one issue that was actually present from the first was his opposition to the continuation of the Vietnam war when he got home, his famous (or infamous, depending on your perspective) speech in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I think with Iraq as troublesome as it was, he could paint that speech as a positive, and did in fact do so.

Everything else somehow came into question after 30 some odd years of little or no presentation of these so-called facts. Real world facts have a way of coming back to haunt you much quicker than all the myriad charges made by the Swiftvets. Fact is, some of these guys were even supporting Kerry in one of his latest campaigns.

What happens when all these “facts” come to light? Nearly every Kerry fact is stipulated by the record, supported by other eyewitnesses and evidence. Journalists investigating all this find the charges lacking substance for the most part, and the people making these claims generally unreliable as sources.

Rovian tactics like this have shown up in his other campaigns, including that against McCain, which had a vet up on stage openly questioning McCain’s commitment to the POWs and questioning his patriotism.

Isn’t it odd that all this material suddenly springs up about Kerry after Thirty years of silence? Isn’t it odd that these people get basic facts wrong, have their new testimony contradicted by old testimony and the citations on their own medals? Isn’t it odd that the person to line this all up was the same guy Nixon got to astroturf a pro-war veterans group to oppose Kerry three decades before, and that he co-writes the book Unfit for Command with a Freeper?

The real problem is, Kerry didn’t turn this around fast enough. He didn’t body slam these people hard enough or fast enough. Tell people lies for long enough, and they will believe them simply for their ubiquity, and the absence of a competing presently offered narrative.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 24, 2007 5:20 PM
Comment #204831

I think Kerry would have been great. You’re right Dawn, we’ll never know. We do know though that his ideas of using internation police forces to fight terrorism and working towards a political solution in Iraq were right. Hopefully our next president will pick up those ideas and run with them.

Posted by: Max at January 24, 2007 5:20 PM
Comment #204832

dawn-
He only kept back confidential medical records. They had citations for all his medals, a whole load of reports on him from his commanders, etc, etc. He produced many documents, Bush produced precious few, and each time insisted that those were all he had.

You have to be careful with Bush rhetoric, because it’s mainly calculated to imply a certain state of affairs, and as you and I both know, he’s not always honest about what they really are.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 24, 2007 5:25 PM
Comment #204836
The real problem is, Kerry didn’t turn this around fast enough. He didn’t body slam these people hard enough or fast enough.

This was my point. He knew he was going to get O’Neill coming after him, he has in every campaign he’s run. It should have been planned against and hit hard. Instead, he tried to point fingers and try to diffuse the situation hoping it would go away eventually as it had done in his campaigns before. But those were not national campaigns and the people in Mass were going to vote for him no matter. By not hitting it hard in the national campaign he gave the story legs and let people start to think that some of the charges were true…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 24, 2007 5:51 PM
Comment #204839

Stephen
If the charges of Kerry’s Vietnam record are slanderous why hasn’t he done something to stop them? Even a politician doesn’t have to tolerate slander. Doesn’t the fact that he hasn’t done anything to stop these charges gives them credibility? Like Rhinehold said, he’s had to answer these charges every 6 years sense the 70’s. Seems to me if they were slanderous that he would’ve taken some sort of action against those bringing them by now.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 24, 2007 6:07 PM
Comment #204842

If you want a truly pathetic loss, try Mondale.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 24, 2007 04:39 PM

Can’t argue with that.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 24, 2007 6:16 PM
Comment #204848

Rhinehold,

We’ll see here in Texas, if Bob Perry ends up in the same swiftboat as Tom Delay. Perhaps they can share a jail cell.

Posted by: gergle at January 24, 2007 6:33 PM
Comment #204849

Ron,
I think me and another guy in Minnesota voted for him.

Posted by: gergle at January 24, 2007 6:35 PM
Comment #204856

I think the most important thing written in this thread so far is what Dawn wrote:

The Parties actually have voters thinking they are part of a “team”.
It’s all a political word/mind game being played on us by people who claim to be devoting their lives to serve us.

Hopefully, more and more voters are catching on to that clever game.

Stephen Daugherty,
Yes, Bush is pathetic.
But Kerry is pathetic too.
We’ll never know who is more pathetic, but in retrospect, it would be hard to see how anyone could have been more pathetic than Bush, but if anyone could, it’s probably Kerry.

I’m sorry that I voted for Bush (once only in 2004).
My most sincere apologies to everyone.

I wish I had voted for Nader, instead.

The fact is, we had crappy choices, and it’s not just about the one office of President.
There was an entire irresponsible Congress that largely went along with the whole mess, and still hasn’t done anything about the nation’s most pressing problems, still festering as they continually go ignored.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 24, 2007 6:45 PM
Comment #204864

‘Isn’t it odd that all this material suddenly springs up about Kerry after Thirty years of silence?’

This happens to just about everyone who runs for office.
It’s a joke.
Obama smoked pot or did cocaine or something when he was a teen. Clinton didn’t inhale. Bush got a DUI.
So what!

d.a.n.,

What we have to be ‘sorry’ about is the way our government is run… ass kissing and bribary - both from each other and the lobbyists.
It really doesn’t matter who is in the oval office.

Posted by: dawn at January 24, 2007 7:36 PM
Comment #204869

What a total crock of an article. Is this what folks in the center column really consider vitally important to discuss right now? Kerry not running for president? Pathetic. The man was swiftboated and lost the last election, therefore, one would think that he’d have been shat on enough already. But no, some think they have to keep attacking any politician who was actually a soldier who fought in Vietnam, and who dares to speak out against Bush’s disastrous Iraq Quagmire. Kerry, Murtha, Hagel — all these men seem to be dirt beneath the feet of those who believe that war is still “winnable”.
Unbelieveably, I see some here are also still trying to debate whether Kerry would have been a better president than Bush. Well, of course he would have. In fact, anyone who isn’t quite as disconnected to reality, or as stupid and insane as King George could have done a better job. All of America should have known better in 2004 than to vote for that train-wreck again.

As for the title: Slow News Day? No, it wasn’t. Not at all.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted against Bush’s Iraq escalation.

Just before the vote, Senator Hagel told off all the Bush-worshipping fools who still seem to be hoping for some sort of a miracle victory.
(Scroll down a bit until you hit entry entitled: “Up To Here”)

We learned that those four Americans whose helicopter was shot down were also shot execution-style in the back of the head after they’d crashed.

To be continued…

Posted by: Adrienne at January 24, 2007 8:08 PM
Comment #204871

Adrienne,

Question?

If you are not interested in a topic, why don’t you just move one to another?
A simple “Not Interested” should suffice.

Hagle was way out of line … as far as I’m concerned he is dyslexic.

Posted by: dawn at January 24, 2007 8:33 PM
Comment #204877

Adrienne,

“Question?

If you are not interested in a topic, why don’t you just move one to another?”

Sorry Dawn, you can’t make me. Rhinehold claims it was a slow news day, hence his article’s title, but it wasn’t. It was just another excuse to pile on to Kerry again, and I think it’s pathetic.

“Hagle was way out of line … as far as I’m concerned he is dyslexic.”

I don’t think he cares what you think, Dawn. However, Hagel obviously cares a lot about what he thinks, and lot about the idea of sending more of our troops off to die in Iraq for no good reason, or he wouldn’t have stated it so strongly.
Just curious though, what does dyslexia have to do with what Hagel said to all those Senators?

Posted by: Adrienne at January 24, 2007 8:58 PM
Comment #204882

I told people they separated out the line-item veto to kill it by itself. Now if those Senate Republicans can stop trying to buy people off with tax breaks this country can’t afford, we’ll be alright.

Ron Brown-
Not these particular charges.

As I said, bringing up his Winter Soldier report in front of that senate committee was only to be expected. It’s the other stuff that only came after decades worth of opportune times to spring them on Kerry and wreck his career.

A few of these SwiftVets even supported him in his last campaign. That’s how unreliable these people are in their accusations, and in their sudden revelation of all this dirt.

It’s that which blindsided people, quite on purpose. I don’t blame him for not knowing how to react at first, but I do think he should have objected faster, and more toughly.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 24, 2007 9:22 PM
Comment #204890

‘Sorry Dawn, you can’t make me.’
I wasn’t trying to ‘make’ you do anything.

It’s never a slow news day while there is a war going on and illegals swarming over our border and so on and so on…
It doesn’t matter what someone writes about there is always someone who thinks something else was more important.
Sign on and contribute with your own articles.

‘I don’t think he cares what you think, Dawn.’

He probably doesn’t care what you think either - unless of course you agree with his every word and contribute to his campaign - and I would add that most all veteran politicians feel the same way.

He has it backwards.

We have to get in there and kick ass. This puttering around and walking on religious eggshells is why we are where we are.
-Yes. I know, we shouldn’t be there at all - stop dragging that up because it’s ‘old news’ -we are there- (and no I wasn’t totally behind going into Iraq) and I’ll stop talking about what a moron I think Kerry is.

Bush has to get it threw Malaki’s head that not one of those 3 groups over there is more important than the others.
Last chance for Bush - the least people can do is shut up (and stop grandstanding) for a couple weeks and see what happens - because the troops are going. Let them do their job.

What is YOUR solution for what happens if there is an immediate withdrawal? A nuke?

Posted by: dawn at January 24, 2007 10:18 PM
Comment #204894

dawn

Last chance for Bush - the least people can do is shut up (and stop grandstanding) for a couple weeks and see what happens - because the troops are going. Let them do their job.

Best suggestion I’ve seen yet.


What is YOUR solution for what happens if there is an immediate withdrawal? A nuke?

Sounds good to me. The libs sure couldn’t say the war was for oil after that.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 24, 2007 10:32 PM
Comment #204896

Stephen
The charges still persist. How come he aint doing anything to shut these guys up if they’re slanderous?
The fact that he hasn’t lends credibility to the charges. When I see him filing a slander suit against the folks that brought them then I’ll be willing to say there might not be anything to them.
Funny thing is though I have 2 Purple Hearts. It took me 3 years over there to get them. How did he manage 3 in 3 or 4 months? I’m sure I saw at least as much combat as Kerry did.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 24, 2007 10:41 PM
Comment #204901

Ron Brown-
There’s a higher standard of proof for slander required for people in public positions, and if made that lawsuit he still wouldn’t come out smelling like roses. People like you, no offense, would probably be screaming “censorship!”

As for his purple hearts? You know, unles there is some substantial proof, I do not see much honorable or good about questioning a person’s decorations. I was just flabbergasted that they would even go that far.

One example is the Silver Star. the SwiftVets derided it as the result of shooting a teenager in the back. Citation never mentions that, only mentions him turning and taking the fight to the enemy. Besides, would they criticize a soldier in Iraq for shooting a enemy running with an RPG in the back, or wait for him to turn the explosive weapon on somebody else? They criticize him for gussying up a medal with a V for valor, when obviously the damn things a typo. They say he wrote up a report on the event that got him the brass star based on the claim that his initials are on the report. Turns out the initials aren’t his.

I suppose Kerry could go after them, given all these serious factual errors; reckless disregard for the facts does qualify as actual malice. However, for most politicians, that’s sort of like running to mommy. Would you advise your candidate to make it look like he can’t fend for himself against the charges?

As for how Kerry could get them so fast, one aspect is that many missions for operation SEALORDS were basically meant to be flying the flag- going up and down the Mekong Delta to get shot at to prove that America could venture into those waters. Kerry’s best friend died that way. Kerry’s war was getting shot at to prove that the war was making progress, yet having to go back time and time again to prove that we owned the waterway.

You know, one of the guys who ran that particular operation also helps runs the SwiftVets. The group, among other things, still tries to argue the points that John O’Neill did, including that there never were incursions into Cambodia. There’s something sad about that. The history books proved Kerry right.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 24, 2007 11:07 PM
Comment #204905

So we all shut up for two weeks and let the idiot send more troops to Iraq. Then what. Do you really believe two weeks and poof a miracle happens and all is well? If so you need to head to DC cause the Bush administration has more room for people willing to fight the Bush war on reality. We are not quite in bad enough shape yet, Im sure we can endure more of the failed neocon ideology. How many times does the idiot have to fail before you wise up and see through him and his ilk?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 24, 2007 11:27 PM
Comment #204907

Dawn:
“I wasn’t trying to ‘make’ you do anything.”

If you are not interested in a topic, why don’t you just move one to another? A simple “Not Interested” should suffice.

Sounded very pushy to me.

“It’s never a slow news day while there is a war going on and illegals swarming over our border and so on and so on…”

Not according to Rhinehold…

“It doesn’t matter what someone writes about there is always someone who thinks something else was more important.”

The fact that Kerry ISN”T running for president was perhaps the least important story of the day.

“Sign on and contribute with your own articles.”

At this point, it’s amazing that I haven’t been permanently banned from the peanut gallery, let alone be accepted as an article writer.

re: Hagel
“He probably doesn’t care what you think either”

I think he already knows, and indeed agrees with what people like me have been thinking for the past four years.

“- unless of course you agree with his every word and contribute to his campaign”

He’s a Republican. I’m a Democrat. I don’t live in his state, therefore, I won’t be contributing money to his campaigns.

“- and I would add that most all veteran politicians feel the same way.”

Unless they get enough pressure in the form of their constituents writing and calling them on a daily basis over issues that are important to many people — even those who can’t spare the cash to grease their palms.

“He has it backwards.”

Hagel:

I don’t know how many United States senators believe we have a coherent strategy in Iraq. I don’t think we’ve ever had a coherent strategy. In fact, I would even challenge the administration today to show us the plan that the president talked about the other night. There is no plan. I happen to know Pentagon planners were on their way to the Central Com over the weekend. They haven’t even team B’ed this plan.

Personally, I think he nailed it perfectly.

“We have to get in there and kick ass.”

Kick whose ass, Dawn? Whose ass exactly do you want kicked?

“This puttering around and walking on religious eggshells is why we are where we are.”

Oh, so I guess we haven’t we killed enough Iraqi civilians over the past four years to suit you yet?

“-Yes. I know, we shouldn’t be there at all - stop dragging that up because it’s ‘old news’”

Those who have known this all along were, and sometimes still are, labeled traitors and terrorist sympathizers. Now, the fact that we were right is supposed to be “old news.” I see. Very convienient.

“-we are there-“

So because just because we’re there we should just keep digging that hole deeper? Face the facts: we failed to find what we went there to find (WMD’s), we failed to bring them what we said we were bringing (democracy, peace, security, stability) and now as a result, they’re having a civil war. There is no point in our staying while a civil war is going on, and when our troops have become the target of all the warring factions.

“(and no I wasn’t totally behind going into Iraq)”

I see. You were just partially behind it then?

“and I’ll stop talking about what a moron I think Kerry is.”

Yeah, since he is isn’t running, what would really be the point? Hey, maybe you could start talking about what a moron Bush is — after all, that’s what the majority of rest of the country knows.

“Bush has to get it threw Malaki’s head that not one of those 3 groups over there is more important than the others.”

You don’t read much about the war, do you Dawn? Maliki has very little power to do anything.

“Last chance for Bush”

Bush has used all his chances up. He’s failed at everything.

“- the least people can do is shut up”

NO.

“for a couple weeks and see what happens - because the troops are going. Let them do their job.”

A couple weeks so that more can die — because Bush doesn’t have a plan. I am so damn sick and disgusted by how casually some people can talk about this utterly disastrous, screwed up, illegal war and occupation — like our soldiers deaths hardly matter, as long as Bush gets another chance to not look like the total loser he is. Our troops have been doing one hell of a hard, awful job and getting killed for FOUR YEARS without a plan, and without a real commander in chief. We need to start getting them OUT. NOW. Not bring more of them into Iraq’s civil war.

“What is YOUR solution for what happens if there is an immediate withdrawal?”

There isn’t going to be an immediate withdraw. I agree with Murtha’s solution. I have since he first laid it out — and was called a coward for it.

“A nuke?”

NO. That would be madness.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 24, 2007 11:40 PM
Comment #204910
Even a politician doesn’t have to tolerate slander. Doesn’t the fact that he hasn’t done anything to stop these charges gives them credibility?

The charges were baseless and he didn’t want to constantly address them. He was in a tough spot running against an incumbent president during a time of war who had no problem using goon tactics against his opponents. Kerry tried to run an upstanding campaign. I respect him for it, and he came very close to winning in, again, a tough situation. If he won, it would have been historically unprecedented.

Anyway, people hate him now for losing. There’s no doubt in my mind he would have been better than Bush.

Posted by: Max at January 25, 2007 1:09 AM
Comment #204913

OK Max, I’ll bite why would he have been “better” than Bush?

Surely, in defeat and now with a Democratic House & Senate, someone of Kerry’s ability would be able to pursue his agenda. To pursue his ideas for fixing our issues in Iraq. Without any barriers in his “day job” and with the fact that he barely lost the election he could push through the ideas that will remove us from the Iraq problem we now face.

Hypotheticals are not typical of this blog. Kerry is pulling out because it is a market economy in politics for President. He no longer has the market.

The real measure of the man would be his ability to become a unifying force in the Senate that reaches accross the aisle. Why not take that tactic? Why not say that “I’m not running for President, and I am going to be focused on bipartisiam efforts. My belief that our future as a country lies on pulling together not fracturing apart.

BTW, aren’t there really two plans/options for Iraq. Pull out, or stay the course?

BTW, what sitting President … in the next eight years … would strategically diminish our presence in the middleast? In the worst case scenaro we will redeploy and move to the borders, however, we’ll be in that region as a military for a long time.

Posted by: Honest at January 25, 2007 1:21 AM
Comment #204914

I’d add the following to this slow news day:

Iran receives Russian defense missiles
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070125/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_russia_weapons

US, Rep Of Georgia Sting Operation Led To Seizure Of Uranium
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20070124%5cACQDJON200701241929DOWJONESDJONLINE001227.htm&

Hmmmm, wasn’t it Bush that said he looked into Putin’s eyes and saw that he had a good heart?

Posted by: KansasDem at January 25, 2007 1:37 AM
Comment #204931

Adrienne,

I am sorry that you did not appreciate the irony of the title of my article.

I’ll make sure that in the future I check with you before posting to get your blessing.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 25, 2007 8:13 AM
Comment #204932

I think that people are missing the quoted piece of the article:

many of his supporters had made clear that they would not join him again should he try to run, with many blaming him for making mistakes in 2004 that cleared the way for Mr. Bush to win even as he was saddled with an unpopular war and a public that had turned largely against him.

I know that many would like to think that Kerry was a victim of the negative Republican machine, but the honest assessment that even his supporters realized is that the race was his to lose, he lost it by being an inept campaigner. The fact that he left millions of dollars on the table is just evidence to that fact.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 25, 2007 8:16 AM
Comment #204934

Rhinehold said: “I know that many would like to think that Kerry was a victim of the negative Republican machine, but the honest assessment that even his supporters realized is that the race was his to lose, he lost it by being an inept campaigner.”

You and I disagree on a number of issues Rhinehold, but, not this one. You pegged it exactly right. His campaign was constantly on the defensive - to win, he had to put Bush on the Defensive, and except for their first debate, he utterly failed in that objective.

Though I will add this, the American people had not yet seen the Iraqi debacle for what it was, nor had they assimilated the rate of growth of the national debt yet. But it was Kerry’s job to help them see, and he didn’t in terms they could understand and appreciate.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 25, 2007 8:27 AM
Comment #204935


The swift boat veterans didn’t just dishonor John Kerry. They dishonored themselves and all other combat veterans, past and future. If I were a young combat veteran thinking about serving my country in the political arena, I would have to think twice about it. I would know that my opponent in addition to attacking my positions on the issues, may have hired thugs to smear my combat record, call me a coward, say I didn’t earn my medals. Imagine if you were serving in Iraq and had just recieved a Purple Heart and a Silver Star for above and beyond, then you see how a veteran of another war was treated. There is more that one way to dishonor the men and women who serve our nation in a time of war.

Posted by: jlw at January 25, 2007 8:37 AM
Comment #204937

jlw,

You’re forgetting a huge part of the issue here. Had Kerry not come back from Vietnam and angered MANY veterans with his comments and actions at the hands of his personal career-building then most of these people would never have come out of the woodwork.

He has to take some responsibility of this himself.

There are many combat veterans serving in politics without issue, but they usually don’t try to advance their own political careers on the backs of those they served with.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 25, 2007 8:46 AM
Comment #204939
Adrienne wrote: What a total crock of an article.

Strange. It must have been interesting enough to inspire 4 comments (above: #204869, #204869, #204877, & #204907) over a period of 212 minutes (between 8:08PM and 11:40PM).

Sending 21,500 more troops is too little and too late.
Even if it were possible to get Iraq under control, it would take 10 times more troops.
Unfortunately, it’s not easy to get that many troops.
So, Bush is still fighting this war on the cheap, despite the numerous warnings and advice that it isn’t enough.

And while our troops risk life and limb, Congress does THIS.

Yes, we’re there (Iraq) already, but is it salvagable?
Is the cost to salvage it too high?
Is it the right thing for our troops?
Is it possible Bush is trying to salvage his failed legacy, no matter how many have to die to prove him right?
If we can’t commit the troop numbers to do it right (if that’s even possible), should we continue to let Bush fight it on-the-cheap?
We’ve already seen the results of insufficient troop numbers, and 21,500 more troops isn’t nearly enough to put a dent in this quagmire.

Is that the right to do to our troops?
Are we so certain Iraq can’t work it out themselves?
And, even if Iraq can’t work it out, is it right to force our troops to baby-sit their civil war?
If Iraqis are determined to have their civil war, they’ll do it, with or without us.
Is this war in Iraq making us safer here ?
Is it making the world safer?

Many enlisted and reserves have already been on their 2nd, 3rd, and 4th (or more) tours.

I think our troops deserve MUCH better.

Yet, many troops go without adequate medical care and promised benefits, not to mention the large numbers that didn’t have body armor while incumbent politicians in Congress gave themselves 8 raises since 1997, and do this sort of irresponsible stuff, and continually ignore the nation’s important problems.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 25, 2007 9:02 AM
Comment #204941

David,

I agree, but even worse was that his own position on the war was a balancing act, never fully coming out against it, never fully supporting it, trying to appeal to too many people. If he had become a true anti-war candidate it would have given him a stance that many would have supported and possibly more votes that ended up going to Nadar. Instead he appeared wishy-washing on the topic, something that people didn’t want to see in a ‘leader’.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 25, 2007 9:05 AM
Comment #204956

I think you are probably right about that Kerry vote lost to Nader due to Kerry’s ambivalent stance on Iraq going forward.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 25, 2007 10:37 AM
Comment #204975

Stephen
If Kerry had been shot he would’ve been out of the field for at least 2 months. So getting shot would only account for one of the three. In order for him to get shot 3 times he’d of had to in country of at least 6 months. He was there for only 3 or 4 months.
I don’t know much about the Silver Star. It’s most likely legit. They don’t exactly hand them things out like candy. I won’t question it.
No one in the public eye wants to look like they’re running to Mommy. But if the charges are hurting their career and they have proof that their false, and I’m sure Kerry can prove most of them false if they are, then why wouldn’t they take action? And there’s no doubt these charges have hurt and are hurting Kerry’s career.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 25, 2007 12:02 PM
Comment #204978

Rhinehold

You’re forgetting a huge part of the issue here. Had Kerry not come back from Vietnam and angered MANY veterans with his comments and actions at the hands of his personal career-building then most of these people would never have come out of the woodwork.

How true. There were several vets that came back and protested the war. But they didn’t do it to advance their political careers.


He has to take some responsibility of this himself.

He has to take it all.


There are many combat veterans serving in politics without issue, but they usually don’t try to advance their own political careers on the backs of those they served with.

And a lot of them have medals. Someone could come out and say they’re fake if they wanted to. But no one is. And I’m sure some of them protested the war after they got back.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 25, 2007 12:14 PM
Comment #204985

Ron Brown and Rhinehold,

While I agree that Kerry lacks the ability to coalesce his ideas into a Presidential Campaign, history has clearly shown him to have been right about Vietnam, and the Swiftboat thugs to simply be hired guns and a mass of confused anger.

I personally think he was courageous at the beginning of his career, ahead of the curve during his presidential bid, and honest enough to get out the way on this.

Since you guys find Kerry such an anathema to political leadership, perhaps you’d now like to defend the results of your conclusions and explain Bush to us.

There were angry guys during the civil rights marches, too, they were known to wear white hoods.

Posted by: gergle at January 25, 2007 1:01 PM
Comment #204986
Since you guys find Kerry such an anathema to political leadership, perhaps you’d now like to defend the results of your conclusions and explain Bush to us.

Bush is an idiotic clock. Even a clock is right twice a day, Bush may have accomplished a couple things right in the past 6 years. But he has about the same amount of intellect as a mindless clock has and has screwed up much more than succeeded.

Does that answer your question?

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 25, 2007 1:12 PM
Comment #205006

gergle
If I could explain Bush I would. You’d have to find someone that voted for him to do that though. Even then I doubt that they can.
Kerry wasn’t ahead of anything on Vietnam. The antiwar movement was already going on when he got back. He just jumped on the ban wagon. I doubt very much that if there wasn’t already an antiwar movement when he got out of the Navy that he would have started one. He doesn’t have the guts it’d take.
And I’ll be willing to bet that if the mood toward the war in Iraq started changing in this country he’d jump on the band wagon just the same as he’s jumped on the one against the war. His flip flop record supports my claim.
At least Bush hasn’t flip flopped on his stand.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 25, 2007 2:29 PM
Comment #205017


Rhinhold/Ron: Your answers to my post are the typical neocon attitude of either your for us or against us. You claim that Kerry was protesting the war to advance his political career at the expense of the troops. You refuse to even concieve that Kerry protested the war because of genuine concern for those troops and because of the incompetent way that war was ran.

Kerry could have advanced his political career far better if he had kept his mouth shut and just ran on his war record. As it turned out, he lost his first bid for Congress and one of the main factors for that loss was his protest.

It was not John Kerry that caused the death of thousands of our young troops and possibly millions of Vietnameese civilians, it was the gross incompetence of our politicians. Deja Vu.

Posted by: jlw at January 25, 2007 3:20 PM
Comment #205020

Sense everyone is already announcing if they’re a candidate or not in 08 I’d like to take this opportunity to announce my candidacy of President.
I have only two campaign promises.
1. I’ll only serve one term.
2. I’m going to get my share before I leave office.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 25, 2007 4:04 PM
Comment #205022

jlw
I never said Kerry caused any deaths. I’ve never said that any of the war protesters caused any deaths.
Your right, the blame for most the 58,000 US deaths lands squarely on the shoulders of one person. Lyndon Johnson. His gross mismanagement of the caused it to last longer than it should have.
By the same token the gross mismanagement of Iraq is causing this war to last longer than it should have. And I blame Bush for most the 3,000 troops killed over there.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 25, 2007 4:12 PM
Comment #205032

I am sure Kerry will be ready. If we call him, he will come back with, “You rang”.

jlw

I do not thing Rhinehold or Ron are neocons. Leave the neoconning to me.

Posted by: Jack at January 25, 2007 5:08 PM
Comment #205038

Ron said: “At least Bush hasn’t flip flopped on his stand.”

There are WMD. There aren’t WMD.

Hussein is connected to al-Queda. Umm… sorry, no evidence of that either.

Mission Accomplished. Mission will never be accomplished.

We are winning in Iraq. We are not Losing In Iraq as long as we don’t leave.

Sorry, Ron, sounds like a lot of flip flops on his stands to me…

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 25, 2007 5:42 PM
Comment #205050

David
But he aint advocating pulling out. He’s still saying ‘Stay the course’. There’s no flip flop there.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 25, 2007 6:50 PM
Comment #205058


Jack: I didn’t actually call them neocons but, I did imply that they were showing a neocon attitude towards Kerry’s protest and I do sincerely appoligize to both Ron and Rhinehold if my remarks offended them.

I don’t consider you a neocon either Jack. On occasion you make neocon remarks but usually it is because you are po’ed at someone elses remarks, quite often mine.

Posted by: jlw at January 25, 2007 8:01 PM
Comment #205156

Ron,

I hate defending Kerry, and he may well be a political opportunist…as though Bush weren’t, but on the Vietnam issue, Kerry was courageous enough to lead Vets in opposition to the war. I never said he was ahead of the curve there.

I said he was ahead of the curve in his presidential bid, you remember, when you thought he was a traitor for thinking Iraq was a stupid, mishandled mess. Which Bush flip flopped and admitted to, recently. Not that it’s stopped him from continuing to stupidly mishandle it. Now that’s a ringing endorsement of never changing positions.

Jack,

Who says Republicans aren’t funny? (Oh, I did)Thanks for the Lurch chuckle.

Posted by: gergle at January 26, 2007 9:44 AM
Comment #205213

I never thought Kerry was a traitor for being against the war in Iraq. A political opportunist? Yes, but not a traitor. And all he was doing was trying to further his political career on the backs of the troops fighting and dieing for this country.
Just like he was using the backs of those he served with to advance his political career in the 70s. I doubt he even cared about the war then and doesn’t care now. He saw then and sees now an opportunity to advance his career and doesn’t care who he uses to do it.
If there wasn’t an anti war movement when he returned from Vietnam he wouldn’t have started one. Just like if there wasn’t an anti war mood in 04 he never would have came out against it.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 26, 2007 1:21 PM
Comment #205261

Ron,

I cannot see inside any man’s head. Kerry served in Vietnam. He testified before Congress in a vein in which he was very much labeled a traitor. He recognized the correlations to Vietnam in his presidential bid. He would have been a damn site better than Bush, whatever his shortcomings. Those were the only two viable candidates in 04. If you didn’t vote for him, you have only yourself to blame.

Posted by: gergle at January 26, 2007 6:38 PM
Comment #205281

gergle
Your right I didn’t vote for him or Bush. Neither were or are qualified to be President. And I don’t blame myself for not voting for either of them. I blame the folks that did vote for them. They voted for status quo.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 26, 2007 9:10 PM
Comment #205370

Well, blame me then. I voted for Kerry, because I knew what a screw up Bush was. I had an advantage to some because I saw Bush as governor here in Texas, which is why I voted for Nader in 2000.

If you didn’t vote for Kerry you did help elect Bush.

Posted by: gergle at January 27, 2007 8:06 PM
Comment #205459

If you didn’t vote for Kerry you did help elect Bush.

Posted by: gergle at January 27, 2007 08:06 PM

Cow Hockey!

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 28, 2007 4:11 PM
Post a comment